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

Was the Munich Settlement a disaster for Britain in 1938?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

?The Munich Settlement of September 1938 was a disaster for Britain? To what extent do you agree with this opinion? Explain your answer, using the evidence of Sources 7, 8 and 9 and your own knowledge of the issues related to this controversy. The Munich Settlement of September 1938 has a much divided response with historians today. On the one hand it could be said that it was disastrous as it not only gave Hitler further sign of British weakness, it also importantly strengthened the German army as agreed with in Source 7, which is true as in 1938-9 German war production was at a higher level than Britain. This source also argues that Britain, with its allies (assuming they would agree to fight) could have resisted Germany as their army was spread out thinly. However Sources 8 and 9 give reason for the Munch Settlement being a success, as British forces were not ready to fight, allies may not have contributed and the French plan was to stay behind the Maginot Line. ...read more.

Middle

However it is true to say that although they may not have been ?indifferent? the majority of public reaction favoured appeasement and it was approved in the House of Commons 366 votes to 144. Furthermore, in Source 7, Churchill indicates that only five of the thirteen German divisions were composed of front line troops, and the rest were ?left in the West at the time of the Munich arrangement.? This shows his thoughts that Britain made a vital mistake and should have resisted as the German army was stretched thin. This is true as had a European war broken out in 1938, Germany would have had to fight on two fronts. Churchill?s opinion may be supported if Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and the USSR had all resisted as the Luftwaffe was not ready for an attack, the French were still the best army in Europe and Czech forces weren?t negligible. Source 9 disagrees with Source 7 as ?unlike Churchill in 1938 Chamberlain had knowledge of what passed for the French war-plan.? A plan of which decided the French would ?wait behind the Maginot Line untill British had expanded their Army?, a plan which would have relieved the Czechs. ...read more.

Conclusion

Although Chamberlain emphasised that foreign policy was still appeasement and that that rearmament had been instated simply as insurance. Overall the Munich Settlement was not an easy choice for Chamberlain as the results of appeasement or resistance both could have ended with disastrous consequences. It is important to address that the settlement was humiliating and betraying to the Czech?s who lost a great amount after the German invasion as shown in Source 7. The settlement also allowed for the German army and crucially, Hitler?s position in Germany to be strengthened. However had Chamberlain immediately resisted Hitler?s intention to invade Czech, the British Armed Forces would have been far from prepared, and despite German forces being weaker before the Munich Settlement as Churchill states in Source 7, the likelihood of Britain defeating Germany was still not secure due to the French staying behind the Maginot Line, USSR being unreliable and South Africa and Australia?s reluctance to go to war. So altogether the Munich Settlement may be seen as a triumph as it vitally bought time for Britain to start rearming which if they had not done could have resulted in Britain losing WW2. ...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. Causes of show trials + purges of 1930s.

    There were the very rich but they were such a small number that they didn't pose any threat. But there were many Kulaks. He could only think of three ways of dealing with them. These were: firing squads, moving them to Siberia, or downgrade them to peasant level.

  2. Hitlers Germany

    In working-class areas, they campaigned against capitalism, offering to protect workers by destroying international high finance, or exploited the economic issues of unemployment. One Nazi campaign poster directed to the working class shows a Nazi destroying the stock exchange, which is labeled "International High Finance."

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

    Historically speaking, the appeasement of Hitler over the reoccupation of the Rhineland has been extensively criticised. With the benefit of hindsight it has been perceived as the "last chance" to stop Hitler, without war had been lost. However this criticism is not fully conclusive as to stop Hitler would indeed

  2. Journalism: The People's Witness

    the idea in peoples minds that the Cameroons actually did belong to Germany, Too a far more serious method of manipulation. Burchett explains how false German maps are shown to German students in schools, misleading the students as to which colonies throughout the world actually belong to Germany.

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

    However Britain did accelerate her rearmament programme. The view that the reoccupation of the Rhineland was no threat to France was heavily challenged by Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, stating that "Another idea which ought to be combated was the prevail ant one that the occupation of the Rhineland was no threat to France.

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

    1 'Hitler did not create this movement. It was waiting for him, ready - indeed eager - to be used.... The crisis over Czechoslovakia was provided for Hitler. He merely took advantage of it' this shows how the Fuhrer seemed to exploit favourable situations that came about through the actions of others in the build up to the Munich conference.

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

    They believed that they could deal with the slight unrest in the Sudetenland. In 1934 in the Sudentenland the Nazis party emerged which was promptly band by the Czech government. But a new party calling themselves the 'Sudeten German People's Party' began in 1935.

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

    proper force to back up the overly reasonable concessions made, it quickly became Hitler's tool for the destruction of Czechoslovakia and the start of World War II. The policy itself relied upon the notion that the existing territorial disputes in Europe could be met without resorting to even the threat of violence.

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