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

Was appeasement a mistake?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Was appeasement a mistake? By Victoria Bond Appeasement has many different interpretations, but there are two main analyses. The first of which was believed by most politicians in the 1930's, they thought that appeasement would keep the peace without violence. The second, believed by some politicians and most historians today, their thoughts were that appeasement helped cause the war. There are numerous differences between these two versions. However, there is one foremost difference. In the 1930's they didn't want a war, full stop, no fighting, no raids, no taking over anywhere, nothing. Where as the other elucidation was trying to push the war forward and to help Hitler to conquer some parts of the world. Prior to the war in 1939, there were many discussions about the arguments for and against going to war. Even surveys were given to the community to publicise their views. In March 1938, one year before the war began, a question with 3 possible answers was sent out to the society. ...read more.

Middle

This also applies for another piece of evidence which was that Germany should get the land that they lost in 1919. Even though It was most likely to be quite a long time before the politicians said this; they still believe that even though they probably lost the land fairly they deserved to get it back. However, this caused a problem because it gave the Germans more land to spread their defences out on. There are some weaknesses to the evidence that was given. In 1938 Chamberlain said that millions of young men were killed, 13 million were maimed and mutilated, meaning that there was a lot of their men killed and not in nice ways. That was the only weakness, but that was probably because in version 1 it is more about peace without violence. Adaptation 2 is slightly different. The people who believed this wanted to help Hitler take over more countries. From taking over many different countries it allowed Germany t become stronger as a country. ...read more.

Conclusion

He wanted to take over Eastern Europe. This gives the impression that no one really wanted to be a part of his team and when he said that he would promise to do something, he never followed through and did it. He did what suited him, not his country. Hitler was more aggressive because the more he got away with the more confident he became about Britain and France. This give a certain feeling that he was very greedy and whatever he got away with he decided to top it off with something else. Greed was most likely to rule his country along with him. In conclusion I think that people disagreed on appeasement because the policy of appeasement encouraged Hitler to be more aggressive which made him greedier so he couldn't be trusted. Appeasement made Germany far too strong and because of this, other countries tried to avoid another war with Germany at all costs. This was because none of the other countries had time to prepare. Appeasement made Germany to strong and as a result of that a more powerful Germany could act as a buffer against communists. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Germany 1918-1939 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 GCSE Germany 1918-1939 essays

  1. Was Appeasement A Mistake?

    Most politicians involved at the time such as the French prime minister Clemenceau and the British prime minister Neville Chamberlin were in favour of appeasement but Winston Churchill, Chamberlin's successor, was one of the few who opposed the idea. There were many good reasons for people to be in favour of appeasement.

  2. To what extent can it be argued that appeasement was the cause of the ...

    Consequently a further plebiscite saw a 99.75% vote in favour of Anchluss. "The positive result of the plebiscite gave chamberlain an excuse for not reacting and therefore he still felt the policy of appeasement was working". It was also felt among the British that Germany had a limited number of reasonable demands.

  1. what were the roots of the british policy of appeasement?

    This sparked a reaction in Britain. Chamberlain and the cabinet had not yet abandoned appeasement. Chamberlains reaction was that he recognised that is Czechoslovakia no longer existed then Britain could no longer be bound to guarantee. Halifax saw it as an end to an embarrassing commitment.

  2. Is "appeasement" as a kind of cowardice?

    Britain declared war when Germany invaded Poland, but "as late as 1940, when France fell, some British political leaders gave thought and utterance to coming to terms with Hitler and letting him be." The United States kept out of the war until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

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