https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3 en-us 2019-03-22 10:45:05 UTC 2019-03-22 14:04:35 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344213635 hypothesis #1- 
Appeasement was a poor choice for England because giving in to Hitler and his demands gave him the power to start a war.  Winston Churchill says, "I have always held the view that the maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor." In this he is saying that in order to keep peace they need to discourage Hitler from his ideas.

]]> 2019-03-22 13:52:40 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344213635 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344213808 A+B:
Appeasement was not the right choice for England during 1938. Chamberlain says, "by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will". Hitler already knew by the league of nations that just because someone says something does not mean that they will follow through with their procedure. In small arguments with people, talking might be the way to go, but with a terrible person like Hitler, it certainly is not easy to reason with him. When Chamberlain uses the phrase "good will" to go about stopping Hitler, I do not get it. How can you go about something so calmly and without doing "bad" to someone who is doing so much wrong and has no good intentions for his country or the rest of the world. Churchill states, "I venture to think that in the future the Czechoslovak State cannot be maintained as an independent entity. You will find that in a period of time, which may not be measured by years, but may be measured only by months", this shows how quickly Hitler was moving and that it needed to be stopped immediately. ]]> 2019-03-22 13:52:58 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344213808 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344213830 A and B
Appeasement was not right for England because they were not strict with Hitler and that gave him more power and confidence that he could continue to take and take. Winston Churchill stated, "the German dictator, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course. . . ." (Churchill). This quote expresses by relenting and giving into Hitler, he continued to get what he wanted over and over again. Churchill also said, "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." From this quote it is also clear that Churchill realized that this was not the best way to keep peace, instead by giving into Hitler, it helped Hitler create a perfect weapon for the start of the war. It meant that he had a leg up in the war and Britain was a little behind because they wanted to keep the peace and was not strict with Hitler.]]> 2019-03-22 13:53:01 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344213830 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344213876 Appeasement was not the right policy for England because by giving in to Hitler, they gave him more population and land that gave him power to begin World War II.  Winston Churchill stated in his speech that, "The utmost he [Chamberlain] has been able to gain for Czechoslovakia ... has been that the German dictator, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course..." (Churchill). Churchill is saying that instead of helping Czechoslovakia by punishing or preventing Hitler from taking their land, Chamberlain nearly gave him the land and almost told him to take it. If it were not for the appeasement policy, Hitler would not have taken Sudetenland, or all of Czechoslovakia for that matter, and may have had less power.]]> 2019-03-22 13:53:07 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344213876 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344214773 Hypothesis for A and B: 
I agree with Neville Chamberlain when he discussed how Europe neede to "remove" violence and conflict by saying- "...by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them...". I think that was he said was very appealing to the audience and very well said, but I believe he took the ordeal too lightly when using the policy of Appeasment. I agree with Winston Churchill when he discussed how Germany needed to be under closer attention. The intro of document B states that, "He [Winston Churchill] believed that Hitler and Germany needed to be dealt with more firmly". I believe that to really keep something under control, force is usually always vital in these situations. Appeasment is a good idea for most situations, but I feel that this one needed more force and more contribution instead of neglecting Hitler and Germany's actions. ]]> 2019-03-22 13:54:44 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344214773 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344215230 Hypothesis 2:
For England itself appeasement was a better choice because they were not ready to go to war as Barlett had said: "The British forces, one is told, were scandalously unprepared-", and didn't have the preparations they had a year later. But for other countries it was worse, such as Czechoslovakia because they might have been protected had England not chosen appeasement. If England had not chosen appeasement Hitler would have most likely started the war, with less support, or surrendered as Barlett said. I personally believe it was the wrong choice]]> 2019-03-22 13:55:31 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344215230 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344215727 Documents C, D, and E
Hypothesis #2

I think that although this may have not brought the most ideal outcome for the British, it wasn't the worst outcome. The appeasement gave the British time before the war to prepare themselves so when they went to fight Germany (/the Triple Axis), they "found a country and Commonwealth (the United Kingdom) wholly united within itself" (Document E). Henry Channon states, " he gave us six months of peace in which we re-armed, and he was right to try appeasement.” (Document D)

]]> 2019-03-22 13:56:23 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344215727 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344215769 Hypothesis #2:
I believe that appeasement was not the right policy for England in 1938. Like Vernon Bartlett said, "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". Other articles argue that though appeasement was a failed effort to keep the peace, it provided England the opportunity to grow in strength and organization. I argue that it also provided Hitler a chance to gain strength and followers, and it was simply a weak delay of the inevitable. Furthermore, in Chamberlain rolling over so easily, he set the stage for Hitler continually abusing his power. In giving him an inch, he would take a mile. ]]> 2019-03-22 13:56:26 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344215769 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344215795 I think that appeasement was not the right policy for England, because they seemed to just sit back and watch as Hitler took over all of these other countries. Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi regime. . . . 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” (Document B From this quote, they seem to know that Czechoslovakia will eventually be conquered by the Nazis even though they say that they can guarantee the security of it. ]]> 2019-03-22 13:56:29 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344215795 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344215970 C, D, and E
I think that appeasement was a bad idea when it comes to Hitler. History had proven already that Hitler could not be controlled, and he would not stop unless somebody stopped him. When Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, :no balder, bolder departure from the written bond has ever been committed in history." This proves that Hitler would never stop, for he was bold and power thirsty.]]> 2019-03-22 13:56:47 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344215970 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344216002 C, D, E
Hypothesis #2

I do not think appeasement was the right choice for England.It enabled Hitler to gain more control. Document D states; "His whole policy of appeasement is in ruins. Munich is a torn-up episode. Yet never has he been proved more abundantly right for he gave us six months of peace in which we re-armed, and he was right to try appeasement.”  This statement supports the Prime Minister disastification with the appeasement , for it was not supportive to England.

]]> 2019-03-22 13:56:50 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344216002 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344216271 Hypothesis A and b
I beleive Appeasement was not right for England in 1938. I agree with the ideas of Winston Churchhill,  "He believed that Hitler and Germany needed to be dealt with more firmly." The British and other outisde powers needed to handle the Germans firmly and not give them choice or time/words to be able to manipulate England to let them do what they want. The Bristish basically succombed to war when they did this, because they had let the Nazis think they could do whatever they want with no people stopping them.]]> 2019-03-22 13:57:14 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344216271 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344216388 Hypothesis #1:
I think that chamberlain thought that appeasement was a good thing and when he said that Europe needed to remove violence but i think they should have at least had some kind of consequence or price instead of just handing over what ever they wanted just to avoid some thing that they knew would be inevitable. ]]> 2019-03-22 13:57:28 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344216388 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344216453 hypothesis #2
chamberlain believed that appeasement was right for england, because it gave them a breather from the dealiness of WWI and time to prepare themselves to fight germany. however, i do not think it was their wisest choice because they were practically giving in to hitler.]]> 2019-03-22 13:57:35 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344216453 kross221 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344216937 Hypothesis #2:
Appeasement seemed to not be the best policy for England. The passiveness that the appeasement brought was even more of a motivator for Hitler to initiate the war.]]> 2019-03-22 13:58:23 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344216937 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344217017 Hypothesis #1: 
I think that appeasement was not the right choice for England because as Hitler tried to conquer other countries and build up his military, even though he was told not to during ]]> 2019-03-22 13:58:32 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344217017 https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344217023 Hypothesis 2:
Appeasement seemed like the wise choice for England. One of the reasons is because they were not prepared. According to document C, they "were scandalously unprepared". If they were to just jump into a war unprepared, they would have easily lost and then England may not be standing here today. ]]> 2019-03-22 13:58:33 UTC https://padlet.com/phiort1_1/6qqgsx3sosp3/wish/344217023