# data[].attributes.body
Hypothesis of document A and B: appeasement was the right decision to make in England in 1938. The real meaning behind it was peace and war corrupts this idea. So for the peace to maintain a stability with each country, I believe that appeasement was the right idea for the general population.

# data[].attributes.body
Was appeasement the right policy for England in 1938? Cite evidence from the documents to support your answer.
Hypothesis: I do not think the appeasement was the right policy for England in 1938 because it made Hitler spoiled - he got everything he wanted. They could have stopped hitler earlier so that Hitler could not gain as much control of lands. However, Winston Churchill and Chamberlain acknowledged Hitler's power later on.

# data[].attributes.body
Was appeasement the right policy for England in 1938?
I believe that appeasement was the correct policy to benefit England in 1938. Chamberlain and Churchill were able to recognize Hitler's power.  "n my view it is that we should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will." This quote proves Chamberlain's understanding of current events. His want to communicate before war can help Britain form a good relationship with Germany. Even though Britain could easily be turned against, it was intelligent to form a bond between Germany and Britain for future purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
hypothesis #2: I do not think the appeasement was right for England in 1938 because I think Hitler abused the power he was given. He took far more than what he was supposed to. It also gave Hitler more time to strategize about the war. Hitler got everything he wanted. I think that England would have had a better outcome in the end if they had not agreed to the appeasement. There are still some good points on the appeasement but overall I do not think it was the right decision for England.

# data[].attributes.body
I think appeasement was the right thing to do in 1938. Europe did not want another war and wasn't ready for a war, so if appeasement was the only idea to maybe stop a war from coming, they had to try. During the time before Hitler broke it, countries could get ready in case of war, and people knew their country did everything they could to stop a war from coming. Just as Lord Halifax said, "When war did come a year later [in 1939] it found a country and Commonwealth (the United Kingdom) wholly united within itself, convinced to the foundations of soul and conscience that every conceivable effort had been made to find the way of sparing Europe the ordeal of war."

Even if appeasement gave Hitler more power, it still gave England more time to get ready for war and know they did everything they could to stop it.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that the appeasement was right for England in 1938 because it provided Hitler with all of the power that he wanted. I think that with the appeasement Hitler was not going to be stopped, he was going to get what he wanted because of the appeasement. I think that with Chamberlain being in panic mode allowed Hitler to gain even more power because he knows that struggle from his people or struggle from

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that appeasement was the right policy because Hitler was no where near the point of stopping his reign on the countries in Europe. I can fully understand how people would enjoy the thought of no war and peace, but I think it seemed almost too good to be true when a dangerous man was in the midst of taking over. Winston Churchill stated: "We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude which has befallen Great Britain and France. . . . This is only the beginning of the reckoning." Churchill realized that this Appeasement gave Hitler more access to more people, and he started to realize that Hitler was not going to stop with his brutal forces. I think that if appeasement had been stopped, more people's lives may have been saved and people could have come together sooner to stop him.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the appeasement was the wrong move for England because Hitler and Germany were able to get away with taking over Czechoslovakia. "defending a country (Czechoslovakia) from which the German armies could be out-flanked.”

# data[].attributes.body
I don't believe that appeasement was the right policy 1938. aThough I can understand the thinking behind it and documents C and D make good arguments it seems that things would have worked out better in the end. "but I am firmly convinced that, had Chamberlain stood firm at Godesberg, Hitler would either have climbed down or would have begun war with far less support from his own people than he had a year later"(Bartlett). Vernon Bartlett makes the point that despite British forces were not ready fro war in anyway standing against Hitler would've stalled his plans in made him an easier opponent. Furthermore appeasement only helps the British and puts countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia in difficult and helpless situations. Lastly seeing that Hitler was a Fascist leader it would not seem likely that he would stay out of wars in the first place.

# data[].attributes.body
Was appeasement the right policy for England in 1938?
I do not think appeasement was the right policy for England in 1938 because it allowed Hitler to get exactly what he wanted. He got more land and more territory, this made him even more powerful. They could have prevented Hitler from gaining control of land and the League of Nations could have stopped Hitler and the Nazis early, solving many problems to come. Instead, the League of Nations is doing nothing to stop him from getting what he wants. I think England just wanted to do anything that didn't lead to war and that is why appeasement seemed like the right idea to them. In conclusion, they should not have used appeasement, they should have used Churchill's idea instead.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not believe that the appeasement policy was the right move for England. It did benefit England by giving them more time to prepare for war, but I agree with Bartlett when he said that, "had Chamberlain stood firm at Godesberg, Hitler would either have climbed down or would have begun war with far less support from his own people than he had a year later." Not only did this also give Hitler time to prepare for war, but he also ended up taking much more that what he was allowed. Hitler completely ignored his agreement, showing the way that he repeated is given an inch and takes a mile. Henry Channon says that, "no balder, bolder departure from the written bond has ever been committed in history." With a man like Hitler, I believe it was most important to restrict him enough that he didn't abuse even the small amounts of power that were given to him. This also happened in his rise to power, starting as chancellor and becoming a totalitarian dictator. Hitler and the Nazis are one group in history that should not have been appeased due to their tendency to disregard any and all rules when it comes to restricting their power.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that the appeasement policy was good for England in 1938. Although it may have seemed like the only option to keep peace, it ended up hurting them. Neville Chamberlain was trying to do what he thought was best for his country by keeping peace and not interfering. I agree with Winston Churchill when he said, "I have always held the view that the maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor, coupled with a sincere effort to redress grievances," because it shows how everyone wants peace but by removing yourself from a situation can make it worse.

# data[].attributes.body
Was appeasement the right policy for England in 1938? Cite evidence from the documents to support your answer.
I believe that appeasement was the right decision made by England because it promoted peace and spread the word that they didn't want another war so close to terrible WW1. "behind the diplomacy is the strength to give effect. . . . I cannot help feeling that if, after all, war had come upon us, the people of this Country would have lost their spiritual faith altogether" Neville Chamberlain promotes peace and he thinks that if there was another war, countries would have a hard time to unify after because of how close to WW1 they were.

# data[].attributes.body
Hypothesis #1: Appeasement was the correct policy for England in 1938 because if they had not agreed to this policy, Hitler would have still gone on with his mission of taking Czechoslovakia, but most likely with much greater force. Since Hitler is one of the most power hungry dictators to this day,  just disagreeing with his want for the Sudetenland would fuel his mission even more as he defies the people who strive to get in his way. Like Chamberlain said, war is inevitable. His reasoning was that we must try to provide the power-hungry beast with what he wants before it's too late. But Chamberlain was unaware of how uncontrollable Hitler would become.

# data[].attributes.body
Was appeasement the right policy for England in 1938? Cite evidence from the documents to support your answer

1. I think it was the right idea because as Neville Chamberlain stated, "In my view it is that we should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will." If England gave Germany the land and Germany respected the rules, there would be less conflict and no war. Germany did end up taking more of the land. Looking from Churchill's view I do believe Hitler is harsh in seizing countries, but would you rather be seized or give away the country? He also states that, "Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi regime," meaning that Hitler ill take that country any way he can.