Y4 2013
RP RA History
Origins & Causes of the Second World War
Worksheet (
): Policy of Appeasement - Source Analysis Exercise
Question
How far do the sources show that the policy of appeasement led to the outbreak of war in September
1939?
Source A: A cartoon published in the British newspaper on 3 October 1938. Mars is the Greek god
of war.
Source B: A cartoon published on 21 September 1938. In the pie are papers saying “Collective
security”, “Franco-Czech Security”. The line above the dove says “rather doubtful dove of peace.
Source C: A cartoon published in 1938 around the time of the Munich Conference
Source D: A cartoon published around the time of the Sudetenland Crisis, September 1938.
Source
Shows? Does not show?
Inference & Evidence
Reliability
Cross-refer to prove reliability
A
B
C
D
Sources B, C and D support the statement that the policy of appeasement led to the outbreak of war in
September 1939, while Source A challenges the statement.
Source A challenges the statement. The source shows the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
facing Mars, the god of war over a table, with both sides refusing to back down. The mere presence of
Mars shows that war was impending, yet Chamberlain’s determined stance indicates his determination to
not back down in the face of impending war and indeed stop the war from happening. From this, we can
imply that Britain was determined to stop the impending war from happening and that Chamberlain was
taking a clear stance against the war, therefore challenging the statement that appeasement led to the
outbreak of WWII.
However, this source is unreliable, as can be seen from contextual knowledge. The cartoon was
published in the British newspaper on 3 October 1938, with the background of the Munich Agreement
signed three days previously. The Munich Agreement allowed Germany to annex Sudetenland on the
borders of Czechslovakia with Hitler promising not to make any more territorial demands in Europe in
return. This was popular with the British because it was seen by many as an act that prevented war and
guaranteed peace. However, in hindsight, Chamberlain’s signing of the Munich Agreement was the
deciding factor in the policy of appeasement, and showed Chamberlain’s reluctance to take a stand
against Germany (and therefore forestall the war) rather than resolutely refusing to back down as is seen
in the cartoon. The message of the cartoon of Chamberlain’s determination directly contradicts what we
now know about the Munich Agreement as the key turning point that foreshadowed the Second World
War. The source is further proved unreliable by its date of publication, a mere three days after the signing
of the Munich Agreement and before Hitler marched his troops into the rest of Czechslovakia, when the
British public was still basking in the “triumphant” aftermath of the Agreement. At the time, the treaty was
seen as one that would prevent war from happening rather than having the opposite effect (as is seen in
historical hindsight), and in the jubilant direct aftermath, Chamberlain would naturally be seen as making
use of the policy of appeasement to stop the war from happening. Source A is also not directly useful in
proving that appeasement led to the outbreak of war in September 1939, since it does not directly
address the policy of appeasement against the historical background in the aftermath of the Munich
Agreement, but simply as an abstract representation of Chamberlain’s stand against war.
Source B supports the statement. Source B depicts Chamberlain feeding a (rather doubtful) bird of peace
from the humble pie with the caption “when the pie was opened the bird began to sing”. This source is an
allusion to the well-known nursery rhyme Sing a Song of Sixpence (‘When the pie was opened / the birds
began to sing / wasn’t that a dainty dish / to set before the king?’). In the popular interpretation of the
nursery rhyme, the bird takes revenge on its captors by pecking off the nose of the maid. Similar to the
rhyme, the dove is seen as having been freed from the pie and is now ironically feeding on the cage that
once contained it. The rather doubtful dove of peace is a representation of the supposed benefits the
policy of appeasement purports to bring. From this source, we can infer that the policy of appeasement is
a double-edged sword, with the intent of stopping war but instead making it all the more inevitable. The
satire of this cartoon is further underscored by Chamberlain respectfully feeding the bird, increasing the
depth of the ironic message because Chamberlain thinks he is bringing about peace by feeding the dove
of peace (or getting Hitler to eat the “humble pie”), but this peace is seen as rather doubtful and fragile.
As such, it is evident that Source B supports the statement.
Source B is proved reliable by its historical background. This cartoon was published a few days after
Chamberlain decided to relegate part of Sudentenland to Hitler, despite the obvious moral flaws in
allowing Hitler to annex parts of a country that did not belong to Britain and therefore undermining its
sovereignty. The cartoon’s inference of appeasement as a double-edged sword is proved reliable the very
day after it was published by Hitler’s demanding the entire Sudetenland instead of accepting
Chamberlain’s compromise, and again in March 1939 when he marched his army into the rest of
Czechoslovakia, illustrating that despite its original intention of satisfying Hitler by compromising, it in fact
only served to embolden Hitler in his endeavour to rule Europe.
Source C supports the statement. The source shows a Brit sitting in a deck chair reading the newspaper
casually on a rocky ledge, showing that majority of the British were not aware that war was imminent. The
policy of appeasement is represented in this cartoon by the precocious arrangement of the rocks above
the Brit with Czechoslovakia at the bottom of a stack of rocks that look ready to topple t any moment, with
the rock at the top being Anglo-French security. This shows the fragility of the situation that Britain and
France were in, as though it were a game of dominoes and once Czechoslovakia falls, so would
everything above, with Romania and Poland falling and ultimately undermining Anglo-French
security.This is representative of the policy of appeasement as a dangerous and ultimately one that leads
to war as when one stone falls, the others will come crashing down at an increasing rate. However, the
Bri reading the newspaper is still utterly apathetic to the dangerous situation he is in, and is indeed just
reading the newspaper (a representation of international affairs) calmy, seemingly oblivious. From this
source, we can therefore infer that appeasement is a fragile strategy doomed to fail from the start, since
when one seemingly unrelated block falls, the rest will come tumbling down and that trying to appease to
Hitler would only increase his ambition, supporting the statement.
Source C is reliable as it corroborates with contextual knowledge. This cartoon was published around the
time of the Munich Conference, and can serve as a warning of the consequences of appeasing Hitler by
agreeing to allow him to annex Sudetenland.The source’s claim that appeasement was a strategy
doomed to fail since it would lead to a domino effect is proved reliable by how Hitler became emboldened
by the Munich Agreement and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia and eventually Poland and France,
putting the Second World War in full swing. This source is further proved reliable by cross-referencing
with Source B (previously proved reliable), with both sources presenting the policy of appeasement as a
fragile one which backfires on itself. Source B states that the policy of appeasement is a double-edged
sword that although had good intentions eventually backfires, and Source C states that appeasement was
doomed to fail from the beginning as giving Hitler any piece of the pie would only serve to embolden him
and therefore causing the undermining of international security and WWII. Seen together, both sources
point to the idea that the policy of appeasement led to the outbreak of war in September 1939. Thus,
Source C is reliable.
Source D supports the statement. This source illustrates Chamberlain sitting at a table with his back
facing the door and stating that the Sudetenland crisis was simply a “quarrel in a faraway country
between two peoples of whom we know nothing”. In the meantime, a larger than life Czech and grim
reaper wearing a Nazi helmet are arguing at the door labeled the “door to European and British
domination”, with the grim reaper glaring at the Czech guard with a dagger between his teeth, while
Chamberlain seems completely oblivious. The significance of the size of the figures is also not lost, with
Germany seen as the giant while Chamberlain is a small and unconfident figure, illustrating his lack of
nerve and determination (and indeed inability) to stand against Hitler’s dominance. From this source, we
can infer that appeasement was a strategy of denial rather than one of any value, as can be seen from
Chamberlain’s carefully selected pose of having his back to the action and choosing to dismiss
Germany’s claim on Czechoslovakia as insignificant rather than taking it seriously. It also shows that
appeasement was a strategy doomed to fail by the sheer size and menace of the Nazi grim reaper. The
symbolism of the grim reaper itself should not be ignored, and combined with the “door to European and
British domination” represent Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland as the beginning of the war.
Source D is proved reliable by contextual knowledge. This was published around the time of the
Sudetenland crisis where Britain was struggling with the decision of the Sudetenland to Germany to
appease him, and this particular crisis was later seen as the decisive turning point where the war was
made inevitable rather than simply a possibility. The decision of the British and the French to give
Sudetenland to Germany was the decision that made Hitler sure that his plans would not be opposed by
either of the countries, emboldening him to precipitate the war with the invasion of Poland in September
1939. This source is also proved reliable by cross-referencing with Source C. Both sources illustrate the
British as seemingly oblivious of the threat that giving Sudetenland to the Germans would pose, with
Source C using the Brit reading the newspaper and Source D using the caricature of Neville Chamberlain
to illustrate the idea. Seen together, they show that appeasement was a strategy that is doomed to fail,
even if it was not seen by the British at the time it was conceived.
In conclusion, the sources largely support the statement that the policy of appeasement led to the
outbreak of war in September 1939. Source B states that appeasement is a double-edged sword that
despite its good intentions would fail, and both Sources C and D assert that appeasement was doomed to
fail from the beginning because of the domino effect it would bring about in the state of affairs. Source A
challenges the statement, asserting that Chamberlain was taking a clear stand and determined to stop
the war. However, Source A is proved unreliable by contextual knowledge, as is also not directly useful in
addressing whether the policy of appeasement led to the outbreak of war. As such, we can conclude that
as a whole, the sources support to a large extent that the policy of appeasement led to the outbreak of ar
in September 1939.