10 Bi Weekly Feedback 5th Question 1st Period

Should we as historians blame Neville Chamberlain and the appeasers as harshly as we do or should we be more sympathetic to their actions given the circumstances?

Well, to me, appeasement is the act of granting material possessions or land to a country in order to prevent a bigger conflict, such as war. At the first glance, it is easy to caste blame on Chamberlain, as well as the other European nations who gave into Hitler's conquests, because we know what the end result was. But, when looking at it from the perspective of his time, I can see where Chamberlain and the others were coming from. The whole world thought the Treaty of Versailles, which ended WWI, had been way to harsh and unfair toward Germany. Many believed that Germany took more blame and had to pay more reparations than their fair share. Because Germany's army had a greatly limited armed force, no Air force, and only 12 naval ships, the sentiments of European people shifted toward pitying the Germans and feeling guilty of severely crippling their economy. On one hand, I do think that G.B. should have backed up France in 1936 when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland because Hitler's army was not yet strong enough to defeat G.B. and France so they could have easily avoided WWII. But, I believe that had the other countries been aggressive and immediately cracked down on Hitler, the leaders would not have been popular within their own country because of the sympathy that many initially felt for the German people. (Ellie Sheild)