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.