Appeasement - Right or Wrong?
Hypothesis #1. After reading documents A and B, create a hypothesis regarding the questions: Was appeasement the right policy for England in 1938? Cite evidence from the document to support your answer. (Yes) Appeasement was the right policy for England in 1938. This is because It was based on the idea that what Hitler wanted was reasonable and, when his reasonable demands had been satisfied, he would stop. Appeasement was the only practical action that could be held during that time. England and France were not ready to get into another war. They already had severe damages that they couldn’t afford to get into another war. This gave them time to prepare for war since it is inevitable anyways. It also gave them time to prepare for old and broken equipment. Alliances needed to be made and through this, that was all possible. Also, through this policy, they were able to get public support. Appeasement also allowed Britain time to retool factories for war. Many Britons during that time saw Hitler as a defence against Russian Communism. This all happened because they thought that Hitler would soon be satisfied after remilitarizing the Rhineland, annexation of Austria and czechoslovakia. Wanted to please Hitler this way. The empire was already overstretched and its financial resources quite limited. The U.S. was isolationist. Soviet communism was feared, France was weak. This was all done to prevent war and preventing war is something needed to be done. Their objective was for the collaboration of all nations in building up a lasting peace for Europe. The Czechs, left themselves and told they were going to get no help from the Western Powers, would have been able to make better terms than they have got. This also gave the greatest chance of securing protection for the country. Czechoslovak State would’ve not been able to be an independent entity without this. Chamberlain remembered the slaughter of the First World War and all the damages it cause. He thought that having another war would destroy civilisation and thus came up with the appeasement. Because of the appeasement, the war morale of the British people, who knew they had done everything possible to avoid war was improved. They felt like the already did everything they could to stop this and so their morale was developed. This also gave Chamberlain that he couldn’t trust Hitler. Appeasement rested upon both a traditional perspective on foreign interests and a rational assessment of military means and political will. Appeasement gave time for everyone and it started as an idea for peace and not war and violence and to keep from good men dying for no reason. Appeasement was just trying to give Germany justice. Appeasement was moral cowardice which meant that it was a necessary consequence of discarding morality as inconsequential. Appeasement was a reversion to and an extension of traditional British foreign policy and diplomacy. So in conclusion, appeasement was something worth trying and something that was good to have been accomplished. Hypothesis #2. After reading documents C,D and E, create a hypothesis regarding the questions: Was appeasement the right policy for England in 1938? Cite evidence from the document to support your answer. (No) Appeasement was not the right policy for England in 1938. This is because first of all, Hitler was not a man you could appease. If he saw someone’s weakness or something suffer, it would only encourage him. This policy was supposed to prevent war from happening, but war happened anyways. It shows failure of this and that It wasn’t right for their plan wasn’t achieved. Appeasement happened because the memories of the first world war were relatively fresh and they world was still dealing with the depression. This isn’t good at all because it allowed Hitler to pursue his quest for power and domination. This also gave Hitler confidence and the thought that he could achieve a lot if he wanted to do so. This also showed Hitler that Britain and France were hoping to avoid war at all costs so he knew he could push them and it gave him an advantage of knowing what they don’t want. Appeasement was not right because it was unfair. Just like the treaty of Versailles, talks about giving Czechoslovakia was happening even without the presence of the actual Czechoslovakia. They had extensive industry too, just giving Hitler more power and goods while austria had a large fighting force. During these years Hitler gained power and popularity which helped him fight WWII so successfully. This was also a major cause for strengthening the Nazi’s Germany. Because the surrounding Nations, mainly Britain allowed Hitler to take the territory he wanted, including the Sudetenland from Chezalavokia. This just sprung Hitler’s mindset about spreading communism and his ideas to the world and to take over. If Britain was able to stop Hitler in 1936, all before Luftwaffe grew in strength and power, Blitz in 1940 would’ve never happened. The outcome is also very important and due to this, Czechoslovakia was weakened. Poland and Hungary took other land. This wasn’t in any means what the Czechoslovak wanted and they weren’t even part of it. This also allowed Russia to decided that Britain and France would never have the guts to stand up to Hitler, and so war with Germany was inevitable and was coming. During the time of March 1939, German troops marched into Czechoslovakia. They took over Bohemia, and established a protectorate over Slovakia. The terrorized Czech government was eventually forced to surrender the western provinces of Bohemia and Moravia and finally Slovakia and the Carpathian Ukraine. Chamberlain mis knew Hitler and should’ve never trusted him from the beginning. When Stalin saw that Britain did not help Czechoslovakia against Hitler, he became convinced that Britain would not help the Soviet Union if Germany attacked it. Consequently Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact with Hitler in 1939, dividing Poland among themselves. Appeasement was useless in stopping someone like Hitler because he was never satisfied with what he had and wanted more. Hitler was a very greedy man and would do anything to fill his needs. It also abandoned millions of Austrians and Czechs to the brutal Nazi terror. If the countries stood up towards Hitler, people believe that war would’ve ended quick or never even occured. And most importantly, this all gave Hitler time to prepare for war and just get stronger. Yes it also have time to the Britians but it just gave more time and ideas for Hitler to do what he demanded. A lot of people also praised and liked Hitler when this came about just giving him more confidence for his future acts. My response to “Was appeasement the right policy for England in 1938?” In my opinion, the appeasement was not something that should’ve happened. First of all, it didn’t achieve anything that it wanted to. War did happen later on and it also just gave time for Hitler to get stronger for the war. Hitler was evil, and Chamberlain should have opposed him instead of giving him what he wanted because that was made Hitler more demanding and greedy. It was a big mistake because Chamberlain misunderstood Hitler and just did him good for his future plans. I would like to say that this was a regretful happening because it just gave Hitler confidence that if he wanted to achieve something he could, making him unstoppable. The policy of Appeasement was a system of yields, compromises, and sacrificial offerings to Hitler's Germany that allowed him time to rebuild the German military into an amazing whirlwind machine. Since Hitler wanted more and knew that he could achieve what he wanted, this sprung World War2. It shouldn’t have happened because it could’ve stopped Hitler’s future acts of evil and violence. Even though it gave time for England and France, it also gave time for Hitler and Germany to also gain power and think of ways to succeed. Everyone knew that war was inevitable. It’s just that they were so tired and scared of the consequences of war, that they wanted to believe peace. The war consequences were very damaging. It made England and France very poor in terms of government and made it’s people scared and to live in fear. They had to live with the consequences of war. Since war was going to happen anyway why have an appeasement? That was the question that made me choose no for my opinion. It just gave hope to people that peace could be accomplished and that peace wasn’t something far away. But the truth was that it just gave the people more days to suffer. It is also wrong because giving Hitler something he wanted could stop him for a minute but also make him want something bigger and better. And people thinking that stopping and holding Hitler with a piece of paper was a foolish thought. It was also very unfair because they were talking about the status of Czechoslovakia and how to give it away without actually having them included in the conference and conversation. It was just like everyone resting and being at a happy state thinking there would be no war while Hitler and Germany just gets stronger and improving themselves. So for these reasons, I think that it would’ve been better if appeasement never happened so they could’ve stopped Hitler from getting on the top of his head thinking he could do everything starting his dictatorship.
Criterion A: Knowledge and Understanding.
The student does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors given below. 1 - 2
The use of terminology is inconsistent or incorrect. Facts and examples are either absent, or those used are irrelevant or do not show understanding. The student provides descriptions that are inaccurate or that have insufficient detail; explanations are absent or superficial. 3 – 4
The use of terminology is mostly accurate and usually appropriate, though some errors remain. Facts and examples used are mostly relevant, and usually show understanding. The student provides basic descriptions that may need more detail; explanations are usually adequate but sometimes superficial. 5 – 6
Terminology is used accurately and appropriately. Relevant facts and examples are used to show understanding. The student provides accurate descriptions; explanations are adequate but not well developed. 7 – 8
A range of terminology is used accurately and appropriately. A range of relevant facts and examples are used to show understanding. The student provides accurate and detailed descriptions; explanations are developed. 9 – 10
The student shows an excellent command of a wide range of terminology, and uses it appropriately. An extensive range of relevant facts and examples are used to show understanding. Descriptions are accurate and detailed and explanations are fully developed.
Criterion B: Understanding and Application of Concepts
The student does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors given below. 1 – 2
Application of concepts is inappropriate. The student may demonstrate some conceptual awareness and understanding by recognizing basic connections to the subject matter. 3 – 4
Application of concepts is not always appropriate. The student demonstrates conceptual awareness and understanding by describing basic connections to the subject matter. 5 – 6
Application of concepts is appropriate but superficial. The student demonstrates conceptual awareness and understanding by describing connections to the subject matter. The student attempts to apply concepts to other situations but is not always successful. 7 – 8
Application of concepts is appropriate and shows some depth. The student demonstrates conceptual awareness and understanding by explaining connections to the subject matter. The student applies concepts to other situations. 9 – 10
Application of concepts is appropriate and sophisticated. The student demonstrates conceptual awareness and understanding by explaining in detail connections to the subject matter. The student applies concepts effectively to other situations.
Criterion C: Application of Skills
The student does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors given below. 1 – 2
The student can select and use some relevant information. The student displays minimal analytical skills. The student’s arguments, decisions or judgments are not always relevant, or may be absent. The student attempts to carry out investigations, demonstrating few skills. 3 – 4
The student selects and uses mostly relevant information. The student’s work lacks the required depth in analysis. The student makes some relevant arguments, decisions or judgments though these are unsupported. The student demonstrates basic investigative skills. 5 – 6
The student selects and uses relevant information. Work shows satisfactory evidence of analysis. Arguments, decisions and judgments are supported and balanced but superficial. The student demonstrates adequate investigative skills. 7 – 8
The student selects and uses a range of relevant information. Work shows a good level of critical analysis. Arguments, decisions and judgments are well supported and balanced. The student demonstrates effective investigative skills. 9 – 10
The student selects and uses a wide range of relevant information. Work shows a high level of critical analysis. Arguments, decisions and judgments are fully supported and well balanced. The student demonstrates sophisticated investigative skills.