Appeasment Sources Question Essay, Research Paper

1.???????? We can learn a lot

from Source A about the reasons why the British Government adopted the policy

of appeasement.? Firstly, Britain (among

other countries), lost a huge number of men in the First World War, ?seven

million young men who were cut off in their prime? and so avoiding another war

would seem the duty of the Government to its bereaved people.? Secondly, the government, especially

Chamberlain, felt that another war was pointless, ?there are no winners, but

all are losers?, and so appeasement would have seemed the better option. ??????????? Looking

at inferences from the source, we can see that Chamberlain was desperate,

?strain every nerve?.? This demonstrates

that he was adamant about his cause, and so the government was in some ways

obliged to follow such strong leadership, resulting in appeasement.? Also, looking at the origins of the source,

the writer, Chamberlain, would have also opposed war because we know that he

had a cousin who was killed in the Great War.?

The nature is a speech, and as these tend to be public, Chamberlain?s

views would have been expressed and implanted in a wide range of people, so

there may have been public pressure for appeasement, resulting in the

Government implementing it.2.???????? Sources B and C are

very different.? First of all, B is a

photograph and C is a cartoon.? They

both show Hitler, but B shows him in a good, kind light, and C shows him in a

cruel and menacing light.? B not only

shows him as nice, but the swastika symbol of the Nazi Party is not shown,

whereas on C, the symbol is very prominent.?

This could be used to show him as a ?normal? person in source B and as a

tyrant in source C.? ??????????? B

shows a child and C shows the world.?

These are at both ends of the size scale, so in the former, Hitler may

be shown as caring for even the smallest things in life, (maybe a reference to

God?) and in the latter as only caring for the largest things; not content with

less ambitious sights at all.? Linked to

this is the fact that there are lots of people visible in the photograph, so

Hitler could be seen as trying to blend in and show himself as ?one of the

people?.? C depicts only Hitler, so it

indicates that he has to be the centre of global attention. ??????????? Lastly,

there is an absence of words in source B, whereas source C has the word

?Lebensraum? (or living space).? This

could be used to show that, again linked to the idea of power, he is content to

be one of the mass (B) or he has to be the most audible person in the world.3.???????? Sources B and C

give a very different view of Hitler.?

The reasons for this can be attributed to the origins of the

sources.? Source B was taken during the

election campaign, and so does not necessarily show Hitler?s true

personality.? It would be trying to

impress the people who were possibly going to vote for him.? The aspects referred to previously would

help to do this; the small child, the large group, the lack of obvious

leadership and the care shown.? They

would all lead the electorate into thinking that Hitler was a good person.? The date of the photograph, 1932, is

important too, because this is before Hitler came to power.? It was also after there had been a lot of

economic depression and so Germany was eager to come out of it.? Hitler had to be seen as the person who had

the people?s interests at heart, and by relating to the public, especially

children (the future of his new Germany), he could show this.? Also, there was competition to think

about.? The Nazis had to beat the other

political parties in the election, so the photo that appealed to the public

most would get the most votes in the election. ??????????? Source

C was published in a Czech newspaper in 1938.?

By 1938, Hitler had taken the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) and

so the Czechs were very angry at him.?

They would have portrayed an equally untrue opinion of Hitler, as in

source B, except this time, he was made to look worse.? The cartoon would possibly have been

exaggerated to inflame the Czechs and get them eager for revenge, and so the

ogre-like view of Hitler is portrayed.?

The cartoon could also have been a cry for help to other countries.? It obviously reflects the way that the

Czechs feel about Hitler, and so they were maybe asking for support to resist

his invasions.? There is also the aspect

of newspaper ratings which has little to do with Hitler?s personality, but the

cartoon which most reflected public feeling would be most likely to sell

well.? This is similar to the

inter-party competition in Germany.4.???????? Sources D, E and F

help us to understand the reasons for the British policy of appeasement.? Source D implies that in war, thousands of

men die.? This was proved in the First World

War, and so by implementing appeasement, ?thousands of young men will

live?.? Not only was war averted, saving

lives, but in arranging appeasement, Czechoslovakia had to hand over the

Sudetenland peacefully.? Therefore,

there were few, if any deaths as a result of the German occupation.? The date is important because it was written

at the time of Chamberlain?s negotiations with Hitler, and so it is clear that

the policy of appeasement was well supported, even by a titled person (Lord

Castlerose).? Their power in Britain

would have helped to drive towards appeasement. ??????????? Source

E is similar to D in that it discusses death, ?saved their sons?.? The fact that war causes death is therefore

a key factor in why the British government followed appeasement.? Also in source E, the opinion of the British

public is discussed.? The British were

not ready for war in 1938, ?this [support] was not the case?, and so

appeasement was seen as the only option, it the country was not willing to go

to war.? Also in source E, Britain is

seen to have views on a country that has nothing to do with them, ?probably

have been wiser…? and this helps to justify appeasement.? Britain felt that it could not defend

Czechoslovakia over the other side of Europe, so the simplest solution seemed

to be to give Hitler what he wanted. ??????????? The

Treaty of Versailles is also mentioned in source E, ?never been given to her at

Versailles?.? If a Briton is having

doubts about the Treaty, then it is reasonable to assume that some others would

be of the opinion that Germany had been punished too harshly.? Therefore, appeasement would go some way

towards righting the wrongs which had been done.? Also, the author of the source, Neville Henderson, because he was

the British Ambassador to Germany, would presumably know what was best for both

countries, therefore encouraging appeasement.?

It should be noted, however, that he was writing with hindsight, and so

the reasons for appeasement may not have been that simple or that obvious at

the time.? Henderson?s views are similar

to Chamberlain?s, and so he may have decided to opt for appeasement, because he

knew that he had the support of other influential people too. ??????????? Source

F talks about the ?greatness of Herr Hitler? and because this is written by a

Briton too, it is obvious that there was some feeling, like with the Treaty of

Versailles, that Hitler was doing nothing wrong (a feeling mirrored throughout

the British public before 1939).? The

?quality? of Hitler can then only be shown by the British government in the

form of giving Hitler what he wants, i.e. appeasement. ??????????? However,

care should be exercised with source F.?

Lloyd George was Prime Minister only until 1922, and at that time,

Hitler was not particularly influential, so his judgement may be one-sided, and

Hitler may have been misjudged.5.???????? Sources G, H and I

have varying degrees of usefulness as evidence of public reaction towards

opposing Hitler.? Firstly, source G

cannot be disputed as inaccurate.? The

record of the motion and the voting would almost certainly be correct.? Therefore, the evidence given, that young

people did not want to fight, is reliable.?

How useful it is however, is another matter.? Because not all the students voted against war, then the generalisation

that all young people were against war cannot be made, and the usefulness of

the source is doubted.? Also, because

only the young were involved, the ?public? opinion does not take into account

the feelings of any other generations of the public.? However, looking at it from another angle, the ?large majority?

of students did not want war, and so it can be fairly conclusively stated that

war was unpopular among the young.? This

is extremely useful, because it goes some way towards justifying the fact that

the British people were not ready for war, and it also demonstrates that

Chamberlain had done the right thing to appease Hitler, as a war was felt

unnecessary.? Also, because the debate

was at Oxford University, it can be assumed that the students were quite

intelligent.? Therefore, the evidence in

the source can be taken as very useful, because the argument had been thought

through properly by intelligent people, and the conclusion that war was not a

good idea can be seen as the correct decision to have been made.? This factor can however be used to doubt the

usefulness of the source.? The

intelligent people would all share a similar background (money, importance

etc.), and so the opinions of other classes of society would not be expressed.? The date of the debate, 1933, is pretty

early, and Hitler had only just become Chancellor.? Therefore, the students would have had little experience of his

actions and they would then see no need for war.? From that aspect, the source is not very useful, as Hitler has

done little to be opposed. ??????????? Source

H, as G, cannot be disputed as inaccurate.?

This is because any speech in the House of Commons is highly likely to

have been meticulously recorded, and so these words are certainly the exact

words that Winston Churchill spoke.?

However, the usefulness can again be disputed.? The analogy of Hitler demanding money (really land) can be

interpreted in a number of ways, and so to a person who does not know what it

means, the source would be fairly useless as evidence of opposition to

Hitler.? The source is also of little

use from the point of view of its author.?

Churchill was one man alone, and consequently did not represent the

public as a whole.? Therefore, the

public reaction towards opposing Hitler is not expressed.? From another point of view, Churchill is

trying to imply that the whole public are thinking as one, ?We are in the

presence…?, and so the source is quite useful.? Along the same lines, ?Great Britain and France? are mentioned,

and so the evidence suggests that the two countries in their entirety are

reacting as one to Hitler.? Forgetting

the fact that the source only really expresses one point of view, it is useful

in that does give a reaction to the opposition of Hitler.? This is suggesting that Hitler should have

been opposed from the start, because, due to appeasement, he has become more

greedy.? The date, 1938, makes the

source quite useful, because Hitler would be in the middle of his invasions,

and so any reaction at that time would be first-hand and accurate. ??????????? Source

I has the least reliable information in it.?

Although the interviews were recorded, and are in all probability pretty

accurate, the source does say ?Mass Observation?.? There are only three points of view expressed here, and they

could have been selected as the ?best? out of many more interviews.? Consequently, the source is not particularly

useful from the point of view that the opinion of the public as a whole is not

expressed, instead only of three people. Because the opinions given are all the

same; Hitler should not have been appeased, the source?s usefulness is again

doubtful.? There are bound to be some

members of the public with different views to this, and so it is not an

accurate representation.? On the other

hand, out of these three people, there is a good cross-section of the general

public, with one old person, a woman, and a ?normal? worker.? Therefore, the opinions do have a certain

degree of usefulness.? Alternatively,

everybody might be of the same opinion, or failing that, the source can be

taken at face value, and it is very useful, because the reaction towards the

opposition of Hitler is unanimous, and so a worthwhile conclusion can be drawn

from the source.? This source is

however, the most useful with respect to the public aspect, because the

interviews are carried out at street level on anyone, rather than directed at a

specific group of given by one person.?

The date, 1938 also makes the source useful, because the interviews were

done at the same time as Hitler?s invasions (as in source H).? Therefore, people?s opinions would have been

fresh and most likely to be useful in forming a judgement. ??????????? Finally,

then, the sources are useful in some ways and not in others.? There is no final answer, because, as I have

demonstrated, the usefulness depends on interpretation and the kind of details

which need to be drawn from the sources.6.???????? British opinion

towards war with Hitler changed drastically from September 1938 to September

1939.? In 1938, nobody really considered

Hitler dangerous, but by 1939, 93% of the population distrusted Hitler.? This change had to be caused by

something.? Firstly, Hitler took the

Sudetenland in September to October 1938.?

This was considered by many to be the first step that Hitler had taken

too far.? This opinion is backed up by

source C, which shows the unfairness of Hitler?s invasion, as portrayed by the

Czechs.? Because they were the ones who

suffered the loss, they were most bitter, but the British were also angered,

because they obviously didn?t want the Sudetenland to fall into Germany?s

hands.? This is shown in source I where

public opinion states that Chamberlain was wrong to give the land to

Hitler.? Despite the fact that they were

talking about appeasement, the principle is still there; that Czechoslovakia

should keep the Sudetenland. The pure fact that Britain refused to do anything

would have been likely to make the public angry with Hitler, as they did not

want him to get away with it, (again supported by source I, ?Why should we

allow a bully…??). ??????????? The

Sudetenland was given to Germany at the Munich Conference, where it was also

decided with Hitler that he would take no more land.? The British were probably quite shocked by this decision, as they

sympathised with Czechoslovakia, as in source I, and they had enough hatred of

Hitler to not want to take Germany?s side.?

They accepted the decision, however, and genuinely believed that

Hitler?s promises of no more invasions was true, because, as sources A, D and E

say, Chamberlain was believed to have averted a real crisis.? The hatred of Hitler grew when he broke his

promise in March 1939, and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia.? This was clearly hated by the British, and

source H supports this, where Churchill feels that Hitler is taking more and

more, despite his promises. ??????????? This

action obviously must have changed the British opinion towards Hitler, because

they realised that he was unlikely to stop there, as he had already broken one

promise.? Consequently, they pledged

support to Poland in the event of another invasion.? This would have been unlikely to be? favourite move with the British public either, because when

Hitler took Czechoslovakia, Poland took some too, and so supporting a previous

enemy would have built up the resentment. ??????????? In

August 1939, Hitler did another thing to anger the British.? This time, he did not invade a country, but

made a pact with the USSR.? In the

Nazi-Soviet Pact, they agreed that they would not fight each other.? The British must have been angry not only

because Russia had been their allies in the First World War, but also because

it made even more sure that Hitler could safely invade Poland. ??????????? Sure

enough, on 1st September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland.? This was guaranteed to anger the British, not only because Hitler

had scorned their serious threat of war, but because he had broken yet another

promise.? The British then believed that

war was the only way to solve the problems in Poland, despite their previous

differences when Poland took part of Czechoslovakia. ??????????? In

the space of one year, Britain had gone from a nation of people who believed in

Hitler and his promises, to a nation which was no longer prepared to stand by

and let him take what he wanted, and, as Churchill said, they were ?in the

presence of a disaster?.? The only way

to let out the British resentment on Hitler was with a war.7.???????? The employment of

appeasement by Chamberlain was considered by some to be? right, and by others to be a disaster.? There is no right or wrong answer, but I

believe that on the whole, appeasement was a mistake. ??????????? Germany,

according to many, deserved a fair deal, after the very harsh Treaty of

Versailles.? They had every right to get

back their people and land.? This is

backed up in source E, where Henderson, although in this case, is criticising

the Treaty with regard to Czechoslovakia, must therefore think that it was

wrong with regard to Germany too.? On

the other hand, if Germany got her land back, she would be stronger.? The strength, new forces and resources

coupled with the insatiable desire for more land meant that Hitler would be an unstoppable

force, impossible to defeat.? Churchill

held this view in source H, when he implies that Hitler will not stop at one or

two countries, but keep going at his own will.?

Appeasement was therefore wrong. ??????????? The

determination of Hitler to conquer Eastern Europe was however, known right from

the very start.? He made no secrets out

of building his ?Third Reich? and so in a way, appeasement was pointless.? Whatever obstacles were put in Hitler?s way,

he would still get the land that he wanted.?

The promises that he made to Chamberlain were worthless, and whether or

not Chamberlain had agreed to the demands at Munich, Hitler would have gone on

ahead with his invasion plan. ??????????? Because

Chamberlain did however agree to Hitler?s demands, with every invasion, his

confidence grew and grew.? By the time

he reached Poland, he was extremely aggressive.? If Hitler had been stopped earlier, then he would have been less

powerful and less likely to invade any more countries. ??????????? There

was a very real fear of another war, because after the First World War, the

death and destruction had been seen by everybody.? Backed up by sources A, D, and E, it was imperative to appease

Hitler in order to stop more death.?

Source A actually relates how another war must not be allowed to happen,

and sources D and E say how good it is that lives have been saved by

appeasement.? Therefore, the opinion was

held that world war was unnecessary over a distant country like

Czechoslovakia.? However, in my opinion,

appeasement did not save any lives, it only postponed the death, because war

happened in the end anyway. ??????????? Britain

had to want a war, and as we have seen in the previous question, Britain didn?t

in 1938.? This is backed up by source E,

?this was not the case in September 1938?.?

She needed time to rearm herself. ?Therefore, Chamberlain appeased Hitler until Britain wanted a war

and until the people were ready.?

However, I believe that this was pointless.? If Britain hadn?t appeased Hitler, he may have backed away and

then war would never have started anyway.?

I also believe that Britain would not have rearmed at all if Chamberlain

felt that the people were safe.? If they

didn?t think this, it is obvious that he had no faith in appeasement, and so

the whole thing was pointless anyway.?

In any case, Britain was still not armed when the time for war came in

1939. ??????????? The

USSR had a part to play in appeasement too.?

On the one hand, by appeasing Hitler, Russia could not spread westwards

and introduce the feared Communism to Britain.?

However, appeasement scared the USSR because they believed that Britain

would not support Czechoslovakia and them as well.? The result of this fear was the Nazi-Soviet Pact and in my

opinion, that was an extremely fatal move; it allowed Germany to start war.? Appeasement had therefore cause another

massive problem. ??????????? Looking

purely at the sources, I will see if they back up my view.? Sources I and H are both for the idea of

war.? They have the strongest points to

put across, ?disaster?, ?a bully?, and these are the feelings that I have

expressed above.? On the other hand,

sources G, E, D and A are all for appeasement, thinking that it saved many

lives.? It only did this in the short

term, not totally stopping war. ??????????? In

conclusion, it is difficult to make a judgement.? There are arguments for and against appeasement, but I believe

that what Chamberlain did at the Munich Conference was wrong.? Not only did it give over part of a helpless

country, but it did not avert war in the long run anyway.? Indeed, the evidence points to the fact that

the war may not have been so bad if Hitler had been stopped earlier. I am

however, writing with hindsight, and so at the time, appeasement may have

seemed the best option, and this is a valid point.? The sources do not however, all point to the fact that appeasement

was a good idea, and so hindsight is not really a problem when answering this

question as I have both sides of the argument to form a judgement from. ??????????? The

arguments for appeasement are in some cases reasonable, most of all the one

about avoiding death, but this was not avoided anyway.? In my opinion, appeasement was wrong and an

earlier war would have been the only way to stop Hitler.