Annotated Bibliography

Primary Sources

On-line Audio

Chamberlain, Neville, perf. “Anglo-German Agreement Response.” Rec. 30 Sept.

1938. Richard Dimbleby, 1938. BBC. Web. 13 Oct. 2010.

<www.bbc.co.uk/archive>.

The audio included in this source explains how the diplomacy of the Munich

Agreement has a significant affect on England and Chamberlain for the

better. Neville believed he had been done a favor by the Munich Agreement,

because it had possibly stopped war and was headed in the right direction.

This primary source is useful for the later parts of the project process

because it helps explain England's intentions and what they thought they

were getting into. It is both reliable, as it is a primary source, and bias,

though Chamberlain tries to support the Munich Agreement with his

viewpoint.

Govermental Documents

Germany. Neville Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Edouard Daladier.

“Munich Pact-September 29th, 1938.” Munich, 1938. Print.

This was another primary source which helped me get the real deal of what

was happening during the Munich Agreement, and the diplomacy that

occurred. This document helped confirm facts along with the specific terms of

the Munich Agreement that all countries had to follow. This helped me gain
 primary source background towards my topic, as it was one of the first

primary document I discovered. There is no bias shown as this is a

completely factual primary source, just showing what happened in the

Munich Pact, by displaying the actual sheets of paper. This is also reliable

because it is a primary document and from a reliable source.

Interviews

Stursa, Jiri. Interview. PBS. Web. 16 Jan. 2011.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/peoplescentury/episodes/lostpeace/stursatranscript.

html>.

This interview was important as it got me personal reactions from the Munich

Agreement. This Jiri Stursa was necessary in seeing what people thought of

the agreement. This person was a little bit of a bias source and probably not

that reliable of a primary source. It took place a little bit of time after the

agreement had already happened and the opinion of the interviewee might

have changed over time.

Newspaper Articles

"France's Future." The Glasgow Herold 6 Oct. 1938: 10. Google News. Web. 21 Dec.

2010.

<http://news.google.com/newspapersid=TA41AAAAIBAJ&sjid=pqULAAAAIBAJ&p
 g=2401,838479&dq=british+debate+over+the+munich+agreement&hl=en>.

This was another one of those primary sources that helped me discover the

effect on the Munich Agreement. Though, this article was particularly helpful

because it concentrated on the effect to France as seen directly after the

Munich Agreement. The newspaper helped me realize the effects on France

from the pact as perceived at the time period. Since this was a primary

source it is to be considered reliable. Also, there wasn’t much bias, mostly

just analysis of what was occurring in the recent past.

"The Munich Pact on Godesburg Lines." Evening Post 28 Nov. 1938, Volume CXXVI ,

Issue 129. Papers Past. Web. 11 Jan. 2011.

<paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=EP19381128.2.62>.

From the content in this newspaper article, I got out the immediate results

on the Munich Agreement. Also the part unique to this article that was

included was the comparison of what Hitler had previously asked for to the

terms agreed on in the Munich Agreement. This comparison helped me

conclude reasons for the diplomacy that occurred. There was no bias in this

article as it was just listing the facts as well as what was going to happen and

what already happened. This source was also a reliable primary one.

Political Cartoons

"Germany Crushing Austria." Cartoon. JohnDClare. 1939. Print.

This political cartoon was one that wasn't helpful that much but gave me a

variety in sources to analyze and come to a fuller understanding on the

Munich pact. What this source did help me with was understanding how
 Britain and France felt towards Germany, including what was in store for

Czechoslovakia. This helped me understand possibly why the Munich

Agreement was created. This source seems reliable because it was a primary

source made just after the Munich Agreement. Though there is bias towards

what France did, showing that they acted in shock and didn't take action

while Germany attacked fellow countries. This is because the source felt

France did nothing when other sources have different opinion on the subject.

Speeches

Chamberlain, Neville. “Reaction from Munich Agreement.” London, OD. n.d.

Keynote Speech.

This was a live recording that was later produced into the document, which

has some key advantages. By recognizing the tone of what the speech was

in, and how Chamberlain said it, it was easier to interpret that he directed it

at getting better as a country, and really meant what he said. This was useful

to tie up loose ends and help give consequences as well as failures of the

agreement. This was a reliable source as it was primary, and there was only

a little bias presented towards the topic that was being addressed in the

speech. This was necessary though, to provide hope for Britain's future.

Videos

Signing the Munich Agreement-1938. Perf. Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain.
 Critical Past. Web. 3 Nov. 2010.

dea<www.criticalpast.com/>.

This video helped me dig deeper, and get the real deal of the key aspects of

the Munich failure. This prelude to World War 2 agreement, as interpreted

along the lines signing of in the video, was in a way a bulk of the diplomacy

in Munich because it was what occurred subsequently to the countries

meeting and discussing for the second, and longest, time. There was no bias

in this source because it was just watching the facts of what occurred on the

night of September 29th, 2010, with mostly video, and little sound. This

video was also reliable because of it being from a reputable source's

archives, and it being from the time the pact occurred.

Secondary Sources

Advertisements

National History Museum-Munich Agreement. Advertisement. Web. 3 November

2010. <www.youtube.com/>.

This advertisement was important to my research because it displayed really

the essence of how important the Munich Agreement was and still is. With

little word usage, it explained what the Munich Agreement did toward

Czechoslovakia and how important it was to them. There was a little bias in

this ad as it is showed the pact a little highly to get more publicity. Though

this can be considered a reliable source because it contains many primary

historical documents and is known by many as one.

Books

Margilat, Avishai. “On Compromises and Rotten Compromises.” Priceton: Priceton

UP, 2010. Print.

Giving me information of the actual diplomacy of the Munich Agreement

along with its failures is why this book was primarily important. What stood

out with this source is that it made me look deeper into my topic and really

realize what's actually going on. This is a highly bias source because it leans

towards portraying the Munich Agreement as truly something rotten, but this

is important in understanding my topic, and both sides. It is also reliable,

because it includes countless sources and primary sources.

Interviews

Stanton, Frederik. "An Interview with Fredrik Stanton, Author of Great

Negotiations." Interview. Blog Crittics. 24 May 2010. Web. 30 Dec. 2010.

<http://blogcritics.org/books/article/an-interview-with-fredrik-stanton-author/>.

This secondary source helped discover much on the point of view of authors

who had actually written about the Munich Agreement. I was able to discover

Stanton’s point of view on the agreement and that it was a “failure,” and why

it was so. This interview was definitely bias but this was necessary in

understanding points of view on the topic. Though, the source of the

interview was extremely reliable, because the novel he was talking about was

backed up with numerous of both primary and secondary source.

Videos
Munich 1938: New Facts about Old Secrets. World News. Film.

In all 26 minutes of this important video it was packed with information on

how World War II may have started because of the Munich Agreement and

Hitler's intentions, are just some of the many. This video is particularly

important for these reasons, and will also be useful to get pictures and key

information from in my creation of a website. This source is a non-bias one

as all it does is state facts and just shows what happened during the time.

This can also be considered an extremely reliable source because it comes

from a known news publisher and contains multiple primary footage and

pictures.

Debating Munich Agreement. Youtube.com. 2008. Web. 1 Nov. 2011.

This video of people debating over the Munich Agreement was helpful in

noticing the two different opinions on whether it was a success or a failure.

The debate video also contained many primary quotes said at the time which

was useful in supporting what information I learned about the Munich

Agreement. Even though this video did not come from a reliable source, it

contained much reliable information. The quotes and debate are both crucial

to producing a better quality website. The source where this came from is not

reliable and the video is bias in both ways, supporting both sides. This

basically cancels out the biasness and gives away a masterpiece product.

Websites

“Appeasing Hitler: The Failure of the Munich Agreement.” Wordpress, 2010. Web.

27
 October 2010.

<http://aurorahistoryboutique.com/>

As one can tell by the title, this blog and article focused on the failure of the

Munich Agreement. Hitler's greediness and England's determined attempt to

create peace, were the main point of the article. By showing the failures of it,

which was unique to the source, one can display why the topic is a diplomacy

and a debate and why it was mostly a failure. There was a lot of bias in my

source because of the author putting her viewpoint in to the article and

saying the agreement was flat out destructive. The source of this article was

also not reliable, nor was it supported by sources.

"Czechoslovakia in World War II." World War II Multmedia Database. Web. 01 Jan.

2011. <http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/czech.htm>.

This website helped truly find out the effect of the war on Czechoslovakia. I

found that the Czechoslovakians had an extremely tough time and were not

pleased with the agreement. Ultimately, the source helped me find out that

they were left in ruins. This database was both bias and only a little reliable,

but it gave information from a certain side which was necessary in

understanding the consequences of the agreement.

“Hitler Appeased at Munich.” History (This day in History), n.d. Web. 18 October

2010.

<www.history.com/this-day-in-history>

This website told much of the Munich Agreement's context and focused in

parts on its impacts on different countries. The impact and consequences is

what this article mostly focused on. There seemed to be no bias because the
 source was just merely explaining the facts, but it can't be considered

reliable because there are no sources listed and no references mentioned.

“Hitler's Desk.” London: Associated Newspapers LTD, 2008. Web. 24 October 2010.

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wordnews/>

Even though this source isn't directly related topic, it made some key

references including suggesting how important the Munich Agreement it is,

based on the reaction of the public. This information on the Munich

Agreement will help me show my topic and how it affected the time period

and it's significance in those late 1930's. There is little bias in the article as

the author sways towards how influential the Munich Agreement was to

society, though this is necessary to understand both sides of the argument.

There are some primary and secondary sources which makes this source

reliable.

“Holocaust and World War II: Timeline.” US Holocaust Memorial Museum, n.d. Web.

24 October 2010.

<www.ushmm.org/wic/en/>

This time-line was particularly important for supplying me with more context

on how multiple wars and Hitler's acceptance into office, led up to the

diplomacy of the Munich Agreement. The use for this source was more

necessary in the early going stages of researching but none the less it is

crucial to understanding my topic. There was little bias in it and the

source seemed reliable because it had multiple sources to support the factual

data.

“Munich Agreement.” New World Encyclopedia, 2008. Web. 29 October 2010.

 <www.newworldenclclopedia.org/entry/Munich_Agreement>

This encyclopedia article gave me particularly clear and key understanding on

the reasons from the German side of the Munich Agreement. This is useful to

help display knowledge on the causes of the Munich pact, from different

sides. For these reasons, the agreement also displays a little bit of bias, but

mostly not because it is a factual encyclopedia. There are many sources

considered and described, making the document reliable.

“Munich Agreement (Europe).” Bitanica, 2010. Web. 11 October 2010.

<www.britannica.com/>

The encyclopedia definition of the Munich Pact as described in this source,

gave information on what led up to the Munich agreement. This is what I was

looking for on the topic, and it gave me the events which both Hitler took in

his goal of domination and Chamberlain took, in his goal of peace, before the

agreement. There was little to no bias described decause it was mostly just a

definition with background information. Though, this source can not always

be considered reliable because there is not other sources used to back up the

information.

“Nazis take Czechoslovakia.” The History Place, 2001. Web. 23 October 2010.

<www.historyplace.com/>

There were little pieces in this source on reaction and views that stood out

and what I was looking for. Even though this is a secondary source, it

contains much primary information on how people reacted to the failures of

the pact and how it was useful. There is bias in the people's reactions, but it

is necessary in understanding the topic. No sources are listed so it can't be

 considered reliable.

Oberg, Kirstin. “The Munich Agreement-September 29,1939.” David W. Keller,

2003.

Web. 11 October 2010

<www.thenagain.info/>

This secondary source just gave me more context on what happened during

late September of 1938 when the agreement was signed. This information

helped me understand my topic more in the beginning and was useful just to

back up information as I continued to research. There was no bias in this

source, as it was mostly just facts, and little fact-based opinions.

Reliableness was also present as numerous sources were stated.

Simkin, John. “Spartacus Education: Munich Agreement.” Milton Keynes: Spartacus

Education, 1997. Web. 1 December 2010.

<http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmunich.htm>

The main points of this website that deemed important, focused on the

debate that took place in the Munich Agreement. The source briefly

mentioned both sides of the argument, what took place both before and after

the diplomacy, and the consensuses that took place. The author is a highly

educated historian, who's whole life runs around making such articles. Even

though no articles and sources are mentioned, it can be assumed that from

this the article is at least a bit reliable. There is not bias shown in the article,

as it gives no opinion on the topic.

“The Munich Agreement: Peace for our time.” History in an Hour, 2010. Web. 9

October 2010.
 <www.historyinanhour.com/>

This website entry was like many others, one that gave background

information on the Munich Agreement. Though, what was unique on this

source was it gave primary picture footage which was useful in

understanding what was happening along with give supporting primary

evidence to points made on a project. This source is reliable because it contains

sources, including primary ones, and is also not bias because it is a mostly just

stating the information source.

Wheeler-Bennet, J.W. “Munich Pact.” Encyclopedia.com, 2008. Web. 13 October

2010.

<www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Munich_pact.aspx>

This website was useful mostly on getting a full understanding on what was

actually happening during the Munich Agreement. It was another one

of those sources that just tied up loose ends on Germany's, Italy's, and USA's

involvement in the diplomacy. This source did not have a real works cited so

it can't be considered reliable. There is no bias in this source because it just

explains about the context and involvement in the topic, diplomacy, and

debate.