• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Even after the German occupation of Prague in March 1939, Neville Chamberlain was reluctant to confront Hitler and abandon the policy of appeasement How far do you agree?

Extracts from this document...


Poppy Steel ?Even after the German occupation of Prague in March 1939, Neville Chamberlain was reluctant to confront Hitler and abandon the policy of appeasement? How far do you agree? When Hitler sent troops to invade the centre of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, it was done in blatant disregard of the terms that had been set at Munich and those who had made them this is inclusive of Chamberlain. Although it is uncertain as to whether it was at this point that Chamberlain decided to abandon his previous policy of appeasement has been highly debated among historians. Source 7 largely supports the claim that Chamberlain was still reluctant to identify Hitler?s aggression as a source of the event. It claims that instead he chose to remain with the opinion that through making concessions to Hitler that he would eventually be pacified, as Chamberlain continued to blame the harshness of the terms set in the Treaty of Versailles. Source 7 therefore can be used in support of both the ?bungling man? interpretation, as well as, that of A.J.P Taylor. Taylor?s view point was that Chamberlain was a well-meaning statesmen and the fault lay in the inadequacies at Versailles, depending on whether one want to criticise Chamberlain or vindicate his actions. ...read more.


shown to be used as a means of expansion as the Nazis invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia), then it is more simple to see his failure in spotting that Hitler was unalterable in his aggressive plan of lebensraum. This is all in support of the idea that Chamberlain held reluctance to change his policy of appeasement merely based on Hitler?s actions alone, considering the context of his opinion of Hitler; he therefore believed there was the hope of peace. Arguably, in this light, the Polish Guarantee can be regarded as a deterrent against war with Hitler rather than a sign that Britain was not ready to go to war and remove the policy of appeasement, however Hitler was unfortunately not put off from his course of action. Source 8, however directly disagrees with the view that Hitler remained blind to Hitler?s nature, and in fact claims that it was turning point in Chamberlain?s views towards Hitler. It claims that ?Chamberlain was incensed? by Hitler?s latest action and that Britain saw it as a ?direct slap in the face? after the attempts Chamberlain had made to satisfy Hitler?s demands. His aggravation with Hitler suggests that he genuinely had trusted Hitler?s demands for self-determination and to stop there, as source 7 suggests, but unlike source 7 it shows that this trust ended here. ...read more.


However, the takeover of Czechoslovakia did not fit this justification, and it is likely that at this point it became clear to all that Hitler did not only plan on taking back lost territory, but it was about expansion, lebensraum as the German?s called it. Therefore, when Hitler made demands for Danzig, Chamberlain could see that Poland would be lost if Danzig was conceded to Hitler, and so the Polish Guarantee was Chamberlains way of telling Hitler ?no more?. Arguably in this case it was the invasion of Czechoslovakia that was pivotal in Chamberlain?s policy of Appeasement. In conclusion, although for much of Chamberlains time in office, he appeared to trust an untrustworthy dictator, as on the whole, Roberts in source 7 advocates, it seems that this trust was not enough to keep Chamberlain on the track of appeasement. Hitler made it obvious, whether to the public, as Kershaw believes, or like Ramsden argues, to both public and Chamberlain, that he had not planned on keeping to any agreement he had made, thus showing that he must be stopped by force. Taking this into account it would be fair to say that the events of March 1939 marked a turning6 point for Chamberlain?s policy as it became blatant that Hitler must no longer be appeased. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. In the years 1925-37, successive British Governments felt that Germany had legitimate grievances and ...

    However it can be argued that when France asked Great Britain to ally with them because France was worried about increasing German, Great Britain not want to. This could have resulted in Great Britain instigating Locarno, securing French borders, therefore eliminating the need for a Britain-France alliance which suggests that

  2. "Nazi policy towards the Jews up to 1939 was uncoordinated and erratic."

    It is clear to see that to a certain extent Jewish policy was a result of a revolution from below. Hitler could not control fully his S.A troops as has been highlighted prior. However, the following the list of instructions to be carried out was a statement that no Jew should be physically harmed during this 'atrocity campaign.'

  1. Apeasement Did the policy of appeasement go to any great lengths toward stopping the ...

    It was also referred to by Marshall Foch, the military commander-in-chief of the allied armies at the end of the war as, "this is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". These statements clearly show the harsh realities of the League.

  2. Did the policy of appeasement go to any great lengths toward stopping the outbreak ...

    The responsibility of the League was to act as an arbitrator in disputes between nations and to provide effective collective security against any form of military aggression. There were mixed opinions towards the League. Alan Sharp had referred to the League of Nations as a "compromise agreement, which pleased none of the parties involved."

  1. "An Honourable Policy Pursued by Honourable Men"-Is This a Fair Assessment of the Policy ...

    Very few people were prepared to go to war over the Sudeten land, including France who even had an alliance with Czechoslovakia. The reality of it was that the Sudeten land was a predominantly German area, and had originally been part of Germany until the Treaty of Versailles.

  2. 'At Munich Hitler gained what he wanted and achieved conquest without firing a shot' ...

    feels that Hitler was not totally fixed on military conflict with Czechoslovakia and states that Hitler left the door open for a peaceful outcome to the Czech crisis. Evidence that supports this comes from the 27th September, Hitler makes clear his intentions to break up the Czech state but due

  1. Explain the role of Czechoslovakia in the appeasement story.

    Therefore it was obvious that it would be not too long before Hitler began to take steps to invade Czechoslovakia. Before the Wall Street Crash there had been no problems with the German minorities. However, afterwards the Germans began to separate themselves from the rest of Czechoslovakia, segregating themselves in what they now referred to as the Sudetenland.

  2. Why had Internatioanl Peace Collapsed by 1939?

    There, under the watchful eyes of Nazi troops, 99.75 per cent of Austrians voted to join Hitler, thus Anchluss was declared.[8] In May 1938 Hitler made it clear that he now wanted the Sudetenland to become part of Germany and in September 1938 the problems reached crisis point; Hitler was ready to fight over Czechoslovakia[9].

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work