TRHS AP Euro

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Churchill's Response to Munich

Remember - this document can be found in your text on page 1005. Also remember that this document is from 1938 - before the declarations of war.

Read this document in light of our discussion today in class - that Churchill deviated greatly from Chamberlain's plan of appeasement. Comment on how this document shows Churchill's devotion to British politics - and even world politics. What does this show about his character? If you were an MP (member of Parliament), how would you have reacted? What is the POV? Make any other pertinent comments as necessary.

Due: MIDNIGHT, Tuesday, March 6

posted by RJS at 12:03 PM

7 Comments:

  • Winston Churchill chose not to kid himself on the matters of emminent war, but above all not to kid the people of Britain, as perhaps they had kidded themselves. The British, he says, have basically become jadded to their way of life and the freedoms and securities surrounding it, and that now their security is in danger, they must fight to reclaim it. Not only for Britain though. Czecholslovakia, France, and many other European countries he feels have been forced into the Nazi stronghold, and that it is against all ideals of freedom to let the Nazis continue hoarding power and land. To stop them, he obviously had to stop Chamberlain's policies of appeasement in their tracks, going against his prissy policies of avoiding war. Churchill's character is stronger and more determined to stand behind a policy that is more realistic and effective than Chamberlain's. In this way he seems more able to lead a country, unafraid and steadfast. This would be effective in persuading members of Parliament to vote Britain into war. Of course, as much as Churchill wants to protect the British people, it does help that he also hates everything about Nazi idealism. He is concerned not only for the security of Britain against the Nazis, but the security of the world against them. This might be why he is so devoted to world politics and the balance of power complying to the ideals of freedom and security. While Neville Chamberlain preferred pieces of paper declaring peace, Churchill made sure peace was guaranteed by acting upon it.

    By Blogger Victoria, at Tuesday, March 06, 2007 5:49:00 PM  

  • Ah, Churchill. He is one of my favorite historical figures. This man saved Britain in the political realm. His presence was a very key factor in weathering the Blitz and in Germany's eventual defeat. He is also bluntly honest (the second British blog to exhibit that characteristic.) I agree that he was devoted to British politics, but not politics as some would define it. He didn't plan his speech to take advantage of the passions of the people or to gain support for a ride into office. He stuck to his principles, values, and intellligence, may appeasement and the easy flight from Munich be (forgive me, nothing else expresses it quite so clearly) damned. By politics I mean he was concerned about the welfare of Britain's ( and democracy's) position in the world.
    One can imagine that negative responses like this were not well recieved by the British public. Still, it gave Churchill a pretty nice "I told you so" platform in about a year. By the way, Barack O'Bama has a very similar thing going by having voted against the Iraq war what seems like a very long time ago.
    I am so passionate about the various events which surround this time of history that I find myself revolted by the thought that I would have opposed Churchill in any way. I cannot give an honest answer as to how I would have reacted, but I darn well hope my principles would have won out.
    You want POV? Ok. Churchill talks like a man who takes off the rose colored glasses. He is a realist, an avid proponent of democracy, and opposes the hate taught by the Nazis. To think even for a minute that he would negociate with them is laughable. You can label me as a victim of propaganda, of historical bias, whatever, but I firmly beleive that he saw evil and he opposed it with every power at his disposal. Bloody good show, mate.

    By Blogger ThomasBatson, at Tuesday, March 06, 2007 7:53:00 PM  

  • Churchill is foreseeing the coming conflict, or at least that Germany is getting away with all sorts of evils at the expense of the western powers, and will continue to do so until they come into conflict. He is actually thoughtful about the other powers above Britain's, as in the short term Britain is getting away freely, and the rest of Parliament seemed not to care about the continent. The British didn't care strongly enough about kicking Chamberlain out until Norway was invaded, finally somewhere besides the continent, and forced him to resign. Churchill cares about the fates of Czechoslovakia and the other continental powers being swallowed whole by the Nazis, and is trying to alert Parliament to this situation before there was no one left to help Britain. I have no clue how I would have reacted were I an MP, I just have too great of a bias towards interventionism from hindsight. Churchill's POV is simply from someone very convinced of their stand on the isolationism/interventionism question and speaking for Parliament to cajole some to his side.

    By Blogger Unknown, at Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:08:00 PM  

  • Churchill's views on appeasement are reflected fairly well in the metaphor he provides. Saying that first one thing was demanded, and that was given. Then more was demanded, which was also given but that didn't fix the problem. Showing that Churchill doesn't think appeasement solves problems so much as creates more. I thought it was odd how he mentioned czechoslovakia as a 'faithful servant' rather than 'member' of the League of Nations. Churchill seems incredibly supposrtive of the League of Nations, of course he is british and a politician. He says that the League of Nations prevented war so well and was oh so powerful, even though for all these years all they had been doing was ignoring china and chechoslovakia's cries for help. Also, they had been playing the appeasement game with Hitler, so it's strange that Churchill who hates that so much can be so supportive of the League. I agree with him though, that appeasement won't do anything except show that you can be walked all over, so were i a MP I would be nodding and making general noises of agreement.

    By Blogger manxomefoe, at Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:35:00 PM  

  • Churchill's devotion to Britain is clearly represented in his speech. He says Britain has been "reduced from a position of safety and power" and the "power to take any step in strength or mercy or justice which we thought right" has disappeared. These statements show that Churchill believed the appeasement of Hitler had weakend Britain and put them in a vunerable position-which if I had been a member of Parliament at the time, I would have supported Churchill because the appeasement allowed Hitler to pretty much control the European countries.
    Churchill was not only devoted to Britain, but also the rest of Europe. "She [Czechoslovakia] has suffered in every respect by her association with the Western democracies and with the League of Nations, of which she has always been an obedient servant..." Churchill was willing to protect Britain's allies but he was unable to do so because of Chamberlain's eager actions.
    Churchill was a descendent of the duke of Marlborough who "had fought to prevent the domination of Europe by Louis XIV"(that's what the book says), so he had an innate opposition to the authority Hitler had dictated.

    By Blogger taylor, at Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:52:00 PM  

  • (dude.. what's with the random spam? how considerate of them..)

    Churchill seems to be the complete polar opposite of Chamberlain. Chamberlain is the kid in the sand box playing with the Tonka truck ignoring some guy with a gun bagging all these other kids and Churchill's the kid that takes Chamberlain's Tonka truck from him and smacks him upside the head with it. It shows, all in all, that Churchill wasn't one to take things lying down, getting a back massage. Any politician devoted to his country and those around it wouldn't ignore the eve of battle, but would prepare for it, and do what's best for the continent. Obviously Churchill was strong willed and prepared. If I were sitting in some board meeting with a bunch of other random MP's and Churchill stood and spoke all this, I'd be one to stand, raise my glass of brandy and shout, "Here, here!"

    Being a politician, a Brit, and a human being not receiving benefits from the Nazi rise to power, of course Churchill would feel ill about the current events. His description of the direction Hitler has taken towards other countries, the carelessness he's shown, imbues contempt and frustration. Even the description of the British action (ignoring Nazi domination and focusing on Italy) imbues guilt and frustration towards Chamberlain and appeasement. The way allied powers began treating events in the late 1930s was like a mouse with a store room of cheese, that goes after a single block of cheese rooms away, and comes back to find half the store room empty because he wasn't there to protect it. Poor mouse..

    By Blogger TeganLove, at Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:58:00 PM  

  • Churchill spoke without a shred of falseness or illusionment. Perhaps the opposite of Chamberlain. He says, in a way with far more eloquence, that Britian is in deep. That the world had many chances to prevent the current state it is in, but complacency and abuse of various political instruments foiled success at any of those chances. Churchill addresses not only domestic issues, but those pretaining to all of Europe. The fallen France and Czechoslovakia are mentioned, showing Churchill's concern for politics was perhaps not so narrow as his predecessor's. I would not be able to accurately guess my reaction were I a member of parliament at this particular time, as I tend to consider such things firmly within the you-had-to-be-completely-within-that-particular-situation sphere, but here goes. I probably would have agreed with Churchill on his criticism, simply on the principle that sacrificing what is not yours to give (Czechoslovakia) to achieve an end chiefly of your own concern is disgusting. As for POV, Churchill was speaking with a great deal of prescience and lucidity. Proping up a thin illusionment of had cost dearly, and more firmly settled in a sense of complacency.

    By Blogger laura, at Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:03:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home