Was appeasement justified? Cambridge IGCSE History revision
Not started
Learn it
In plain words
Appeasement has become a dirty word. In 1938 it meant something that most people in Britain wanted: settling quarrels by talking, so that the slaughter of 1914 to 1918 would never be repeated. Whether it was wisdom or folly is one of the great arguments of the century.
9 things to know
- Appeasement was the policy of giving in to some of Hitler's demands in order to avoid war. It is linked above all with the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
- For: people remembered the horror of the First World War, and feared that bombing would make the next war worse. Almost nobody wanted to fight.
- For: many felt that the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh, and that Hitler's demands were reasonable.
- For: Britain was not ready for war. Appeasement bought time to rearm, and Britain was much stronger in 1939 than in 1938.
- For: many feared communism more than Nazism, and saw a strong Germany as a barrier against the USSR. Britain also could not count on the USA, and was struggling with the Depression.
- Against: it encouraged Hitler. Each success made him bolder and more sure that Britain and France would never fight.
- Against: it let Germany grow stronger, in land, industry and soldiers. The best chance to stop Hitler, in the Rhineland in 1936, was thrown away.
- Against: it betrayed Czechoslovakia, and it convinced Stalin that the West could not be trusted, which led to the Nazi–Soviet Pact.
- Against: it rested on the belief that Hitler could be trusted to keep his word. He could not.
Worked example
"Appeasement was a mistake." How far do you agree? Plan a 10-mark answer.
- A mistake: it encouraged Hitler, strengthened Germany, sacrificed Czechoslovakia and pushed Stalin towards Hitler.
- Not a mistake: Britain was not ready to fight in 1938, the public would not have supported a war, and the time gained was used to rearm.
- Judgement: it was reasonable up to Munich, given what was known and how weak Britain was. It became a mistake once it was clear that Hitler's aims went beyond undoing Versailles.
Tips and tricks
- Give reasons, not labels. "Chamberlain was weak" earns nothing. "Britain's air defences were not ready in 1938" earns a mark.
- The time-to-rearm argument cuts both ways. Germany used the same year to grow stronger too. Saying so is evaluation.
It lands in your notebook with its questions as flashcards.
Was appeasement justified?: 5 questions and answers
These are the quiz’s questions. Do the quiz first, then come back here for the ones that got you.
Which leader is most associated with appeasement?
He was British Prime Minister from 1937.
Which is an argument in favour of appeasement?
Britain was stronger in 1939 than in 1938.
Which is an argument against appeasement?
Each success made him bolder.
Why did some people in Britain see Hitler as useful?
Many feared communism more than Nazism.
How did appeasement affect Stalin?Stretch
The Nazi–Soviet Pact followed.
Quiz
5 questions
Tap an answer and you’ll see straight away whether it’s right, and why.
Worksheet
3 questions, 20 marks. Write your answers on paper, then check them.
Was appeasement justified?
Cambridge IGCSE History 0470 · 20 marks · papermunch.org
Name ______________________________ Date ______________
What was the policy of appeasement?[4]
Show answerHide answer
It was the policy of giving in to some of Hitler's demands to avoid war. It was followed by Britain and France in the 1930s. It is linked with Neville Chamberlain. Its best-known example is the Munich Agreement of 1938.
Why did Britain follow a policy of appeasement?[6]
Show answerHide answer
Any three explained: memories of the First World War made people determined to avoid another; many believed that Versailles had been unfair to Germany; Britain's armed forces were not ready, so time was needed to rearm; Hitler was seen as a barrier to communism; Britain could not rely on help from the USA.
"Appeasement was justified." How far do you agree?[10]
Show answerHide answer
Justified: Britain was militarily unprepared, the public wanted peace, Hitler's early demands seemed reasonable, and the delay allowed rearmament. Not justified: it encouraged Hitler to make more demands, allowed Germany to become stronger, abandoned Czechoslovakia and alienated the USSR. Judgement: understandable at the time, but it failed, because it was based on trusting a man who could not be trusted.
Answers: Was appeasement justified?
- 1. It was the policy of giving in to some of Hitler's demands to avoid war. It was followed by Britain and France in the 1930s. It is linked with Neville Chamberlain. Its best-known example is the Munich Agreement of 1938.
- 2. Any three explained: memories of the First World War made people determined to avoid another; many believed that Versailles had been unfair to Germany; Britain's armed forces were not ready, so time was needed to rearm; Hitler was seen as a barrier to communism; Britain could not rely on help from the USA.
- 3. Justified: Britain was militarily unprepared, the public wanted peace, Hitler's early demands seemed reasonable, and the delay allowed rearmament. Not justified: it encouraged Hitler to make more demands, allowed Germany to become stronger, abandoned Czechoslovakia and alienated the USSR. Judgement: understandable at the time, but it failed, because it was based on trusting a man who could not be trusted.