After World War I Germany limped back, licking its wounds that the Treaty of Versailles had so mercilessly rubbed in salt. As one looks back on the events leading up to World War II it has to be asked Did France and England help to start World War II by their actions at Versailles? It seems that the revenge that the Allies took at the Treaty came back to haunt them with the aggression of Hitler in 1936. However, can we cannot blame Neville Chamberlain for something with which he had no part. Chamberlain’s actions in the years 1936 to 1939 are enough to help one appreciate the dilemma he found himself in. Chamberlain did not, in the beginning, realize exactly what Hitler was after. Hitler was after vengeance for Germany because of the Treaty of Versailles, but Chamberlain did not realize that Hitler was after domination of Europe. When confronted about Germany’s plan to attack Czechoslovakia Chamberlain responded, I think it would be wrong to assume that the German government has any intention of doing such.The eyes of the world were on Chamberlain’s every move, criticizing, praising, and waiting. With the pressure of the world on his shoulders Chamberlain proceeded cautiously not wanting the tensions to explode.

Chamberlain was also treading on thin ice with public support at home. Slowly coming out of the economic depression that followed the first World War the British people wanted to avoid war at all costs. The wishes of the people were embodied in their leader. Chamberlain was after one thing: to keep Great Britain out of war. His reasoning in appeasing Hitler was that of sacrificing a little instead of sacrificing much through war. It could be said that Neville Chamberlain was frozen by fear. We cannot blame him for being fearful, but many of his actions were not only fearful but eventually deadly for many people.

As we see Chamberlain trying desperately to stay out of war we also see a man compromising values because of fear. The styles of Chamberlain as compared to Hitler is that of a weak child facing a bully. Hitler refused to back down while Chamberlain took giant steps backward giving Hitler more time. Chamberlain’s appeasement and procrastination allowed Hitler the badly needed time to better prepare himself for war. In a sense Chamberlain prolonged the war and allowed greater destruction that may have been avoided. The weight of destruction of Europe must weigh heavily on the conscience of the members of the British government because they know they may have been able to prevent some of the destruction and desolation caused by the war.

The British government even tried to appease Hitler economically. In the words of H.N. Brailsford England tried to buy peace, if possible, without direct loss to oneself. Robert S Hudson, head of the English Board of Trade gave Hitler a billion-pound loan. Yet, a loan for defense weapons, was denied to Poland who was arming to defend itself against Hitler. In an article entitled "England Shows Her Colors" in The New Republic, March 2, 1938 it was stated, "Britain is not just being cowed by the aggressors: she consistently, in action, gives them assistance." It seems that Chamberlain’s fear caused nearsightedness in that he acted at the moment weighing the long-term consequences of his actions.

Britain and France also put tremendous pressure on Czechoslovakia to give into Hitler’s demand of the Sudentenland. It seems that Chamberlain sacrificed Czechoslovakia in order to save his own country. Furthermore, instead of meeting Hitler merely halfway on the issue of Czechoslovakia he practically bowed at Hitler’s feet having already worked out the arrangements for the transfer of territory when they met at Godesber.

Perhaps we could forgive Chamberlain for these mistakes if Germany had given indication of slowing its aggression . However, there were many signs that Hitler was after no less than European conquest. Hitler, in fact, stated that he could secure the West but he would not promise the security of the Soviet Union. This statement in itself should have shown Chamberlain that Hitler was going to fight one war or another.

By September 1938 Hitler had made it quite clear that he would not stop at obtaining the Sudenten-peopled districts. Yet, Chamberlain still met once more with Hitler in Munich trying to obtain peace. Although the Munich Agreement shocked and shamed the British people they were relieved that the immediate threat of war had been averted.

Chamberlain returned to England after Munich declaring that he had obtained "peace for our time." He elicited the applause of everyone around the globe. However, soon "Mr. Chamberlain’s momentary popularity after Munich evaporated under the burning sun of Nazi ambitions(Keith Hutchison, p.724.)." Hitler did not stop with the agreement and in the Spring of 1939 Germany took over the Slavic remnant of Czechoslovakia.

Finally, the war began, although Neville Chamberlain still wanted to avoid it. He gave in to the demands of the people who now were incensed to fight. Can we blame only this man for the devastation of World War II? Or must we allow the blame to be carried on the shoulders of all who supported Chamberlain? It is unquestionable that Neville Chamberlain was at the fore front of European politics at one of the most difficult times in history. He faced a great dilemma and seemingly folded under fear. One has to wonder, If he had known what was to come would he have acted differently?