British Opinion Towards War With Hitler example essay topic

1. We can learn a lot from Source A about the reasons why the British Government adopted the policy of appeasement. Firstly, Britain (among other countries), lost a huge number of men in the First World War, seven million young men who were cut off in their prime and so avoiding another war would seem the duty of the Government to its bereaved people. Secondly, the government, especially Chamberlain, felt that another war was pointless, there are no winners, but all are losers, and so appeasement would have seemed the better option.

Looking at inferences from the source, we can see that Chamberlain was desperate, strain every nerve. This demonstrates that he was adamant about his cause, and so the government was in some ways obliged to follow such strong leadership, resulting in appeasement. Also, looking at the origins of the source, the writer, Chamberlain, would have also opposed war because we know that he had a cousin who was killed in the Great War. The nature is a speech, and as these tend to be public, Chamberlains views would have been expressed and implanted in a wide range of people, so there may have been public pressure for appeasement, resulting in the Government implementing it. 2. Sources B and C are very different.

First of all, B is a photograph and C is a cartoon. They both show Hitler, but B shows him in a good, kind light, and C shows him in a cruel and menacing light. B not only shows him as nice, but the swastika symbol of the Nazi Party is not shown, whereas on C, the symbol is very prominent. This could be used to show him as a normal person in source B and as a tyrant in source C. B shows a child and C shows the world. These are at both ends of the size scale, so in the former, Hitler may b shown as caring for even the smallest things in life, (maybe a reference to God) and in the latter as only caring for the largest things; not content with less ambitious sights at all. Linked to this is the fact that there are lots of people visible in the photograph, so Hitler could be seen as trying to blend in and show himself as one of the people.

C depicts only Hitler, so it indicates that he has to be the centre of global attention. Lastly, there is an absence of words in source B, whereas source C has the word Lebensraum (or living space). This could be used to show that, again linked to the idea of power, he is content to be one of the mass (B) or he has to be the most audible person in the world. 3. Sources B and C give a very different view of Hitler. The reasons for this can be attributed to the origins of the sources.

Source B was taken during the election campaign, and so does not necessarily show Hitlers true personality. It would be trying to impress the people who were possibly going to vote for him. The aspects referred to previously would help to do this; the small child, the large group, the lack of obvious leadership and the care shown. They would all lead the electorate into thinking that Hitler was a good person.

The date of the photograph, 1932, is important too, because this is before Hitler came to power. It was also after there had been a lot of economic depression and so Germany was eager to come out of it. Hitler had to be seen as the person who had the peoples interests at heart, and by relating to the public, especially children (the future of his new Germany), he could show this. Also, there was competition to think about. The Nazis had to beat the other political parties in the election, so the photo that appealed to the public most would get the most votes in the election. Source C was published in a Czech newspaper in 1938.

By 1938, Hitler had taken the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) and so the Czechs were very angry at him. They would have portrayed an equally untrue opinion of Hitler, as in source B, except this time, he was made to look worse. The cartoon would possibly have been exaggerated to inflame the Czechs and get them eager for revenge, and so the ogre-like view of Hitler is portrayed. The cartoon could also have been a cry for help to other countries. It obviously reflects the way that the Czechs feel about Hitler, and so they were maybe asking for support to resist his invasions.

There is also the aspect of newspaper ratings which has little to do with Hitlers personality, but the cartoon which most reflected public feeling would be most likely to sell well. This is similar to the inter-party competition in Germany. 4. Sources D, E and F help us to understand the reasons for the British policy of appeasement. Source D implies that in war, thousands of men die. This was proved in the First World War, and so by implementing appeasement, thousands of young men will live.

Not only was war averted, saving lives, but in arranging appeasement, Czechoslovakia had to hand over the Sudetenland peacefully. Therefore, there were few, if any deaths as a result of the German occupation. The date is important because it was written at the time of Chamberlains negotiations with Hitler, and so it is clear that the policy of appeasement was well supported, even by a titled person (Lord Castle rose). Their power in Britain would have helped to drive towards appeasement. Source E is similar to D in that it discusses death, saved their sons. The fact that war causes death is therefore a key factor in why the British government followed appeasement.

Also in source E, the opinion of the British public is discussed. The British were not ready for war in 1938, this [support] was not the case, and so appeasement was seen as the only option, it the country was not willing to go to war. Also in source E, Britain is seen to have views on a country that has nothing to do with them, probably have been wiser... and this helps to justify appeasement. Britain felt that it could not defend Czechoslovakia over the other side of Europe, so the simplest solution seemed to be to give Hitler what he wanted.

The Treaty of Versailles is also mentioned in source E, never been given to her at Versailles. If a Briton is having doubts about the Treaty, then it is reasonable to assume that some others would be of the opinion that Germany had been punished too harshly. Therefore, appeasement would go some way towards righting the wrongs which had been done. Also, the author of the source, Neville Henderson, because he was the British Ambassador to Germany, would presumably know what was best for both countries, therefore encouraging appeasement. It should be noted, however, that he was writing with hindsight, and so the reasons for appeasement may not have been that simple or that obvious at the time.

Henderson views are similar to Chamberlains, and so he may have decided to opt for appeasement, because he knew that he had the support of other influential people too. Source F talks about the greatness of Herr Hitler and because this is written by a Briton too, it is obvious that there was some feeling, like with the Treaty of Versailles, that Hitler was doing nothing wrong (a feeling mirrored throughout the British public before 1939). The quality of Hitler can then only be shown by the British government in the form of giving Hitler what he wants, i.e. appeasement. However, care should be exercised with source F. Lloyd George was Prime Minister only until 1922, and at that time, Hitler was not particularly influential, so his judgement may be one-sided, and Hitler may have been misjudged. 5.

Sources G, H and I have varying degrees of usefulness as evidence of public reaction towards opposing Hitler. Firstly, source G cannot be disputed as inaccurate. The record of the motion and the voting would almost certainly be correct. Therefore, the evidence given, that young people did not want to fight, is reliable.

How useful it is however, is another matter. Because not all the students voted against war, then the generalisation that all young people were against war cannot be made, and the usefulness of the source is doubted. Also, because only the young were involved, the public opinion does not take into account the feelings of any other generations of the public. However, looking at it from another angle, the large majority of students did not want war, and so it can be fairly conclusively stated that war was unpopular among the young.

This is extremely useful, because it goes some way towards justifying the fact that the British people were not ready for war, and it also demonstrates that Chamberlain had done the right thing to appease Hitler, as a war was felt unnecessary. Also, because the debate was at Oxford University, it can be assumed that the students were quite intelligent. Therefore, the evidence in the source can be taken as very useful, because the argument had been thought through properly by intelligent people, and the conclusion that war was not a good idea can be seen as the correct decision to have been made. This factor can however be used to doubt the usefulness of the source. The intelligent people would all share a similar background (money, importance etc. ), and so the opinions of other classes of society would not be expressed. The date of the debate, 1933, is pretty early, and Hitler had only just become Chancellor.

Therefore, the students would have had little experience of his actions and they would then see no need for war. From that aspect, the source is not very useful, as Hitler has done little to be opposed. Source H, as G, cannot be disputed as inaccurate. This is because any speech in the House of Commons is highly likely to have been meticulously recorded, and so these words are certainly the exact words that Winston Churchill spoke.

However, the usefulness can again be disputed. The analogy of Hitler demanding money (really land) can be interpreted in a number of ways, and so to a person who does not know what it means, the source would be fairly useless as evidence of opposition to Hitler. The source is also of little use from the point of view of its author. Churchill was one man alone, and consequently did not represent the public as a whole.

Therefore, the public reaction towards opposing Hitler is not expressed. From another point of view, Churchill is trying to imply that the whole public are thinking as one, We are in the presence... , and so the source is quite useful. Along the same lines, Great Britain and France are mentioned, and so the evidence suggests that the two countries in their entirety are reacting as one to Hitler. Forgetting the fact that the source only really expresses one point of view, it is useful in that does give a reaction to the opposition of Hitler. This is suggesting that Hitler should have been opposed from the start, because, due to appeasement, he has become more greedy. The date, 1938, makes the source quite useful, because Hitler would be in the middle of his invasions, and so any reaction at that time would be first-hand and accurate.

Source I has the least reliable information in it. Although the interviews were recorded, and are in all probability pretty accurate, the source does say Mass Observation. There are only three points of view expressed here, and they could have been selected as the best out of many more interviews. Consequently, the source is not particularly useful from the point of view that the opinion of the public as a whole is not expressed, instead only of three people. Because the opinions given are all the same; Hitler should not have been appeased, the sources usefulness is again doubtful. There are bound to be some members of the public with different views to this, and so it is not an accurate representation.

On the other hand, out of these three people, there is a good cross-section of the general public, with one old person, a woman, and a normal worker. Therefore, the opinions do have a certain degree of usefulness. Alternatively, everybody might be of the same opinion, or failing that, the source can be taken at face value, and it is very useful, because the reaction towards the opposition of Hitler is unanimous, and so a worthwhile conclusion can be drawn from the source. This source is however, the most useful with respect to the public aspect, because the interviews are carried out at street level on anyone, rather than directed at a specific group of given by one person. The date, 1938 also makes the source useful, because the interviews were done at the same time as Hitlers invasions (as in source H). Therefore, peoples opinions would have been fresh and most likely to be useful in forming a judgement.

Finally, then, the sources are useful in some ways and not in others. There is no final answer, because, as I have demonstrated, the usefulness depends on interpretation and the kind of details which need to be drawn from the sources. 6. British opinion towards war with Hitler changed drastically from September 1938 to September 1939. In 1938, nobody really considered Hitler dangerous, but by 1939, 93% of the population distrusted Hitler. This change had to be caused by something.

Firstly, Hitler took the Sudetenland in September to October 1938. This was considered by many to be the first step that Hitler had taken too far. This opinion is backed up by source C, which shows the unfairness of Hitlers invasion, as portrayed by the Czechs. Because they were the ones who suffered the loss, they were most bitter, but the British were also angered, because they obviously didnt want the Sudetenland to fall into Germanys hands. This is shown in source I where public opinion states that Chamberlain was wrong to give the land to Hitler.

Despite the fact that they were talking about appeasement, the principle is still there; that Czechoslovakia should keep the Sudetenland. The pure fact that Britain refused to do anything would have been likely to make the public angry with Hitler, as they did not want him to get away with it, (again supported by source I, Why should we allow a bully... ). The Sudetenland was given to Germany at the Munich Conference, where it was also decided with Hitler that he would take no more land. The British were probably quite shocked by this decision, as they sympathise d with Czechoslovakia, as in source I, and they had enough hatred of Hitler to not want to take Germanys side. They accepted the decision, however, and genuinely believed that Hitlers promises of no more invasions was true, because, as sources A, D and E say, Chamberlain was believed to have averted a real crisis.

The hatred of Hitler grew when he broke his promise in March 1939, and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. This was clearly hated by the British, and source H supports this, where Churchill feels that Hitler is taking more and more, despite his promises. This action obviously must have changed the British opinion towards Hitler, because they realised that he was unlikely to stop there, as he had already broken one promise. Consequently, they pledged support to Poland in the event of another invasion. This would have been unlikely to be favourite move with the British public either, because when Hitler took Czechoslovakia, Poland took some too, and so supporting a previous enemy would have built up the resentment. In August 1939, Hitler did another thing to anger the British.

This time, he did not invade a country, but made a pact with the USSR. In the Nazi-Soviet Pact, they agreed that they would not fight each other. The British must have been angry not only because Russia had been their allies in the First World War, but also because it made even more sure that Hitler could safely invade Poland. Sure enough, on 1st September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland. This was guaranteed to anger the British, not only because Hitler had scorned their serious threat of war, but because he had broken yet another promise. The British then believed that war was the only way to solve the problems in Poland, despite their previous differences when Poland took part of Czechoslovakia.

In the space of one year, Britain had gone from a nation of people who believed in Hitler and his promises, to a nation which was no longer prepared to stand by and let him take what he wanted, and, as Churchill said, they were in the presence of a disaster. The only way to let out the British resentment on Hitler was with a war. 7. The employment of appeasement by Chamberlain was considered by some to be right, and by others to be a disaster.

There is no right or wrong answer, but I believe that on the whole, appeasement was a mistake. Germany, according to many, deserved a fair deal, after the very harsh Treaty of Versailles. They had every right to get back their people and land. This is backed up in source E, where Henderson, although in this case, is criticising the Treaty with regard to Czechoslovakia, must therefore think that it was wrong with regard to Germany too. On the other hand, if Germany got her land back, she would be stronger. The strength, new forces and resources coupled with the insatiable desire for more land meant that Hitler would be an unstoppable force, impossible to defeat.

Churchill held this view in source H, when he implies that Hitler will not stop at one or two countries, but keep going at his own will. Appeasement was therefore wrong. The determination of Hitler to conquer Eastern Europe was however, known right from the very start. He made no secrets out of building his Third Reich and so in a way, appeasement was pointless. Whatever obstacles were put in Hitlers way, he would still get the land that he wanted. The promises that he made to Chamberlain were worthless, and whether or not Chamberlain had agreed to the demands at Munich, Hitler would have gone on ahead with his invasion plan.

Because Chamberlain did however agree to Hitlers demands, with every invasion, his confidence grew and grew. By the time he reached Poland, he was extremely aggressive. If Hitler had been stopped earlier, then he would have been less powerful and less likely to invade any more countries. There was a very real fear of another war, because after the First World War, the death and destruction had been seen by everybody. Backed up by sources A, D, and E, it was imperative to appease Hitler in order to stop more death. Source A actually relates how another war must not be allowed to happen, and sources D and E say how good it is that lives have been saved by appeasement.

Therefore, the opinion was held that world war was unnecessary over a distant country like Czechoslovakia. However, in my opinion, appeasement did not save any lives, it only postponed the death, because war happened in the end anyway. Britain had to want a war, and as we have seen in the previous question, Britain didnt in 1938. This is backed up by source E, this was not the case in September 1938. She needed time to rearm herself. Therefore, Chamberlain appeased Hitler until Britain wanted a war and until the people were ready.

However, I believe that this was pointless. If Britain hadnt appeased Hitler, he may have backed away and then war would never have started anyway. I also believe that Britain would not have rearmed at all if Chamberlain felt that the people were safe. If they didnt think this, it is obvious that he had no faith in appeasement, and so the whole thing was pointless anyway. In any case, Britain was still not armed when the time for war came in 1939.

The USSR had a part to play in appeasement too. On the one hand, by appeasing Hitler, Russia could not spread westwards and introduce the feared Communism to Britain. However, appeasement scared the USSR because they believed that Britain would not support Czechoslovakia and them as well. The result of this fear was the Nazi-Soviet Pact and in my opinion, that was an extremely fatal move; it allowed Germany to start war. Appeasement had therefore cause another massive problem. Looking purely at the sources, I will see if they back up my view.

Sources I and H are both for the idea of war. They have the strongest points to put across, disaster, a bully, and these are the feelings that I have expressed above. On the other hand, sources G, E, D and A are all for appeasement, thinking that it saved many lives. It only did this in the short term, not totally stopping war. In conclusion, it is difficult to make a judgement. There are arguments for and against appeasement, but I believe that what Chamberlain did at the Munich Conference was wrong.

Not only did it give over part of a helpless country, but it did not avert war in the long run anyway. Indeed, the evidence points to the fact that the war may not have been so bad if Hitler had been stopped earlier. I am however, writing with hindsight, and so at the time, appeasement may have seemed the best option, and this is a valid point. The sources do not however, all point to the fact that appeasement was a good idea, and so hindsight is not really a problem when answering this question as I have both sides of the argument to form a judgement from. The arguments for appeasement are in some cases reasonable, most of all the one about avoiding death, but this was not avoided anyway.

In my opinion, appeasement was wrong and an earlier war would have been the only way to stop Hitler.