Appeasement - How do I approach this type of question?

What type of questions can I expect?

Type A (Both 25 marks)How far do you accept the view of appeasement in source (x)How fair is this interpretation (source x) on Chamberlain?

Type B (Both 20 marks)Explain why not all historians would agree with interpretation (x)Do you think most historians or commentators would agree with interpretation (x) ?

Tips on Type BRead the following interpretation:"Appeasement in 1938 was a natural policy for a small island state gradually losing its place in world affairs, shouldering military and economic burdens which were increasingly too great for it, and which as a democracy had to listen to the desire of its people for peace.'Extract from: The Realities behind diplomacy - British Historian, Paul Kennedy, 1981

Question: Do you think most historians and commentators would agree with this interpretation? [20]

Before we begin - what is the examiner 'looking for'?You will be relieved to know that there is no 'correct' answer - all valid statements will be considered and your answer will be judged on its historical merit, rather than against any crude criteria.However a good response will:1. be thoroughly developed - using relevant contextual knowledge2. be analytical and evaluate the given interpretation 3. consider other possible interpretations Remember - It's YOUR answer - the examiner wants to know what YOU think?

So how do I begin?1. Read the interpretation carefully - highlight and pick out a couple of key words, phrases or ideas. (You need to understand it before you can do anything with it)2. Think about what is being said (and how) Is the evidence attacking Chamberlain and Appeasement or are they trying to defend it?3. Now think about how you are going to start - do you want to 'agree' with the question or do you want to 'challenge' it? (This will depend on your knowledge and understanding and views of appeasement).4. Have a 'punchy' opening - be BOLD, be a historian.5. Think about your answer being in TWO parts - Part A) Either defending or challenging the statement and, Part B) Doing what you didn't do in part A!6. Think about a conclusion - although it's not essential, as you often repeat what you have already said (no extra marks for that!) - if you do want to include one, think of something 'new' to say, or keep a nice 'pithy' statement up your sleeve....

Constructing an answer"Appeasement in 1938 was a natural policy for a small island state gradually losing its place in world affairs, shouldering military and economic burdens which were increasingly too great for it, and which as a democracy had to listen to the desire of its people for peace.'Some thoughts on this interpretation:1. It clearly defends the policy and the man - It's part of the 'rehabilitating Chamberlain' perspective popular from the 1960s to 90s....and probably popular with many of you....2. who else might support it? - Certainly the 'Popular Majority view) 37-39

Select / extract the key points:It was the 'natural policy for a small island...shouldering military and economic burdens...the government had to listen to it's people.....

So now what? Use your knowledge to explore each point e.g."it was a small island policy" - Many people might agree with this because Britain was a 'waning' power. Britain could no longer rely on the Empire - nationalist movements were calling for Independence and there was no appetite for war. Also, Britain had no allies to rely upon - the USA was adopting a policy of isolation - would a small island state really risk a conflict in such circumstances?"shouldering military and economic burdens..." - Again - there is some validity in this statement - British commanders were not convinced that Britain was a match for the German army and Appeasement therefore gave Britain time to re-arm. The British air defences were especially weak and it has been said that the only reason Churchill (a critic of appeasement) was able to win the Battle of Britain was because of appeasement as it gave time to build modern airplanes such as Hurricanes and Spitfires, not to mention time to invent the radar!). Economically, Britain was also fragile, the world-wide depression had hit very hard and it was not for want of trying as the treasury did in fact block Chamberlain's plans to increase military expenditure."the government had to listen to it's people..... " - Finally, this is a view shared by many who live in democratic countries. Governments are elected in and an unpopular war would soon see any government clinging to its existence. No democratic leader wants to tell it's people that the government are going to enter a war, whereby British men will die, without having the backing of the people. British people in 1937-39 supported Appeasement because of the terrible legacy of WWI - the so called 'war to end all wars' In fact, when Chamberlain returned from Munich in September 1939, he was greeted as a 'hero', the man who had averted a war. He received 40,000 letters and telegrams of support and even parliament applauded him.Well done - you have HALF the answer! You now need to think about what others might argue.....

Now for the 'attack' (or better known as - the counter argument)Although some would agree, there are many commentators that would heavily criticise this interpretation...."it was the 'natural policy for a small island..." 'hogwash' - Chamberlain made no decent effort to form alliances and his greatest mistake was not to try to form such an alliance with France and Russia - had this been done Hitler would not have continued on his destructive path. "shouldering military and economic burdens..." 'balderdash' - Germany could have been stopped much sooner - in 1936 Hitler gave orders to retreat if he so much as sniffed a 'Frenchman! Appeasement also gave Hitler the time to re-arm - so this was counter-productive. Those who wrote the book 'The Guilty Men' actually believed appeasement weakened Britain not strengthened it. "the government had to listen to it's people..." 'really' - some would have said that Chamberlain needed to show more strength of character at the time and that by standing up to Hitler he would have the support of the British people - who in their own minds knew Munich was a mistake and British people were rightly ashamed. Others also argued that the mistake was Chamberlain's because all he did was listen to himself - he failed to take advice, for example from Winston Churchill.So, (and now for the big finale).....I'll leave that up to YOU!