[PLEASE help!!!] Is this an argument for or against appeasement, and why?

-With the following...please help! I have no idea if they are or not. My thoughts are in brackets.



(against)

Hitler鈥檚 comment after sending troops into

the Rhineland in 1936.

鈥淭he 48 hours after the march into the Rhineland were

the most nerve-racking of my life. If the French had

opposed us then we would have had to withdraw. Our

forces were not strong enough to even put up with

moderate resistance.鈥?br>


(against)

鈥淚 shall only decide to take action against

Czechoslovakia if I am convinced that France will

not march and that Britain will not intervene in the

situation.鈥?br>


(for)

鈥淔rom the military point of view, time is in our favour.

If war with Germany has to come, it would be better

to fight in six to twelve months time, instead of at this

moment.鈥?br>


(for)

March 1938: Should Britain promise to help

Czechoslovakia if Germany invades?

Yes: 33% No: 43% Undecided: 24%

October 1938: Hitler says that he has no more

territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?

Yes: 7% No: 93%



(for)

鈥淗itler seemed to be a man of deep sincerity and a

genuine patriot. Hitler was a simple sort of peasant, not

very intelligent and no serious danger to anyone.鈥?br>


(??)

There had been nothing weak or foolish about the

attitude of the Western leaders. They tried to settle

differences by discussion and conciliation, methods

that had been highly successful in the 1920s. Their

failure was due to the fact that Hitler took consolation

for weakness and found that he could get his own way.

He could have been stopped earlier but only at the

risk of war. Discussion was the method of gentlemen,

which explains why Chamberlain and the Western

leaders favoured it and Hitler did not.





Thank you SO Much!against

March 1938: Should Britain promise to help

Czechoslovakia if Germany invades?

Yes: 33% No: 43% Undecided: 24%

October 1938: Hitler says that he has no more

territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?

Yes: 7% No: 93%

appeasement didn't work, as shown by the HUGE change in public opinion



against

鈥淗itler seemed to be a man of deep sincerity and a

genuine patriot. Hitler was a simple sort of peasant, not

very intelligent and no serious danger to anyone.鈥?br>
The speaker SERIOUSLY misjudged Hitler



\against

There had been nothing weak or foolish about the

attitude of the Western leaders. They tried to settle

differences by discussion and conciliation, methods

that had been highly successful in the 1920s. Their

failure was due to the fact that Hitler took consolation

for weakness and found that he could get his own way.

He could have been stopped earlier but only at the

risk of war. Discussion was the method of gentlemen,

which explains why Chamberlain and the Western

leaders favoured it and Hitler did not.

agreement or appeasement only works if both parties are using the same script - a rarity.