Get Your Weekly Digest

Receive the best podcast summaries and insights delivered to your inbox every week.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.

Stuff You Should Know

Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?

Published September 30, 2025
View Show Notes

About This Episode

Josh and Chuck examine why Britain, France, and other powers pursued a policy of appeasement toward Hitler in the 1930s. They walk through key events from the Treaty of Versailles to the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland, explaining the political, economic, and emotional forces that made leaders reluctant to confront Nazi Germany. The hosts also explore counterfactual scenarios about how different choices might have changed the scale and course of World War II and draw parallels to contemporary debates over Russia and Ukraine.

Topics Covered

Nazism and World War II War and empire Ukraine Appeasement policy Treaty of Versailles British Empire Diplomacy Military and defense policy

Disclaimer: We provide independent summaries of podcasts and are not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by any podcast or creator. All podcast names and content are the property of their respective owners. The views and opinions expressed within the podcasts belong solely to the original hosts and guests and do not reflect the views or positions of Summapod.

Quick Takeaways

  • Appeasement was an official policy of Britain and France in the 1930s aimed at avoiding another catastrophic world war by conceding to many of Hitler's early demands.
  • The harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles created deep German resentment and economic collapse, setting the stage for Hitler's rise and a populace receptive to revenge and nationalism.
  • From the Anglo-German Naval Agreement to the Munich Agreement and the annexation of Czechoslovakia, each Western concession emboldened Hitler and strengthened Germany's military position.
  • Appeasement was driven not just by cowardice but by war-weariness, fear of losing imperial power, economic constraints, misreading Hitler as a conventional statesman, and domestic public opinion.
  • Winston Churchill was a prominent, often isolated voice warning that Hitler would not stop and that only deterrence and rearmament could prevent a larger war.
  • Kristallnacht was a turning point in global and British public opinion, revealing Nazi brutality against their own Jewish citizens and undermining the image of Hitler as merely a tough negotiator.
  • Historians argue that earlier, firmer action-especially over the Rhineland or Czechoslovakia-might have contained Hitler and potentially prevented a much larger and deadlier conflict.
  • Counterfactuals suggest that both British and American choices were constrained but not predetermined; different decisions about deterrence, alliances, or intervention could have altered World War II's trajectory.

Podcast Notes

Introduction, tone setting, and modern parallels

Opening banter and clarification about the topic

Josh jokingly says they are "goose-stepping" to Jerry's orders, then immediately clarifies they are not Nazis[1:10]
• They are careful to head off misunderstandings for new listeners who might not get the joke out of context
Chuck notes he is not a big student of war but enjoyed researching this episode[1:29]
• He describes it as a very "History Channel" type topic that gave him a better understanding of the lead-up to World War II

Parallels between appeasement of Hitler and current Russia-Ukraine situation

Chuck repeatedly sees echoes of the 1930s in modern events involving Russia and Ukraine[1:49]
• He reacts to the research with repeated "oh" moments of recognition about current affairs
Josh draws a clear line between appeasement of Hitler and concerns that the West might be appeasing Putin today[2:02]
• They suggest understanding 1930s appeasement sheds light on why some now consider appeasing Putin, and why the situation feels so fraught

Defining appeasement and the Allies' assumptions about Hitler

What appeasement meant in the 1930s context

Appeasement was an official policy by the UK and France in the lead-up to World War II[2:44]
• The idea was to let Germany revise parts of the post-World War I order while hoping to avoid another major war
Allied leaders believed Hitler largely wanted to restore Germany after the Treaty of Versailles[3:13]
• They did not yet see him as the "madman" he is known as today, but as someone focused on national restoration
• They thought a strong Germany could be stabilizing in Europe if its demands were limited to perceived injustices of Versailles

Misreading Hitler as a conventional European statesman

Josh explains Allies treated Hitler like a typical European statesman and colonizer[3:29]
• They assumed he ultimately answered to Germany's aristocracy and behaved within familiar power norms
They saw him as more of a threat to overseas colonized peoples than to Europe itself[3:50]
• The idea was to fold Germany back into the European colonial system, not to confront its expansionism head-on

Core rationale for appeasement: avoiding another world war

The Allies had just endured World War I and had little appetite for a second world war[4:08]
• Appeasement was seen as a way to satisfy Germany enough that it would calm down and avoid military confrontation
Policy goal was to grant some of Hitler's demands so he would reach a limit and peace would hold[4:21]
• From the outset, appeasement aimed explicitly at preventing World War II, even though the name "World War II" did not yet exist

Treaty of Versailles and the conditions that fueled German resentment

Punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles against Germany

Chuck outlines major restrictions: troop limits, navy reduction, territorial losses, and reparations[5:29]
• Germany had to cut armed forces from 1.9 million to 100,000 troops
• It had to dismantle most of its navy and return territories acquired over the previous century
• Germany was obliged to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations
Josh notes the treaty was both financially crippling and deliberately demoralizing[5:45]
• It was designed to "smack Germany down" and assert that it was now lesser and being punished

Long-term consequences of Versailles and the road to World War II

Josh references a contemporary quote calling Versailles "an armistice for 20 years"[6:09]
• The quote proved prescient, as World War II began roughly 20 years later
The treaty created a vengeful German populace likely to support a nationalist leader like Hitler[6:39]
• They stress that Versailles did not directly cause World War II but laid "all the groundwork" for it

Hitler's aims and the chronological sequence of appeasement

Hitler's nationalist program and expansionist vision

Chuck describes Hitler's promise to reunite German-speaking peoples and reclaim "rightful" lands[6:55]
• This included areas with German minorities to the east in what was then the Soviet Union, foreshadowing a future clash
Hitler whipped up powerful nationalistic fervor that Germans embraced[7:08]
• This nationalist enthusiasm would later underpin support for aggressive moves leading to war

1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement and early concessions

Britain tacitly accepted that Germany was secretly rearming its navy in violation of Versailles[7:46]
• Instead of enforcing disarmament, Britain signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement allowing a new German fleet
British intelligence already knew Germany was cheating via MI6 agent Karl Kruger in the U-boat design office[9:17]
• British strategists hoped to steer Germany toward expensive battleships to limit U-boat production
The plan only slightly reduced submarine numbers and signaled British acceptance of Versailles violations[8:57]
• Germany was supposed to build 72 submarines and instead built 54, a modest reduction

France, Italy, and the Ethiopian invasion

France informally tolerated Italy's 1935 invasion of Ethiopia in exchange for a promised alliance against Germany[8:46]
• They reference their Haile Selassie episode as context for Italy's ravaging of Ethiopia
The deal set a precedent of turning a blind eye to aggression in return for vague security assurances[9:19]

Remilitarization of the Rhineland and the Anschluss with Austria

1936 remilitarization of the Rhineland

Germany moved troops into the Rhineland, a demilitarized buffer zone under Versailles[10:00]
• This was a clear, flagrant violation of the treaty intended to keep peace between Germany and France
France and Britain had opportunities to respond forcefully but chose inaction[11:13]
• France had potential military support from Czechoslovakia and Romania but still did nothing
• Many in UK and France rationalized that the Rhineland was "really" German territory anyway

Anschluss: annexation of Austria in 1938

Germany annexed Austria in March 1938, absorbing a sovereign nation into the Reich[11:54]
• Josh emphasizes Austria had been a separate sovereign nation, not part of pre-war Germany
The world again largely tolerated it, seeing Austrians as Germanic and rationalizing the move[11:58]
Chuck brings in British public opinion: only about 25% supported a "determined" policy at that point[12:20]
• Neville Chamberlain had become British Prime Minister, and most Brits did not want to intervene

The Sudetenland crisis, Munich Agreement, and betrayal of Czechoslovakia

Hitler's demand for the Sudetenland

Hitler described Czechoslovakia's border region with Germany as the "rump" and claimed the Sudetenland as German[12:45]
• He depicted it as a mountain region Czechoslovakia supposedly did not care about but that was vital to "reuniting" Germany
He threatened to take it whether others agreed or not, raising the prospect of war[13:23]

Munich Conference and the appeasement deal

Neville Chamberlain and French premier Édouard Daladier rushed to Munich to negotiate with Hitler[13:26]
• They agreed to give Hitler the Sudetenland in exchange for his promise to leave the rest of Czechoslovakia alone
Chuck explicitly links this pattern to present-day suggestions that Putin might be allowed to keep conquered parts of Ukraine if he stops there[13:58]
Czechoslovakia, an ally of France and Britain, was not invited to the Munich summit[14:14]
• France pressured Czechoslovakia to accept the loss of the Sudetenland, effectively abandoning a treaty ally
Some German generals feared that if the Allies backed Czechoslovakia, Germany would be in serious trouble[14:24]
• This shows Hitler was still bluffing to some extent and vulnerable to firm resistance in 1938

Collapse of appeasement: occupation of Czechoslovakia and invasion of Poland

Hitler violates Munich and takes the rest of Czechoslovakia

In March 1939, only about seven months after Munich, Hitler occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia[15:52]
• This openly broke his Munich promise and showed he would not honor agreements
Josh calls this the decisive moment that effectively destroyed appeasement as a workable policy[16:07]
• It convinced Hitler that the Allies were cowards who would let him do what he wanted

Invasion of Poland and formal start of World War II in Europe

In September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland, triggering war[16:20]
• He had tried to provoke conflict earlier by demanding the city of Danzig and Prussian territories granted to Poland after World War I
Germany and the Soviet Union signed a pact to partition Poland, coordinating invasions from east and west[17:30]
• Two days after the invasion, Britain and France declared war on Germany, ending the appeasement era

Why appeasement was attractive: British, French, and American perspectives

Appeasement clearly dead after declaration of war

Josh notes that once Britain and France declared war over Poland, appeasement was definitively over[20:52]
Policy focus shifted to containment and outright war rather than accommodating Hitler[21:00]

British desire to preserve superpower status and empire

The UK clung to its status as the world's greatest superpower and feared another war would jeopardize this[21:19]
• The British Empire still controlled about 25% of the world's population and 20% of Earth's landmass in the 1930s
Leaders worried a major war might force alliances with the U.S. and USSR and trigger decolonization movements[22:29]
• They feared colonies like Jamaica, India, and Nigeria might seize the chance to demand independence
Some British politicians argued appeasement was necessary to buy time for military rearmament[22:39]

Popular support for appeasement in Britain

Public opinion in Britain during the 1930s was strongly anti-war and generally pro-appeasement[24:47]
• In 1937, 62% of British men said they would not volunteer for another war, and 78% of women said they would not urge their husbands to fight
After the Munich Agreement abandoning Czechoslovakia, 75% of Britons still approved of appeasement[24:03]
• Anti-war anxiety was intense, with mentions of suicides and mental health problems linked to fear of another war
The Times and the BBC helped frame Hitler as a relatively moderate leader to be managed rather than confronted[24:23]
• Britain had recently expanded the electorate, so public opinion carried increasing weight in policy decisions

France's internal turmoil and reluctance to confront Germany

France had suffered heavy losses in World War I and was deeply anti-German but also war-weary[25:41]
The country was paralyzed by conflict between far-right and far-left factions[26:05]
• This domestic stalemate diverted energy away from foreign policy and proactive deterrence
Prime minister Édouard Daladier eventually led France back into foreign affairs but still supported appeasement[26:29]
• France largely settled into a defensive posture rather than embracing early containment of Germany

U.S. isolationism and official endorsement of appeasement

Franklin D. Roosevelt officially endorsed the Munich Agreement and appeasement policy[26:56]
• The U.S. pursued isolationism and neutrality, with little appetite for another European war
The U.S. military was relatively weak; in 1940 it had only five divisions compared to Germany's 141[30:31]
• Congress limited rearmament spending, slowing America's readiness for large-scale conflict
Privately, Roosevelt's administration tried to nudge Britain to adopt a tougher stance toward Hitler[28:25]
• Publicly, however, the U.S. maintained a neutral, pro-appeasement posture and refused formal alliances

British aristocracy's support for appeasement and fear of communism

British aristocrats favored appeasement to preserve the colonial status quo and their own power[28:01]
• They preferred a world of interrelated aristocratic elites ruling empires and saw Hitler as potentially compatible with that order
They strongly opposed communism and thus wanted to avoid alliances with the Soviet Union[28:15]
• They feared supporting the USSR might strengthen socialists or communists at home and challenge wealth inequality
Hitler and Nazi Germany played on aristocratic fears of communism, courting British elites[28:55]
• Chuck notes that German messaging emphasized what would happen to aristocratic wealth under communism

Churchill's opposition to appeasement and calls for deterrence

Churchill as an early, isolated critic of appeasement

Churchill visited Germany in 1932 and concluded the Nazis "mean business"[32:29]
• He argued that conceding to Hitler would only make things worse and urged rapid British rearmament
He acknowledged rearmament was extremely costly and disruptive to the economy, making it a hard political sell[32:46]
Churchill called the Munich Agreement "a total and unmitigated defeat" for Britain[33:04]
• When Chamberlain returned touting "peace for our time," the peace lasted barely a year before war broke out
Churchill's lone stance within the Conservative Party later positioned him as the logical wartime leader[34:06]

Churchill's strategic alternative: deterrence and a grand alliance

Churchill later argued that a firm policy of deterrence could have prevented the war[34:08]
• He believed Britain and France should have strengthened their alliance and possibly formed a "grand alliance" with the USSR and Eastern European states
Such an alliance was politically difficult due to deep distrust of Stalin and communism[34:35]
• British and French elites were reluctant to partner with the Soviet Union despite the strategic advantages

Intelligence on Nazi brutality that informed Churchill's stance

Churchill received intelligence reports depicting Germany as driven by revenge and extreme brutality[35:06]
• One report described a "mean spirit of revenge, brutality amounting in many cases to bestiality and complete ruthlessness"
This contrasted sharply with Chamberlain and Daladier's view of Hitler as a negotiable partner[35:21]

Kristallnacht and the shift in public perception

Events and significance of Kristallnacht

In November 1938, Kristallnacht marked the first large-scale Nazi attack on Jewish citizens within Germany[36:13]
• Jewish businesses and synagogues were destroyed; about 100 Jews were killed and around 100,000 arrested
Chuck says this was when the wider world recognized what Hitler was really about[36:27]
• It shattered the narrative of Hitler as merely a tough negotiator and revealed the regime's violent antisemitism

Impact of Kristallnacht on British opinion and policy

News of Kristallnacht helped turn British public opinion against appeasement[36:40]
• Combined with expanded suffrage, this shift in opinion increased pressure on politicians to abandon accommodation with Hitler

How Nazis and Germans perceived appeasement

Appeasement as a sign of weakness to Hitler and Nazi leadership

Hitler and the Nazis saw appeasement as clear evidence of Allied weakness[37:42]
• They interpreted each concession as an indication that Britain and France would continue to yield
Josh says appeasement signaled that France and the UK were bowing their knees and heads to Hitler[38:01]

Domestic German reaction and consolidation of Hitler's power

Germans watched Hitler reclaim the Rhineland, Sudetenland, and Austria without firing a shot[38:23]
• He could present these gains as proof that he had restored German pride and power
These bloodless victories solidified his role as Der Führer and cemented popular support[38:43]

Did appeasement "work"? Rearmament and unintended consequences

Appeasement as a way to buy time for rearmament

Chamberlain later argued appeasement bought time for Britain to rearm[38:57]
• Josh concedes this was partly true: Britain did increase armaments significantly in the late 1930s
Chuck notes Britain spent less than Germany on arms from 1935-1939 but devoted a higher GDP share by 1940[39:09]
• Britain rebuilt the Royal Navy to again be the world's strongest navy
Early on, the combined British-French coalition had a 5-to-1 armaments superiority over Germany[39:44]
• The eventual fall of France in 1940 is attributed by some historians more to poor leadership than to material shortages

How appeasement also strengthened Germany

While Britain and France rearmed, Germany also used the time to expand its war machine[39:40]
• By annexing Czechoslovakia, Germany gained access to munitions factories and large pools of labor
By 1940, both Britain and Germany were competing globally for resources needed to sustain total war[42:06]
• Chuck notes this expansion of resource competition turned the conflict into a larger global war

Alternate histories and missed opportunities to stop Hitler

The crucial 1938-1939 window

Historians identify 1938 as a time when Britain and France could likely have defeated Germany together[42:06]
• Their rearmament was catching up with, and in some areas surpassing, German capabilities
By 1939, after the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the balance had shifted decisively in Germany's favor[41:36]
• Czech industrial capacity and conscripted labor significantly boosted German power
Thus, appeasement in this period arguably made the eventual war worse than it might have been[42:02]

What if Britain had not declared war after Poland?

Josh notes Britain was not compelled to declare war after Poland; it had already set a precedent of abandoning Czechoslovakia[42:06]
Some argue Britain could have let Germany and the USSR clash inevitably over Hitler's eastern expansion plans[43:16]
• Hitler's Lebensraum policy, aiming to seize eastern lands, meant conflict with the Soviet Union was likely regardless

Speculation about a hypothetical UK-Germany alliance

Chuck mentions that some suggest the UK might theoretically have allied with Germany early on[43:06]
• He immediately notes major obstacles: colonial competition and incompatible racial ideologies
Britain was not going to hand over its African colonies, and Germany rejected Britain's "liberal imperialism"[43:16]
• Any such alliance would have required Britain to surrender core imperial interests and adjust to Nazi worldview
A research note from their UK contact (Kyle) suggests Kristallnacht made a UK-Germany alliance socially impossible[43:40]

Could the United States have stayed out of World War II?

They outline the sequence: U.S. declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, then Germany declared war on the U.S.[45:28]
• Josh notes Germany did this partly to show Japan solidarity and because it saw the U.S. as a growing threat
Roosevelt had already authorized U.S. ships to attack German U-boats that targeted American shipping[45:35]
• These de facto hostilities made American entry into the European theater increasingly likely
Historians therefore argue the U.S. probably could not have avoided entanglement in World War II[46:19]

The biggest missed chance: Rhineland 1936

Josh highlights the 1936 remilitarization of the Rhineland as a pivotal missed opportunity[46:01]
• France had 100,000 troops near the border; Germany sent in only 35,000 troops
France could likely have easily repelled Germany and forced a crisis for Hitler's regime[46:29]
• Hitler's own advisors would have opposed going to war over it, and his domestic position was not yet secure
Josh suggests humiliating Hitler then might have toppled him and prevented tens of millions of deaths[47:07]
• Inaction stemmed from France's internal left-right political conflict rather than lack of capability

Closing reflections and listener mail on communication style

Hosts' reflections on learning and the episode

Chuck says he now knows dramatically more about World War II prelude than he did 45 minutes earlier[47:47]
Josh invites listeners to research alternate histories from their own countries and share them[49:01]

Listener email praising respectful communication

An email from Christine Sewell, a former middle school science teacher, highlights the show's respectful dialogue[49:55]
• She says she would use the show not only for content but also as a model for civil communication in class
She praises how Josh and Chuck avoid interrupting, mocking, or talking over each other even when they add corrections or differing views[49:51]
• She contrasts their style with much media discourse that is loud, angry, and built around conflict

Hosts' thoughts on their dynamic and media culture

Josh and Chuck note they generally agree on most issues, which makes their dynamic smoother[51:08]
• They observe that their personalities differ greatly but their underlying views are usually in the same "ballpark"
Chuck comments that many shows intentionally pit people with opposing views to generate ratings[50:47]
• Josh suggests that if audiences simply stop watching such conflict-driven media, it may eventually disappear
They thank Christine for her kind email and invite more listener messages[52:18]

Lessons Learned

Actionable insights and wisdom you can apply to your business, career, and personal life.

1

Punishing a defeated rival too harshly can plant the seeds for future instability and conflict, as seen in how the Treaty of Versailles fostered resentment that empowered Hitler.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where in your own work or life might you be tempted to "win" so decisively that you risk humiliating the other side instead of leaving space for future cooperation?
  • • How could you structure agreements or resolutions so that accountability is enforced without creating long-term bitterness?
  • • What is one existing conflict or negotiation you're involved in where you could revisit the terms to reduce the likelihood of a backlash later?
2

Projecting our own assumptions of normal behavior onto others can cause us to misread their intentions, just as Allied leaders misread Hitler as a conventional statesman.

Reflection Questions:

  • • In what situations have you assumed someone would act like you would and later been surprised by their behavior?
  • • How might you better test your assumptions about another person or organization's motives before committing to a strategy?
  • • What specific signals or data could you start tracking to distinguish between wishful thinking and an accurate read of someone's intentions?
3

Short-term avoidance of confrontation can make long-term problems far worse, as appeasement did by allowing Germany to grow stronger and more emboldened.

Reflection Questions:

  • • What issues in your life or work are you currently "appeasing" or putting off because they feel uncomfortable to address now?
  • • How might the costs of tackling one of those issues head-on today compare to the potential costs of delaying it for another year?
  • • What is one concrete step you could take this week to address a brewing problem early, while it is still manageable?
4

Early, decisive action during a window of relative advantage is often the least costly way to prevent a crisis from escalating out of control.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Can you recall a time when acting sooner would have saved you significant stress, money, or damage down the line?
  • • How can you better recognize when you're in a temporary window of strength or leverage that won't last forever?
  • • Which current challenge are you in the best position to address now, and what is one decisive move you could make before that window closes?
5

Public opinion and media framing strongly shape leaders' choices, so building an informed, critical citizenry is essential for sound policy in high-stakes situations.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where do you primarily get your information on major issues, and how might those sources be subtly framing your views?
  • • How could you diversify your information diet to challenge your assumptions and reduce the chance of being steered by a single narrative?
  • • What small habit could you adopt-such as checking primary sources or reading across the spectrum-to become a more discerning participant in public decisions?

Episode Summary - Notes by Remy

Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?
0:00 0:00