Practice question · Multiple choice
Historians debate whether British policy was shaped primarily by severe structural constraints or by the political choices of individual leaders. What follows from adopting a counter-revisionist approach to appeasement?
Hints
- Does counter-revisionism dismiss the reality of the structural constraints identified by revisionists?
- How does counter-revisionism differ from determinism when evaluating key diplomatic junctures like 1938?
Show the answer
B. Ministers retained agency despite the genuine systemic limits
Why
Treating appeasement as an inevitable outcome of economic and imperial limits overlooks the deliberate political decisions taken at Rhineland and Munich. Counter-revisionism insists structural pressures bounded policy without entirely eliminating ministerial agency.
Practise The Road to the Second World War
The app has 7 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. History II is free to start.
More questions on The Road to the Second World War
- Germany occupied the remainder of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939, six months after Munich. Why is that…
- Arrange these acts of aggression and diplomacy in order.
- Which constraints do historians cite when explaining British policy in the later 1930s?
- Arrange the steps by which each unpunished action lowered the cost of the next.
- In which year was the Munich agreement signed, transferring the Sudetenland to Germany?
- Sort each statement by whether it describes the SOVIET UNION in the 1930s or the WESTERN POWERS.
- Historians distinguish between explaining a decision and justifying it. How does that distinction apply to…