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

Was Appeasement Justified?

Extracts from this document...


Was Appeasement Justified? Appeasement is defined as to make calm or quiet, especially conciliate (a potential aggressor) by making concessions. Appeasement is basically avoiding a war at all costs. When the decision was made to appease Hitler the main character involved was Neville Chamberlain. He urgently wanted to negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini but the author of source A believes that this did not come from pacifism. After 1934 he was a strong supporter of rearmament and supported sanctions of Mussolini's invasion on what is now Ethiopia. Chamberlain envisaged rearmament as a support for negotiations that would eventually lead to general peace. He hoped that by rearmament the dictators would see that there was no resolution except negotiation. This policy was 'negotiation through strength'. The policy had its faults though, as rearming would make it look like the desire for general peace was not sincere and talking about the desire for peace would make rearmament as a deterrent less credible. Chamberlain's policy failed when the British declared war on Germany and the armaments that were supposed to be a deterrent were used.1 Although Hitler made many demands in the late 30s, the Munich Agreement was actually suggested by Britain and France. ...read more.


A.J. Beattie from the London School of Economics wrote it so he is going to be interested in Chamberlain's policies and how he went about them and the errors he made so its going to be fairly facts based. I think he writes it quite fairly but states if he thinks Chamberlain made mistakes. He defends Chamberlain as well though in the last paragraph when he talks about the critics having the huge advantage of hindsight. The source is about Chamberlain and the reasons he appeased Hitler (mentioned previously). The author doesn't believe that Chamberlain was a pacifist but that he didn't want a horrific war. He believes that the 'negotiation through strength' policy was quite a bad one as it meant Chamberlain would be subject to criticism and in fact he couldn't win as he was promoting peace and rearmament at the same time.4 Source B talks about the Munich Agreement and as it was written as advice for conscientious objectors it is going to be for anything that will avoid a war and is therefore pro Chamberlain. ...read more.


So this is a fairly strong source as it was written with the benefit of hindsight and is not really pro or anti anything, just states the facts.6 Source L is about when Hitler started the bombing of France and Labour refused to serve under Chamberlain because of the delayed war effort. The source was written by a Labour politician so is pro labour and anti conservative it is therefore judged to be unreliable. Barbara Castle describes Chamberlain's attempt at a coalition government as 'pathetic' and describes Labour as 'foiling' Chamberlain's attempt by refusing to serve under him. She describes the spell during which it looked as if Lord Halifax may have come to power. He was an appeaser and there would have been an outcry in the labour ranks if he did come to power but luckily Churchill came to power.7 1 Source A - An argument for Chamberlain not being a pacifist. 2 Source B - Chamberlain was not really an appeaser. 3 Source E - The Communist Factor. 4 Source A - An argument for Chamberlain not being a pacifist. 5 Source B - Chamberlain was not really an appeaser. 6 Source E - The Communist Factor. 7 Source L - Memories of Lord Halifax by a Labour politician. ...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. Was appeasement justified?

    This put Russia on "Hitler's Hit List". And Appeasement meant that neither Britain nor France would get in Hitler's way. So was there actually anything good about Appeasement? As mentioned before many British people thought that Appeasement was definitely a good idea.

  2. Was the appeasement of Nazi Germany by Britain and France ever anything more than ...

    land and industry.1 Therefore after the First World War public and political opinion was staunchly against the use of force to settle disputes, and a new form of international diplomacy, of solving problems through negotiation was thought to be the best strategy.

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

    to the repercussions that might occur, as Bullock suggests, possible conflict with Britain and France. Ian Kershaw 'Hitler: 1936 - 45 Nemesis' Chapter 2 Ian Kershaw is often regarded as an intentionalist however his perception of events surrounding Munich and the Czech crisis are somewhat different to that of the two previous historians.

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

    Therefore unrest slowly increased. The Czechs were quite slow to see this. Possibly because they believed that their model democracy was working perfectly as it was admired by the rest of Europe. Moreover, the government saw the German minorities as an internal problem and they were slow to spot the link between the unrest and the rise of Hitler.

  1. Was appeasement the only option open to Britain in 1938-1939?

    Essentially it was this central belief which shaped the policy of appeasement, preventing British politicians from seeing when the policy was failing in its key objective; the avoidance of war. In its essential make up, appeasement was however a viable option for continuing the peace in Europe but without the

  2. Why did Chamberlain appease Hitler at Munich and was he justified?

    In Britain, this was seen as a huge triumph, and signing this agreement with an ordinary and sane head of state would indeed have been some kind of accomplishment. However, this agreement meant nothing to Hitler - we are not sure if he even read it thoroughly before supposedly agreeing to its terms and signing it.

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