Okay, here is a question that I am having trouble with. Not necessarily the question, but what Jessica Mitford's biography means. Here is the question:
"Read the following excerpt from the British writer Jessica Mitford’s autobiography in which she comments on Germany’s attack on the Netherland’s and other European countries in 1940. Then answer the question below.
Do you agree or disagree with Mitford’s view of Chamberlain’s appeasment policy? Why or Why not?"
And here is her autobiography excerpt:
"On the 9th of May, 1940, a month after Chamberlain had looked into his clouded crystal ball, there to find that Hitler "missed the bus", and was no longer capable of waging aggressive war, the Germans struck... Within hours the Germans had swept through Holland... and the French front was reported to be in mortal danger, perhaps already lost...."
2006-11-02 19:21:50 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Sorry, I ran out of room haha here's the rest:
"Out of the wild confusion of these first few days of the attack... the real nature of the danger confronting Europe had exposed for all to see and understand the criminal stupidity of the years of shabby deals and accomodation to Hitler's ambitions. Overnight, the appeasment policy was buried forever"
Okay, so again my question is what is Jessica Mitford talking about haha? I mean... it sounds like she is Anti-Chamberlain, am I right or wrong? Please help me!
2006-11-02 19:24:12 · update #1
+ bereneezypie,
I see where you are coming from and a lot of our democratic and diplomatic principles stem from the desire to please and appease for a peaceful solution. Chamberlain was a great example of what can and can't work. It will have to be a judgment call on someones part each and every time we negotiate. Hopefully never to the extent that Chamberlain made.
Take a look at the differing views in the link below and see if you don't agree with me about a case by case solution.
Good luck as you have picked a hard question.
2006-11-05 15:26:19 · answer #1 · answered by Clamdigger 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Chaberlain will go down in history as "wimp" and appeaser to the greatest villian in history. Scholars now say if Hitler had been rebalked in his demands several German leaders were planing to overthrow Hitler. Atlas Chamberlain did give in and put the Allies in a tighter situation than they should have been. But was it not for vain because Churchill was the lone voice that spoke for fighting. And when Britian and the Allies were finally pushed into that corner the people looked to Wilson Churchill for leadership. It seems great leaders often follow in power after the reign of someone who shouldn't probably have been present. We all realize now that Hitler should have been fought every inch of the way. As a leader he is subject to the consequances of his actions and decisions. Jessica Mitford wants to make people remember that.
2006-11-03 04:05:59 · answer #2 · answered by Mark S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Chamberlain knew by that time that Hitler had not "missed the bus". Poland had been split up between Germany and the Soviet Union by that time and war had already been declared.
Chamberlain misinterpreted Germany until the invasion into Poland, but not afterwards. However, there was not much time left until the war broke out and especially the French army was oldfashioned and weak. But by the time the war broke out Chamberlain knew it would come.
So I don't agree on Milfords view.
Hey, I didn't see your second part until now, so yes, I also think she is anti-Chamberlain !
2006-11-02 19:26:32 · answer #3 · answered by Great Muslim 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Her attitude is very much anti-Chamberlain. Until recently I accepted the conventional wisdom that Chamberlain was a sniveling appeaser. However, lately I have been interested in the idea that the UK was in no shape to wage war with Germany in 1938, so Chamberlain was wise to buy time to re-arm with the Munich agreement. In any case, I do agree that hindsight is easy when it comes to judging the man.
2006-11-02 20:09:49 · answer #4 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
<>It is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, and like most great historical events, there are rampant MMQBs with opinions on the 'appeasment of Hitler.' While never wildly popular, appeasment had its appeal to many in that it was hoped that 'minor' concessions would stave off war. When it didn't, everyone, even the supporters, managed to get in their "I-told-you-so's" and that 'scapegoat' attitude has survived to the present day. An biographer should be objective; he or she can set aside a designated section of the book for personal opinion, but the life story should be objective. Just the facts, please. Ms. Mitford is showing her bias, and therefore her ignorance, in her writings.
2006-11-02 19:29:04 · answer #5 · answered by druid 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋