Jump to content


Photo

I Really Need Help


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 AngusL95

AngusL95
  • Student
  • 2 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 07:36 PM

Hi there.

I have failed both my NAB resits and I am allowed to have another stab at it (only a different question)on Tuesday.
The Question:
To what extent does British public opinion explain the policy of Appeasement between 1936 and 1938?

I am really stuck on how I answer this:
I know that you have
INTRO: Context - I have revised background like devastation of WW1, Appeasement a policy of cowardice, leaders who followed appeasement believed they were overcoming real greviances and it helped to create a settled peaceful Europe with no aggressio
Issue: Some of the public believed Appeasement as a policy of cowardice - against it.
Factors: Change in Public Mood, Change in Political Mood, Facist Action and ????
Line of Argument: ???????

My real problem is actually setting it all out. I am really confused and would be very greatful for some help.

#2 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:29 PM

You do a 'to what extent essay' rather like an 'either-or' essay, using what is called the 'Hegelian dialectic' - thesis (an idea), antithesis (the counter-argument) then synthesis (the solution which comes otu when you've weighed everything together).

So in this essay:
1. START by saying: 'There are lots of arguments' that in fact British public opinion had a lot to do with the policy of appeasement.
Then, what you do, is write a section explaining, with facts and explanations, all the reasons you can think of how public opinion caused the policy of appeasement - the devastation and attitude after WWI, the feeling the Versailles was too harsh, the Peace Pledge Union, the fact that many Tories and Blackshirts openly approved of Hitler and his policies (especially against the Trade Unions), the open rejoicing when Chamberlain came back from Munich etc.
Finish this section with a mini-conclusion with sums up the nub of the section, that appeasement was a publicly-demanded policy.

Miss a line

2. Then BEGIN YOUR SECOND SECTION by saying: 'HOWEVER, there any many arguments which might lead us to believe that appeasement was NOT merely the result of public desire for peace'.
Then, you need to address all the other factors which led to the policy of appeasement - for instance, the lack of British military preparedness, the failure of collective security (League of Nations), the inaccessibility of the places in question (Chamberlain was right when he said there was nothing the british could do militarily about Czechoslovakia, and the same was true of Austria), and the fact that - until he marched into Prague - Hitler was in fact doing what most of the people of the Saar, the Rhineland, Austria and the Sudetenland positively wanted.
Trace it back into earlier measures which had failed to confront Hitler, showing that pragmatism predated appeasement.
Finish this section with a mini-conclusion with sums up the nub of the section, that appeasement was clearly more than a publicly-demanded policy.

Miss a line

3. Finish with a conclusion which weighs the two apparently opposing sides, and comes up with a solution to the apparent contradiction.
For me, than solution would be that there is no dichotomy between the two sides - it is not an 'either-or' situation, but all worked together. Chamberlain was forced by circumstance to deal with Hitler, but he was not at odds with public sentiment when he did so.
Public opinion was just one more factor pushing him in that direction.



If you are short of ideas for the two sides, there's 19 reasons for appeasement here which will give you ideas for BOTH sections.

Does this help.

#3 AngusL95

AngusL95
  • Student
  • 2 posts

Posted 12 December 2011 - 11:47 PM

What I have learned is:

BACKGROUND
Context
Issue
Factor
Line of Argument

PARAGRAPHS (4 for each factor)
State relevent factor then evidence

CONCLUSION
The answer to the question (what factor was most relevent in .........................)

#4 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 13 December 2011 - 04:03 PM

What I have learned is:

BACKGROUND
Context
Issue
Factor
Line of Argument

PARAGRAPHS (4 for each factor)
State relevent factor then evidence

CONCLUSION
The answer to the question (what factor was most relevent in .........................)

Sounds good.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users