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.