cameronmichelle2
contestada

Imagine that you are an advisor to the british prime minister neville chamberlain in the late 1930s. chamberlain is deeply worried that europe is on the brink of a major war and wants to prevent it. he asks you to write a three point plan that could secure peace in europe. briefly outline three policy suggestions and explain how your suggestions will prevents further conflict. use historical evidence from the course to support your response.

Respuesta :

ShyzaSling
The three point plan for the possible prevention of a war in Europe would be:
1. Aggressive Stance: Chamberlain has been following a policy of appeasement till now. This is leading to the growth of the Nazi Germany and the government back tracking from the Treat of Versailles.

Hitler knows Britain is weak after World War I and it will avoid a conflict but this is something Germany must not know. Clear, aggressive messages via diplomatic channels should be sent regularly to ensure that British will respond swiftly and decisively if the balance of power in Europe is changed.

2. Support Local parties: Britain can use various diplomatic, educational and other channels to provide support to moderate political parties which are at an ideological odds with the Nazi.
The Nazis have been supporting rebels in Spain and Britain has enough resources to actually support home grown movements from within Germany with ease.

3. Move forces: Britain was clearly staying out of Europe after World War I, but a more fierce approach would be to provided full military support to France in the wake of the Nazis.
Moving a few British elite battalions on the borders of France and Germany would send an even stronger messages that Britain wants the Status quo to remain.

Answer:

Sample Response: While both speeches rely on logical evidence to support their reasons and claims, they differ quite substantially in how they use this evidence. Chamberlain uses logical evidence, pointing to what may happen to the empire if the status quo were to change. He also relies on anecdotal evidence, specifically his personal stories as a soldier, to try to convince his audience that his claims are true. Nehru, on the other hand, uses some logical evidence, but mostly relies on appeals to support his claim. Nehru leans heavily on pathos, or emotional appeals. He talks of a bright future, stirring his audience’s desire for independence. Nehru claims that, through hard work, an independent India could be great for each and every citizen.

Explanation:

gave me the answer

Otras preguntas