One of the main jobs of historians is to interpret the past by reviewing primary documents, scholarly secondary sources, and then creating an analysis of this research. After reading your text and reviewing the assigned materials, submit an analysis of the massacre of Nanking.
You might want to consider the following questions, but you are not limited to them: Why is denial one of the 10 stages of genocide? Do you believe the Japanese are justified in not acknowledging the extent of the Nanking massacre? How can historians or journalists use facts to counter denialism?
This assignment should be at least 300 words and contain your reactions or questions about some specific issue within the historical narrative which you find compelling. For full credit, your paper must not simply sum up the reading or repeat points made there. Rather, I’m looking for you to create your own interpretation, explain the emotional content of the piece, or discuss some original insight. Include citations as needed.
Rubric
WestCivII ITP Rubric
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
|---|---|---|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHistorical InterpretationPost is able to show a historical interpretation (point of view) about the historical material. | 15 pts Full Marks Post is able to show a historical interpretation (point of view) about the historical material. 10.2 ptsProficient Try to add more of your own original thoughts about the historical content. Do not rely on a summary to fill the length requirement. 6 ptsNeeds Improvement Post does not meet the requirements for historical interpretation. Please review the requirements in the syllabus, prompt, or email me for clarification. 0 ptsNo Marks | 15 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength and DetailThe post has sufficient historical detail and is detailed enough to meet the length requirement. | 2.5 pts Full Marks The post has sufficient historical detail and is detailed enough to meet the length requirement. 1.5 ptsApproaching Proficient Post is almost detailed enough 0.5 ptsNeeds Improvement Post lacks historical details. 0 ptsNo Marks Post lacks details and does not meet the minium requirements | 2.5 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProof ReadingThe post is easy to read and has no major grammatical errors. | 2.5 pts Full Marks The post is easy to read and has no major grammatical errors. 1.5 ptsNeeds Improvement Post has some grammatical errors 0.5 ptsImprovement Needed Post has major grammatical issues. 0 ptsNo Marks Post has many grammatical errors that make it difficult to read | 2.5 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitationsPost contains correctly cited information from outside sources and there is no plagiarism evident in the work | 5 pts Full Marks Post contains correctly cited information from outside sources and there is no plagiarism evident in the work 2 ptsApproaching Proficient Post contains outside information but lacks citations in a correct format. 0 ptsNo Marks Outside information is not cited | 5 pts |
Discussion: Appeasement
In the 1930s, when Hitler began to rearm Germany, ignore the Treaty of Versailles, and show aggression towards other European nations, Great Britain and France responded with a policy of appeasement. Please answer the following questions: What role did appeasement play in beginning World War II? Why were they trying to appease Hitler? Why was it a failure?
To receive full credit for this assignment your post must:
- Address the questions asked in the paragraph above in at least a 300-word post and cite all outside sources appropriately
- In your initial post, include at least one interesting question the readings raised for you
- Reply to at least two of your classmates' posts and attempt to answer their question (100 word posts minimum)
Reply
RG
Riley Goble
May 9 6:16pm| Last reply May 9 6:17pmManage Discussion by Riley Goble
Reply from Riley Goble
Hitler had less resources during World War II for any kind of appeasement to stand and this made him angry and wanting to enter into another War. Hitler lost a lot of power and influence that he was not willing to loose again. The people were so traumatized by World War I that Hitler thought he could scare easily others into another War because of his power. Churchill was a strong leader and one who was going to try and stop the war and his efforts were he wanted to rally a nation into fighting Hitlers attempts to a war by defying Hitlers demands and wishes (Grimsley, 2013).
Fearful of another war Britain and France tried to appease to Hitler by proposing different methods and tactics such as trying to concede to Hitler in the hopes of eliminating the threat or ideas of future conflicts. Some of these concessions included a policy of appeasement which included territory demands that Hitler was making. Britain thought they were powerful enough of a nation to stop the demands and over throw the possibility of another war, but there efforts failed and the appeasement failed because of the Munich agreement between Germany and Chezech which was an agreement where the lands were being dismantled in March of 1939 which allowed Germany to invade Chezch. This led Britain to declare war on Germany anways which resulted in the failure of the appeasment. Britain also tried one last attempt and convinced Poland to try to enter into an agreement with Germany to avoid a war but the attempt failed too because Germany ignored the agreement and the war happened anyways. It is evident that many attempts were tried to eliminate the war but failed miserably but it seems as if nothing would of changed Hitlers mind. (Grimsley, 2013).
Riley Goble
References
Grimsley, M. (2013). What if: Britain and France had not appeased Hitler in 1938? https://www.historynet.com/britain-france-not-appeased-hitler-1938.htmLinks to an external site.
- Expand discussion thread from Riley Goble1 Reply, 1 Unread1 Reply, 1 Unread
- Reply to post from Riley GobleReply
- Mark as UnreadMark as Unread
Reply from Carol Rezk
The policy of appeasement played a big role in the events that led up to World War II. During the 1930s, Adolf Hitler started to rebuild Germany’s military, even though the Treaty of Versailles specifically banned it. He also started taking aggressive actions, like moving troops into the Rhineland and later annexing Austria. Instead of stopping him, Britain and France chose to appease him, hoping that giving in to his demands would prevent another war. Unfortunately, this only encouraged Hitler to become more aggressive.
There were a few reasons why Britain and France tried to appease Hitler. First, both countries were still recovering from the trauma of World War I and didn’t want to go through another deadly conflict. The memories of trench warfare and mass casualties were still fresh. Also, many people at the time thought the Treaty of Versailles had treated Germany too harshly, and they believed that Hitler’s early demands—like wanting the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia—were somewhat reasonable. Leaders like British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain truly believed that by giving Hitler what he wanted, they could keep the peace. In fact, after the Munich Agreement in 1938, Chamberlain famously claimed he had secured “peace for our time” (History.com Editors, 2019).
However, this approach completely failed. Hitler didn’t stop after getting the Sudetenland—he went on to take the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland in 1939. That’s when Britain and France finally realized that appeasement wasn’t working and declared war. By then, Hitler had already built up a powerful military and gained territory without much resistance.
Looking back, appeasement gave Hitler the time and confidence he needed to grow stronger. Instead of stopping a war, it actually made things worse by delaying action until it was too late.
Works Cited:
History.com Editors. “Appeasement.” History, A&E Television Networks, 29 Oct. 2009, https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/appeasement.
- Expand discussion thread from Carol Rezk1 Reply, 1 Unread1 Reply, 1 Unread
- Reply to post from Carol RezkReply
- Mark as ReadMark as Read
HM
Hugo Matipa
May 8 1:11pm| Last reply May 9 6pmManage Discussion by Hugo Matipa
Reply from Hugo Matipa
The policy of appeasement played a significant role in encouraging Nazi Germany’s aggression, which eventually led to the outbreak of World War II. In the 1930s, Adolf Hitler systematically dismantled the Treaty of Versailles by rearming Germany, reoccupying the Rhineland in 1936, and annexing Austria in 1938. Despite these clear violations, Britain and France chose to avoid confrontation. Their policy of appeasement reached a climax with the Munich Agreement in 1938, when they permitted Hitler to take over the Sudetenland, believing it would satisfy his ambitions. Instead, it only increased his confidence and appetite for expansion, ultimately culminating in the invasion of Poland in 1939.
Britain and France chose appeasement largely due to the shadow of World War I. Both nations had suffered devastating human and economic losses during the Great War and were not eager to engage in another large-scale conflict. The global economic crisis of the Great Depression further limited their ability to mobilize for war. Additionally, some British politicians believed Hitler’s early demands were understandable particularly his desire to unite German-speaking populations and hoped that accommodating these claims would preserve peace. Another factor was a lack of military preparedness; both Britain and France needed more time to rebuild their forces.
Appeasement failed because it underestimated Hitler’s ambitions. Rather than being satisfied with limited territorial gains, Hitler sought a vast German empire in Eastern Europe. Each concession made by Britain and France signaled weakness, allowing Hitler to believe they would not intervene militarily. This misjudgment allowed Nazi Germany to grow stronger and bolder, making a future war not only more likely but more destructive. When Hitler invaded Poland, Britain and France were left with no choice but to declare war, too late to prevent widespread devastation.
A compelling question raised by this topic is: How might the global political landscape have changed if Britain and France had taken military action against Germany during its remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936?
Works Cited:
Taylor, A. J. P. The Origins of the Second World War. Penguin Books, 1961.
BBC. “Appeasement.” BBC Bitesize, https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zxnmk7h/revision/2.
Gilbert, Martin. The Second World War: A Complete History. Holt Paperbacks, 2004.
- Expand discussion thread from Hugo Matipa1 Reply, 1 Unread1 Reply, 1 Unread
- Reply to post from Hugo MatipaReply
- Mark as UnreadMark as Unread
CC
Carla Contreras
May 7 7:02pm| Last reply May 9 6:23pmManage Discussion by Carla Contreras
Reply from Carla Contreras
Appeasement played a significant role in the beginning of World War II. In response to Hitler's actions, Great Britain and France adopted appeasement policies. Appeasement policies supported Hitler's aggressive demands in hopes that it would help avoid conflict and prevent the outbreak of World War II. With World War I ending not too long ago, many people were still mentally recovering from the devastating effects of the war. With the loss of many and the destruction in the back of their minds, many people could not bear the thought of another war. In addition, countries like Britain and France were still recovering economically from the Great Depression. Therefore, they were not fully equipped to enter another war. So, leaders of these countries believed that appeasement policies would help buy them time to prepare for World War II.
One notable appeasement event that occurred in 1938 was the Munich Agreement. In this agreement, Britain and France granted Hitler the ability to take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. They hoped that Hitler's annexation of this land would be enough for Hitler. However, they were mistakenly wrong. Within a year, Hitler gained control over all of Czechoslovakia. Shortly after, Hitler struck again, seizing control over Poland.
While these are only a few examples of Hitler's actions, they highlight the failure of appeasement policies. Appeasement encouraged further aggression, creating more conflict rather than preventing it. Hitler was never satisfied with any territorial gains. He always sought more control and power. While these appeasement policies tried to limit Hitler's power to set back the war, they did otherwise. If anything, they proved that Hitler couldn't be stopped. Therefore, Hitler became more confident in his decisions to achieve his expansionist ideals. In the end, these policies backfired as Britain and France were drawn into war, sparking the beginning of World War II.
Question
Do you think appeasement policies would have ever been successful if Hitler had different goals?
Sources
Scanlon, S. (2024, October 15). Appeasement and 'Peace for Our Time'. The National WWII Museum. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/appeasement-and-peace-our-timeLinks to an external site.
World History Edu. (n.d.). Why did Britain and France pursue a policy of appeasement before WWII? Retrieved May 7, 2025, from https://worldhistoryedu.com/why-did-britain-and-france-pursue-a-policy-of-appeasement-before-wwii/Links to an external site.
- Expand discussion thread from Carla Contreras3 Replies, 3 Unread3 Replies, 3 Unread
- Reply to post from Carla ContrerasReply
- Mark as UnreadMark as Unread
Mark post as read
KD
Kayjonna Davis
May 7 3:17pm| Last reply May 9 6:01pmManage Discussion by Kayjonna Davis
Reply from Kayjonna Davis
Many leaders were anxious to prevent another major conflict because the atrocities of the first war were still vivid in their minds. Many nations had political instability and economic weakness as a result of the Great Depression, which made war seem costly. Perception of Reasonability in Hitler's Demands,Some individuals thought that Hitler's initial demands, including uniting German-speaking peoples, were reasonable and that the Treaty of Versailles was overly harsh. It took time for Britain and France to re-arm since they were militarily unready. According to certain Western officials, Hitler would prevent the Soviet Union's communism from spreading.In the United States holocaust memorial museum article states. “In the 1930s, British leaders pursued appeasement because they wanted to avoid a second world war. World war had devastated Europe and caused the deaths of millions.”(para 2).
Every compromise gave Hitler more confidence and convinced him that the Allies would not halt his growth. Following his occupation of Czechoslovakia, Hitler continued to break accords, including the Munich Agreement. Appeasement deceived smaller countries like Czechoslovakia and tarnished the reputations of France and Britain. As a result, the final conflict was more deadly since Germany had more time to develop its military. When Germany attacked Poland in September 1939 and Britain and France eventually declared war, thus initiating World War II, the futility of appeasement became evident. Cartwright, Mark states “The reasons appeasement was adopted by Britain and France through the 1930s included their horror of repeating the First World War (1914-18), their military weakness, the isolationist policy of the USA, a lack of trust in the USSR as an ally, and Hitler's step-by-step expansion, which he always presented as being his last demand”(para1).
Work cited:
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “THE BRITISH POLICY of APPEASEMENT toward HITLER and NAZI GERMANY.” Encyclopedia.ushmm.org, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 4 Aug. 2023, encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/neville-chamberlain. Cartwright, Mark. “Why Did Britain & France Appease Hitler?” World History Encyclopedia, 27 Nov. 2024, www.worldhistory.org/article/2574/why-did-britain--france-appease-hitl
Mark post as read
LG
Lance GreensladeMay 7 12:20pm| Last reply May 9 7am
Reply from Lance Greenslade
Appeasement played a very large role in starting World War 2 and because of that it guided the allies actions after the war. The United Kingdom and France saw Appeasement as a way to cool off hostilities in the region but all it really did was embolden Hitler, After every aggressive move he was meet with no real consequences and ultimately this lead to him invade many parts of Europe and conquering France in about 6 weeks.
The Reason for Appeasement was for many reasons, Morale in the formally Allied powers countries was still low from the death toll of world war 1 and at this point the great depression was still raging on, many countries were forced to focus on domestic struggles and simply did not have the time and resources to fight Hitler on any front, let alone the battlefield. Some leaders also felt that the Treaty of Versailles was to harsh on the German people and thought Hitler had a right to seek a revision on the Treaty. Of course this was before they figured out he was a genocidal mad man.
Ultimately though we know appeasement ended up falling and it lead to the biggest war in human history world war 2 and the biggest atrocity in human history in the holocaust. Many leaders misjudged Hitler and this cost them greatly. They assumed his ambitions were limited and that he only wanted small territorial gains to build a "German Empire" they were sadly mistaken. This also gave Hitler ample time to rearm and build his military and devise strategy. Finally it showed Hitler that he could step over the line with little consequences.
Question- If the United States had been less isolationist and helped Great Britain and France sooner, Do you think we could have avoided the policy of Appeasement?
Works Cited-
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2574/why-did-britain--france-appease-hitler/
Eric Kamanya
May 6 2:47pm| Last reply May 8 2:25pm
Reply from Eric Kamanya
The policy of appeasement had a major role in the events that led to the start of World War II. In the 1930s, as Adolf Hitler openly defied the Treaty of Versailles by rebuilding Germany’s military and expanding its borders, Britain and France responded by trying to avoid confrontation. Rather than stopping Hitler early on, they chose to give in to his demands in hopes of keeping the peace. This strategy only encouraged further aggression and eventually led to a war that might have been prevented with stronger early resistance.
Many British and French leaders were still haunted by the destruction of World War I. They believed another war would bring similar or worse suffering, so they were willing to compromise if it meant avoiding conflict. In the 1938 Munich Agreement, they allowed Hitler to annex the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain believed that by giving Hitler what he wanted, peace could be preserved. However, Hitler went on to take the rest of Czechoslovakia, proving that appeasement only fueled his ambitions (“Sympathy for Neville”).
Another reason for appeasement was the weak state of Britain and France’s military and economies at the time. The Great Depression had strained resources, and both governments were unprepared for a large-scale war. Some believed that buying time would allow them to rebuild their strength, but that delay allowed Nazi Germany to grow more powerful and confident (Oregon State Archives).
In the end, appeasement failed because it underestimated Hitler’s true goals. Instead of satisfying him, it gave him time to prepare for even greater conquest. A question worth asking is: if stronger action had been taken when Hitler first reoccupied the Rhineland, could the war have been stopped before it started?
Works Cited
“Before the War: U.S. Isolation.” Oregon State Archives, sos.oregon.gov/archives/exhibits/ww2/Pages/before-isolation.aspx. Accessed 6 May 2025.
“Sympathy for Neville.” The National WWII Museum, www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/sympathy-neville
Previous