Britain's policy towards Hitler in the later 1930s is one of those historical topics that are dead but won't lie down. The supply of relevant facts has virtually dried up. But what to make of them - including as facts, the mentalities, opinions and purposes of those involved - and how to interpret the various words and deeds, remains a minefield of protected positions and sensitive tripwires. The argument began as early as 1940, when Chamberlain and the arch-appeasers were branded 'the guilty men' by a young Michael Foot and two other socialist polemicists. They overstated what was an arguable case, that the executors of appeasement's closing phase had been arrogant, ignorant and insensitive; which naturally bred a counter-argument to the effect that they had been well-intentioned, responsible and just very unlucky. The debate, which goes back to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, continues still.

LRB 21 June 2001 | PDF Download