|
Sempringham eLearning resources
The contribution of the Study Centre to topic study |
||
|
The appeasement topic, a topic that has generated controversy for over 50 years, shows in sharp relief the contribution of the Sempringham Study Centre and its resources to advanced student History study. The Study Centre includes 6 articles on the appeasement theme, published by Sempringham between 1996 and 2005. Each well-written contribution, in the new perspective format with summary, questions to consider and so on, is a self-contained article and although there is some overlap, each contribution has a discreet theme and focus. Taken together, they provide a far more complete picture of the appeasement topic, a topic that is particularly suited to the formation of judgment and for debate. Our page ‘Making sense of appeasement’ is one narrative thread based on use of the 6 articles but other narrative threads, arguments and debates, based on the same sources, can be discerned. A few are available to those with Study Centre access. In very bald terms, and taking the articles in the order of publication, R.A.C Parker states the post-revisionist view associated with his name, a view less sympathetic to Chamberlain who he criticises for not seeking alternatives appeasement after the Anschluss and for the limited co-operation developed between opposers’ to Hitler. John Garland emphasises Chamberlain’s early experience and particularly the impact of the First World War on the Chamberlain family as a reason for his pursuit of peace. Philip Bell was a specialist on both French as well as British foreign policy of the time. He brings out the stresses between the two countries in responding to the German question from the time of the Peace of Versailles, 1918-19. David Dutton’s article, written a little time after his book on Chamberlain in the Hodder Arnold Reputations series was published, provides a helpful summary of the historiography, from Guilty Men to Revisionism and then R.A.C. Parker and the post revisionists. Robert Pearce’s article is in the vein of the post-revisionists but puts more emphasis on Churchill’s response to events as well as Churchill’s probable policy, and its consequences, had he gained power earlier while John Garland’s second contribution focuses on the time after September 1938, through to the start of war and then Chamberlain’s resignation and his support in Cabinet of Churchill in May 1940. That support provides an opportunity to gain a truer understanding of Chamberlain’s aims during the high point of appeasement because John Garland brings to attention the evidence that Chamberlain did not seek ‘peace at any price’. If this was not his policy at the time of Munich in September 1938, then students need to ask, what was his policy? Our paragraphs in the ‘Making sense of appeasement’ file offer an answer. At Sempringham we have argued elsewhere † that the essence of the work of the historical community is an assembly of events and identification of connections between them. Discussion and debate focus on evidence and judgement as connections are explored and refined. This is the activity that engages students and motivates them and topics such as appeasement are powerful channels to achieve this for the History teacher/tutor.
† Sempringham Study Centre. Promoting good practice:
eLearning presentations for teachers. 2. Motivation. |
|