A paper for class, once again looking for peer review. I had to either defend or refute the argument by Martin Gilbert's position in Roots of Appeasement, that Chamberlain's actions at Munich were, "an emergency plan, intended to buy peace at the expense of the disintegration of Czechoslovakia..." Moreover, "Munich was a policy , dictated by fear and weakness, which Neville Chamberlain devised as means, not of postponing war but, as he personally believed, of making Anglo-German war unnecessary in the future."
I chose to refute it on two grounds. First that what Neville Chamberlain really believed in late 38 is in doubt base don both his actions during the May Crisis and on the fact that what a politician says they believe is more often than not mere expedient. Instead I argue that Britain lacked the means, the will and the allies to do more than accept the German fait accompli.
Document saved in word 97-03 format.
I chose to refute it on two grounds. First that what Neville Chamberlain really believed in late 38 is in doubt base don both his actions during the May Crisis and on the fact that what a politician says they believe is more often than not mere expedient. Instead I argue that Britain lacked the means, the will and the allies to do more than accept the German fait accompli.
Document saved in word 97-03 format.
Comment