How and why do Historians approaches to the MunichAgreement differ from each other?

Authors Avatar

History - I.B Internal Assessment

For Mr. Mizener

By Jackie Porter

Word Count: 2 968

Revised February 18, 2002

How and why do Historians approaches to the Munich Agreement differ from each other?

Part A:

The subject of this investigation is to compare and contrast two historian’s approaches to the Munich Agreement of 1938 in order to provide an example of how the point of view of two different historians will affect what they write about an event.  The comparison is made between Henry Kissinger’s book Diplomacy and The Age of Extremes by Eric Hobsbawm.

The paper begins with a general explanation of the Munich Agreement.  The explanation includes references to the events that led up to and resulted from the agreement.  The essay will continue by explaining what historians in general have to say about the Munich Agreement.  This information was obtained through the conclusions drawn upon based on the observation of the various sources listed, and from the Internet web site www.sorrel.humboldt.edu.   The essay will go into great detail to analyze and evaluate the origins, purpose and limitations of two sources of comparison, Diplomacy and The Age of Extremes.  Finally, the essay will compare and contrast the interpretations that the two historians Henry Kissinger and Eric Hobsbawm have on the Munich Agreement while stating why there are differences.

Part B:

The harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles created conflicts amongst Germany and Britain.  Germany, led by Chancellor Adolph Hitler, began to resist the terms of the Treaty when they invaded the Rhineland and then when they invaded Austria in 1938.  Then, in September 1938 Hitler demanded control of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.  Fearing a war, Britain and France agreed to compromise with Germany in the now infamous ‘Munich Agreement’ of 1938.  The agreement supported the policy of appeasementi.  It permitted Germany to immediately occupy the Sudetenland so long as they did not attempt any further takeovers in Eastern Europe.  Abandoned by its Allies, Czechoslovakia gave into the terms and Prime Minister Chamberlain returned to London to announce he had secured “peace in our time”.  Six months later Hitler broke his promise and took over Czechoslovakia. Soon afterwards, World War Two began.

Historians evaluate the ‘Munich Agreement’ of 1938 in three different ways.  While most historians claim that the agreement was a mistake, there are several different views on why the mistake occurred.  The following historians viewpoints researched from the website www.sorrel.humboldt.edu help contribute towards one’s understanding of the origins and reasons for the differing view points on the Munich Agreement.   Each historian has a strong and evident view point that they are able to express shamelessly.  

Firstly, some historians, like Martin Gilbert, argue it was because of the doubt and hesitations of ‘new’ and ‘old’ reasons for appeasement.  The ‘new’ reasons are factors such as uncertainty towards Germany’s growing military and air power, suspicion against Hitler’s intentions and his strengths, and Germany’s willingness to go to war.  These factors instilled a fear in both the public and the Western democracy.  They reflect a time of doubt, and uncertainty in their own defense system.  One example is the defeatism and domestic problems in France that made a visible alliance and co-operation with Germany seem vital.  The ‘old’ reasons for appeasement are factors such as the discontent and distrust towards communism which had been intensified during the 1936-1938 purges of the military in Stalin’s Russia.  To the democracies, Hitler was looked upon as the lesser of the two evils.  Finally, there was sentiment-causing doubt present among British politicians that Germany had been treated unfairly in the Treaty of Versailles.  

Join now!

Others, like British historian A.J.P Taylor, claim that the mistake was made due to The League of Nation’s lack of morals.  They condemn the British policy towards the Sudentenland question and claim that the Britain abandoned their high moral standings.  These high moral standings had earlier been an important part of their policy.  They claim that the excuses used by Chamberlain not to help Czechoslovakia, as and ally and a member of the League of Nations, were far from the principle of appeasement.  In this way, the British government acted for appeasement, but the actions that followed had diverted ...

This is a preview of the whole essay