Sunday, January 29, 2006

the Gr8 APPEASEMENT Deb8

In January, The Greenfield Year 10 pupils debated the rights and wrongs of appeasement.

Feel free to add your own comments.

(If you are interested, you can see the comments made by a previous year group, or read another debate on appeasement here.)

155 comments:

thouce said...

If britain had Stopped Hitler in 1938, Before he built up his air force (the luftwaffe) The blitz may not have happened

Emmgan said...

Yeah, but they should not have started appeasing him in the first place. Did Chamberlain really think Hitler would stop once he knew he could get his own way?

Adaood said...

I agree with Thouce because if britain stopped him sooner then war would havebeen avoided

Adaood said...

Also how would you know that Hitler would have just gone to war with us anyway

andage said...

i agree with thomas if we did stop him earlier then we would stopped a beatable Hitler at war but we appeased him way too much we need more action less talking. chamberlain was just part of Hitler jigsaw to build a better germany we were to nice for our own good to germany it was our fault we gave them the land so it was us who brought war on ourselves.

emmtin said...

in my opinion it should have all bin nipped in the bud when hitler started building up his armies and if he had declared war ( wich in my opinion would have bin stupid) he would have lost because we had much more of a advantage over him he only had a tiny navy no airforce(luff waffe) and we had more man power than him it was not much of a advantage but we did have a advantage the war could have bin stopped in its tracks chaimberlin was just trying to be better than he was.

Anonymous said...

If it had been stopped in the first place then there would be less chance of war occuring. We should of nipped it in the bud before it was too late and the situation had gotten out of control.

artlee said...

i agree with anonymous. In my opinion Chamberlain was only delaying inevitable war, Hitler was a warlike man who didn't believe that Germany weren't beaten in ww1. He wanted revenge for ww1 and so did the Germans, thats why they elected him. obviously, Hitler knew that there was going to be war and wanted it too, but he was trying to gain as much land/ army enhancements as possible before Chamberlain stopped appeasing.

Chello said...

I agree with emmgan, when hitler knew he could get his own way, he would just keep wanting more and more. Appeasing him encouraged him to think he could have anything he wanted.

garler said...

i agree with Chello the more he got the more he wanted.

sopson said...

When i look at half these comments im like what are you all going on about? Appeasment was the answer that saved many britains. If chamberlain had not of appeased hitler as much as he did, the british needed time and thats what appeasement bought us. Time to start preparing the weapons that would save our lives. Time to make safe shelters and teach people how to wear gas masks. Time to evacuate millions of children to safe houses in the country. I totally agree with appeasment. I mean if we had not of had the time that Chamberlain had bought us, the war would not of been won by the rightfull people. Chamberlain may have appeared weak by appeasing such a man as hitler, but in reality, he bought us time, and life for the next generation.

Chello said...

Appeasing hitler may have bought Britain more time to rearm and build up our armies, but it also bought hitler time to do the same, which meant when it came to war, Hitler's army was harder to defeat than it would have been if we went to war earlier.

Anonymous said...

if we had gone to war earlier we would have lost any way because we wouldnt have a big enought men we would have been defeated.

artlee said...

I disagree with Sopson's point. Not only did appeasement give Hitler time to build up his army
(it was still a lot more powerful than Britains)but it also abandoned many people like the Czechs and Austrians to the treacherous rule of Hitlers Nazis. People lost their freedom as they were so afriad of the nazis terror. For example, the Austrians who opposed German rule all got put in prison. They simply had no choice in the matter.

emmtin said...

sopson what are you going on about! Hitler was a evil genius (yes i hate saying that but its true) And you do not appease a evil man like that because its like blowing up a balloon by appeasing him it was like blowing power into him and its making him bigger and bigger and then when he finally popped then started world war 2.

Anonymous said...

i agree with emmtin . if we had stoped hitler instead of appeasing him he would have never started world war 2

thouce said...

I know this goes against what i said at the start but after reading the posts i have changed my mind and i think if we hadnt appeased we wouldnt have won the second world war because while we were apeasing hitler we built air raid shelters, sent the children to the countryside. also i think that appeasing was probablly the best option for chamberlain. he probablly saved britain be appeasing.

Emmgan said...

I agree wit emmtin, artlee and Chello. Sopson, wot r u goin on about? How can u say that it bought us time? If we had stopped him in the first place we wouldn't have needed to prepeare 4 war. How can u say that it gave us more time and was a clever ploy? We could have stopped Hitler in the beginning, even if we had very little forces Germany had even less. Wen Hitler invaded the Rhineland France could have stopped him then and that might have averted the disaster if only 4 a little while.

Emmgan said...

plus, it didn't save millions of Britons it just postponed the deaths till a l8r d8.

Arthur Lee said...

I agree with emmgan. A point which i would like to make is that what did Chamberlain hoping to gain from appeasement. I think it was just moral cowardice, he was scared of a warlike country who spotted his political weaknesses and used it as a advantage. Chamberlain was just HOPING that peace would come, but he didn't take enough bold action that a prime minister of a great country should. Britain needed a strong leader like Churchill to show Hitler that Britain was a force to be reckoned with.

*Melson* said...

I think most of your points are deluded – have no political bases and are clearly clouded by prejudice. As soon as Hitler was mentioned you all thought Jews killed, evil, has one ball.
As a historian we should be able to look into greater detail. I agree with appeasement. For Britain Appeasement was a way of repairing the damage and ease of guilt from the treaty of Versailles. Today what Britain did then would be considered inhumane, unfair and unjust, and the whole country would riot.
We couldn’t ‘nip it in the bud’, as it is impossible to fight without an army, appeasement gave Britain time. Many people could have argued this; Churchill even said ‘There was never a war more easier to stop’, but I think that listening to politicians can be wrong, especially when they criticise the Prime Minister and in a twist of irony were to eventually replace him, making whatever Churchhill said irrelevant.
Finally I think that going to war would be like giving in. Britain- of the time- would have seen it like this, Chamberlain would have been overthrown, you try going to war when nobody supported it. Britain was a democracy –Chamberlain couldn’t go to war when his people wanted peace! Appeasement gave time for Britain to decide if it really wanted to go to war.

*Melson* said...

Anyway if all we did was go to war instead of appeasing- MOST OF YOU WOULD BE DEAD- or never existed! N emmgan the only other way than appeasement was war... so at least appeasement gave us hope of peace instead of just "it's going to end in war anyway... might as well get it over with" attitude most of you have. Considering we had just had a war, not many people would want another... you should try and empathizes with the people of that time. They would fear war, so it’s not that simple!!!!

katnes said...

i agree with what thouce said. if we had "nipped it in the bud"we would have saved millions of lives that needn't have been lost.

katnes said...

even churchill said,
"there wasnt a war that was easier to prevent."

thouce said...

I am going back to the last comment i made about chamberlain saving britian i know that millions died but if we hadnt appeased millions more would have died.

andage said...

well thouce why did he have to appease hitler so much that he had time to get land a army and money so he became a strong and powerful country which was nearly as powerful as britain if not more powerful so now we weren't fighting germany but also austria,czechsolvakia and russia so we made it harder for ourselves

*Melson & Sopson* said...

R u thick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thouce and katnes- r u so lazy that u can't even be bothered to read!!! if u can at all!!!
If you had of been bothered you would of realised that i was right all along. what i did say katnes was:

"Churchill even said ‘There was never a war more easier to stop’, but I think that listening to politicians can be wrong, especially when they criticise the Prime Minister and in a twist of irony were to eventually replace him".

>emites said...

If we hadnt appeased hitler then millions more of innocent people would have died. Appeasing hitler gave britain the time it needed to build up its defenses. however the fact that chaimberlain was such a push over didnt help.i agree with emmtin it should all have been nipped in the bud when hitler began to gain power.

*Melson & Sopson* said...

ANDAGE- What do you think you are talking about aswell. Incase you forgot what you said: why did he have to appease hitler so much that he had time to get land a army and money.
What rubbish!!!!
Come of it. Hitler was no match for us... we won!!!!! If we had not had appeasement, if we all just rushed in, we would of been slaughtered in the very worst sense. We won the war, hitler shot himself. Your bieng pathetic!

>emites said...

melson and sopson u r the thick ones!

Emmagan & Artlee said...

Sorry Sopson + Melson. But i think u r both rong! R u saying that it was rite to give Hitler all the countries he wanted? How can u prove that giving Hitler the Sudetenland was the rite thing? If France and Germany etc. met up and decided to give n. Ireland 2 s. Ireland wit out us bein htere wud u say it was rite? No of course not, because no matter how desperate a situation is we have human rites and it is unfair and almost illegal to take them away from us.

emmtin said...

melson what do you mean if we hadn’t appeased him and went to war then most of us would of bin dead! We went to war in the end and millions of people died any way derrrrr....(read a history book) and it did not give us time because as I said in my first comment we had a advantage and as Churchill said "there was never a war more easier to prevent” so yes maybe appeasement is good for you but it did not prevent world war 2 now did it? oh and by the way chaimberlin was not biest he was a grate man and did alot more for our country than chaimberlin

Anonymous said...

you go girl!

katson said...

I toltaly agree with thouce. If we hadnt given hitler what he wanted when he wanted it then maybe the war wouldnt of started in the first place because then he wouldnt think theat he could get away with any thing and every thing. If only we had said no in the beginning to hitler not being allowed to build up his army then thousnads upon hundreds of innocent people wouldnt have died because of our stupid mistakes.

Colper said...

Appeasement is both right and wrong. But if you think about it either way if we did or didnt appease Hitler there would still be a war in the end. If we appeased Hitler then we he would be encouraged to continue working to ge what he wanted. in my opinion i think chamberlain was right to appease Hitler so it gave everyone a chance to prepare and rebuild their army for war against Hitler. On the other hand if we didnt appease then it would of put Hitler in his place and then war could of been avoided.

Yas said...

For details of UK's appeasement strategy to ignite a German-Soviet war, see:
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_01.html

Anonymous said...

OMG!
Yes,you say that it gave more time for Britain to rearm and so on, BUT WHAT ABOUT the rest of Europe??! What about them?
because chamberline agreed to sign an appeasement with Hitler, it encouraged Hitler to become more powerfull and take over europe. So while BRITAIN was preparing for war, sending children away, etc. THOUSANDS of inicent ppl were killed all over europe, because CHAMBERLINE decided to sign that crappy appeasement with HITLER...
I am so against the appeasement...! If he hadn't done it, it would have shown strength and dicipline from Britain.. !

Serena said...

Chamberlain should not gave in to Hitler.He should question Hitler when he invaded other country.Chamberlain was a peace lover, and this might be the reason that Hitler could expand Germany as he knew that Chamberlain would not start a war.

SIMIN said...

in my opinion,i think that the
policy of appeasement was a MISTAKE.(1)it encourages facism(2)a failure to prevent the world war II(3)enable hitler to grow stronger in terms of armed forces(4)the poa played into hitler grand scheme for greater germany in a dominant position in europe
in conclusion,i totally disagree that the poa is effective as it did not prevent the war from happening.

Puvaneas said...

I think the POA has been very kind enough to Hitler that it allow Hitler to have greater Germany because Britain thought Germany had suffer enough under the TOV. Britain allow Hitler to do anything because it sympathize Germany but Hitler took advantage of in the wrong way and led to war. So I think it is not right to blame the POA fully because it was working for peace.

.L.k. said...

if britain had nt given a chance for Germany n Hitler to rebuild her army,there will nt b world war 2 and lifes will not be taken away by the war,therefore i think that it was britain's fault

Seri said...

The POA gives a brighter and peaceful future for the countries under POA but Hitler do not take that in his account and took advantage of it.
POA did help to maintain peace but at the same time allowing another war to begin.The pOA is not fully blamed as hitler was the major factor of causing the war too.

jessie said...

germany's aggressive behavious was always met with appeasement until she invade poland, it was like germany was hammering a glass, it has to break somehow and poland, shattered the entire glass piece. the allies had to do something about it, this tells us that sometimes, violence IS the solution to something .

HiYee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Grace said...

We shouldn't blame the entire problem on the POA.

Hitler was evil but smart. Everyone should know that.

Even if there wasn't the POA, some ideas from Hitler would also take place.

Joyce said...

POA holds mostly the percentage of conflicts that was being portrayed. Chamberlain followed the POA & thus giving Hitler the "green light" to start the war.

Michael said...

Appeasement was the road to war, it allowed Hitler to rebuild the German Army and the Luftwaffe. It also allowed Hitler to complete his policies like to combine all Germans into a Greater Germany. War was too late!!!

Alan Mahon said...

There were many flaws in appeasement, not least that for peaceful resolution of diplomatic problems, the other party has to have honesty and integrety in its intentions. Chamberlian may have faired better with appeasement had he not have been dealing with Hitler, but this is subjunctive. Chamberlain, despite his good intentions was an awful judge of character, he believed Hitler was sincere when he handed over the Sudetenland in exchange for no more territorial demands from Hitler, but of course he was not.
Appeasement and Chamberlains mistaken beleif that peaceful settlement of German grievences as a result of Versialles was of higher virte than a military deterentalso proved the insurmountable obstacle to a Western-Soviet Alliance that would have been the only mechanism to stop Hitler's expansionism.
Munich was the greatest act of aquiesance in the face of a bullying tyrant and would be the mortal blow for appeasement, a policy that tried to consevre fragile peace in vain.

Anonymous said...

Statistics showed that there was a military build-up in Britain all the while Chamberlain was in office. His appeasement was buying time for the army to increase in size.
Czechoslovakia had a much worthier cause to be saved by France and Britain over Poland. It was virtually the only functioning democracy in Eastern Europe. Poland was a virtual dictatorship until recently then.

Anonymous said...

appeasment is silly

JK said...

In hindsight appeasement seems ludicrous. It encouraged german aggression and allowed Hitler to gain labour, natural resources and materials. But perhaps it was inevitable. Britain wasn't ready to go to war and the Munich agreement won time for Britain to rearm.

P.I.Staker said...

Firstly, Appeasement was a ludicrously absurd idea of Chamberlains. He was merely sticking his finger in the hole and letting the avalanche build up behind it. Surely he must have realised what an utter egomaniac Hitler was. He could not just ignore the slaughtering of the millions of Jews and other undesiriables. War was inevitable but so many more lives might have been saved had Chamberlain acted sooner.


SOPSON : what precisely do you think Germany was doing while Britain was preparing herself for the war????
The answer is building bigger and better weapons, therefore cauing more loss...obviously!!!

P.I.Staker said...

This debate, even in our history textbooks it has been noted, caused many arguments and still does within the historians of todays society.
I totally disagree with the Sopson & Co.s points but can see the reasoning for them! Its easy to say that appeasement was right because it gave Britain time to prepare herself for war, but how unbelieveably selfish is that?
What about everyone else Hitler killed while he could have been fighting Britian. Note - fighting, not killing or defeating or winning. Truth be told we don't know what would have happened had Chamberlain adopted a different stragey, but whatwe do know is that Britian took her jolly old time abbout it and that was unneccessary. Even after appeasement wehn it became obviou that Germany were intenton War we still delayed and dill dathered around trying not to involve our precious selves.

Thank you folks and good night
You have been a wonderful audience
x

Anonymous said...

we think that Hitler wouldve attempted a war no matter what any other power in the world said.
Chamberlain was a bit of a fool for allowing Hitler to get as powerful as he did, and he should have been much more careful.

by
EmmaTindJam :]

year10student said...

From studing WW1 & Hitler & his foriegn policy very closely it seems to be ovbious that nevil chamberlain had put alot on his own shoulders, he had promised britain that he wouldn't lead them into another war and was worried that he might be replaced if it was seen that he was not forfilling his promises he made before he was elected.
Hitler had fought in WW1 and was outraged at germany's defeat (he blamed communism for this). Hitler and the rest of germany despised the treaty or versailles because it was a constant rem-minder of the humiliation of WW1. so when hitler set out to make germany great again he was treated with high respect. Even though standing where we are today appeasement seems foolish but simple demandin war on germany would have been foolish. Hitler was a determind man who would take what he wanted. I believe that appeasement had both it's positive and bad factors about it. Firstly it gave Britain time to re-arm, though you may not want to admit it Britain was not in a stable possition to fight germany, our air force was all over the place. Also for the older generation in britain the memories and losses of the first world war were all too fresh and the younger generation had heard the stories and didn't want to fight a lost cause that would ultimately lead to death. However Many say that Chamberlain was a coward and a fool because he gave the impression to hitler that he was a weak man leading a weak company and he could do what he pleased if he acted like a person willing to negotiate. On the other hand Chamberlains foolishness could have lead hitler to believe that we were still in unstable postition for war when it was declard) which would have given us an advantage. Appeasment was used in a very feeble attempt to subdue an angry dictator, Britain even had the football team salute the nazis at a game in berlin and nevil chamberlain almost always called him chancellor when by 1935 it was clear that hitler was a dictator, Chamberlain however badly his actions may look now was still regarded as a good man and Hundreds of thousands of people welcomed him back from all his trip at hendon airport. Over all i believe appeasment was away in which the people of britain could pretend to be naive and live as though they where at peace and it's well and good you all de-bating about what happend but please where are your facts and figures ! here are some you might want to take into consideration ...

1.hitlers aims were to abolish the treaty. to expand german territory (lebensraum & gross doche land) and to defeat communism.

2. nine steps to war.

i)in 1935 the saar voted in favour of german rule (this vote is called a plebisite)
ii)in 1935 hitler introduced conscription
iii) 7 march 1936 hitler invaded the rhinland
iiii)in 1938 11th march hitler invaded Austria
iiiii) in 1938 in munich 29th sept 1938 britain surrendered the sudeten land after hitler made plans to invade czecholovakia
iiiiii)15th march 1939 hitler marched into the rest of czechoslovakia
iiiiiii)1939 hitler revield plans to invade poland and chamberlain swore he would back poland( by this pint britain was ready n stable so chamberlain did right in suspending war)
iiiiiiii) august 1939 hitler made secrete treaty with russia to prevent a war on two fronts he believd this might stop britain n france helpin poland.
iiiiiiiii) on the first sept 1939 hitler invades poland
onthe thrid britain declares war.

now imagine listening to that being read over the radio. i've listend to the transmittion and there is no hope what so ever in chamberlains voice. he sounds defeated and you get the feeling that he feels he let his people down. lay off slating appeasment untill you have the facts please.

Manuela said...

MANUELA QUINTERO
I think that appeasement was justified because, even though it didn't stop the war from happening, it gave the allied countries more time to prepare their armies and their economies for the war. Chamberlain probably knew he couldn't stop the war, he was probably just trying to delay it. He had to do something because the League of Nations and other countries were doing nothing. He did have an obligation with the people of Czechoslovakia and the Sudentenland because the minorities and the discrimination in those areas where created by the ToV which Britain signed, but so did America and France and tehy did nothing, at least Britain was trying to do something.

Anonymous said...

Although the appeasement could have postponed the war it still occurred. If the British had attacked and not left Hitler to do what he wants the war could have been nipped in the bud. The fact that the British gave in to Hitlers wishes only postponed the war and potentially could have made it worse.

KunheeYoon said...

If Chamberlain hadn't taken that long to convince Hitler to sign the deal, the nations could have used that time to build an army and obtain armament to face German's attack instead, that waste of time was good for Hitler to rearm and join Germany together, and get it stronger to attack other nations!

Mike said...

I also think that if chamberlain hadn't denied Hitler for that long then the Germans would have attacked all of europe and we wound not be here today.

Anonymous said...

ALYSHA VALLEE

Chamberlain was a great believer in the power of talk and negations. However, he underestimated the fact that Hitler was not just evil but intelligent and manipulative. It was a useless delay to the inevitable war and an even that encouraged Hitler’s power and appeasements worldwide for years hadn’t succeeded.

The empires and places as such as the USA were unable to support the need to help in an upcoming war and Chamberlain was not prepared for the all possible results of the circumstances. Even Chamberlain himself knew that without support from other countries, war with Germany was a risky possibility. Also, the negative results of appeasement included; giving Hitler the chance to grow stronger and giving him encouragement, humiliation to Britain and central Europe could not trust Britain, it abandoned millions of people to the Nazis, and it was a useless attempt because Hitler always wished to go to war.

Though like many who had lived through the first war and wanted to avert another, Chamberlain’s goals were reasonable and his goals helped enable armies to grow and prepare when the other powers were doing nothing to help steer clear of the war. Nevertheless, through all of Neville Chamberlain’s efforts, Hitler took his failed efforts into encouragement that he himself was almighty and the war ceasing to exist was unsuccessful. Appeasement should have been avoided because the inevitable would have happen anyways. There are ways of preparing yourself as the war goes on, not just beforehand.

Diego Rojo said...

Diego Said:
When I’m asked that if the appeasement was justified, I immediately agree that it was reasonable thing to do in that time. My answer is ´´Yes´´ because as most historians say, that it may have been a foolish decision to make because it was just satisfying Hitler demands, and encouraging him to ask for more and more. This could be seen as just helping Hitler to get stronger and ready to war, but what Neville Chamberlain saw as his choices (in that time), were only two to go to war against Germany and probably Japan or postpone this wars, maybe to find a more effective solution, or even try to get the support of the USA, the USSR (not very probable since there communist ideals but they could reach an agreement.) and the retire military supporters of Chamberlain, South Africa and Australian Governments. If Britain had this support maybe the negotiations with Hitler or Japan could be more effective since, by having a bigger army than Hitler then Germany would feel intimidated and not dare to ask for anything or threaten anyone.
So yes the appeasement was justified since Chamberlain was under a lot of pressure, and because of the lack of support Britain had no other choices but to accept the appeasement and surely anything that Hitler could have asked for.

Anonymous said...

What that person said (Diego Rojo) was really good and I totally agree with him.

Anonymous said...

Juan Mata
Appeasement was the only idea Chamberlain had to prevent bloodshed and a tragedy like WWI, but he was a fool by pretend that Hitler respected him, and that he was going to change his idea of going to war. Appeasement caused the war since Hitler could have every thing he wanted. It humiliated Britain and gave them less credibility to their allies.

Antonio said...

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to see appeasement as a foolish and hazardous thing to do, seeing as it encouraged Hitler to continue expanding into new territory. However, if one puts oneself in Chamberlain's position, there was not much else he could do about the matter after the invasion of the Rhineland. Had he even raised a finger to Hitler's actions then I am convinced that World War II could have been stopped. But after the horrors of the first World War Chamberlain's priority was to avoid British deaths at all costs, and he saw interfering with Hitler's actions as placing himself right in the middle of a war that wasn't his to fight. Besides he had the support of many of the older Britons who had lived through the previous conflict, and who were more interested in keeping their nation on its feet than on maintaining world order. The British empire was also crumbling, and Chamberlain knew that he could except no support from South Africa, Australia or even America if a war were to break out. From this perspective one can perhaps begin to comprehend and justify the Prime Minister's actions.

kynance joinery said...

If the league of nations were not selfish and just interested in their own affairs, then Hitler may have never succeeded in his foreign policy. The fact that they had the chance to prevent him from invading is completely horrendous! He himself when he was occupys the Rhineland, says that if the League acts "i shall return with my tail between my legs" but the English stated "He's only going in to his own back yard". By letting him violate the term of the treaty was an automatic, yes Hitler you go invade those countries! And by appeasing him, was the League just handing him an extra piece of land, and also violating the treaty of versailles once again. Britain was too worried about going to war, and most of all loosing trade with Germany all they wanted to do was make Hitler happy and keep "peace", basically, it was Hitler's ticket to strike.

Jules said...

I think appeasement was both right and wrong. Even if Britain and France did not follow the policy of appeasement, how would they have managed to fight against Germany? Their economy was still in ruins from the great depression, and they did not have the support of the superpower, USA. I do however think that the policy of appeasement was downright cowardice from both countries. Chamberlain was a shallow-minded and naive man that thought he could negotiate peace in Britain with Hitler.I think appeasement launched Hitler into total power, and it gave him the confidence to continue his gambling, but i do not think that was the main reason for starting World war II. I think it helped it but did not start it. The great depressions started WWII, as it led desperate germans to elect the Nazis, and it had led Hitler to power. If the great depression had never occured, then Germany may have still been a weimar republic. People were satisfied with the weimar republic during the Stresemann years, and the Nazis were a failure then. The great depression boosted Nazi support greatly because of the collapse of Weimar republic all due to the great depression. Sorry everyone, i have been literally bashing my brains in studying for my GCSE History exam which is on wednesday.. yeah i'll shut up now.

Anonymous said...

to answer sopson's comment..
Maybe appeasement made sense to Britain, but don't you think it was selfish of them? while they were ignoring the invasion of two innocent countries, Britain was preparing for war. If britain and france did somehow get together and stop hitler, then it wouldn't have resulted in millions and millions of deaths, that marked a spot in history forever?

Nazis fan said...

I agree that appeasement is the best policy. As you can see Britain and France are both democratic countries, if either of the leaders want to declare war against Germany they would need support from their parliament. The parliament at that time would not want to have war as both the countries just recover form great depression and could not go to war. Further more, Hitler at that time boasted and exaggerated about the size of his army. This cause Britain and France to be afraid to declare war on Germany without the help of the other country. People in Britain at that time believe that problems in Europe is not their problem and would not go to war about them. People at that time also agree with Hitler's policy of all German speaking people and be living in the same country. Even France agree with this point, as they know the shame that Germany suffered because of Alsace-Lorraine. Another important point is that a STRONG Germany is a good buffer against communism and that is what Britain and France wanted, at that time Britain and France trusted Hitler more than Stalin.

Tom said...

Appeasement was a good policy in some situations (Austria for example) But the Munich Agreement was a disgraceful sell-out of the Czech people, who could have stopped Hitler and were relying on British/ French support. Austria had been an enemy in WWI but Czechoslovakia was created by the Allied powers at Versailles. When Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement, he basically abandoned the Czechs and left them to die at the hands of the Naizis

Beastie said...

Britain was not ready for war. Chamberlain knew deep inside that Hitler would not be true to his word, because after he came back from the Munich agreement with his 'piece of paper' and 'peace in our time' he began to prepare for war. Albeit, if France had made an attempt to stop Hitler entering the Rhineland I seriously doubt we'd even be talking about this. Appeasement did not work, obviously, but what was the alternate option? To us now, sixty years on the answer seems easy but that is because we have studied it from every angle and are not making decisions that affect world piece. Appeasement bought everyone valuable time, though i do strongly believe that if Hitler had been stopped at the Rhineland or the Czechs had even been invited to the meetings in Munich, this debate would be on something completely different.

Anonymous said...

Appeasement was a bad decision for many reasons. Because of Appeasement the war lasted much longer than it should have and caused over 6million deaths. The problem with appeasement was that it made Hitler much more powerful and harder to beat. They even continued with it even after Hitler had proved himself untrustworthy and took more than he had offered. Why would they give him something that would make him stronger in exchange for a promise that you know he's going to break? Chamberlain should have tried to find a better way to avoid war that didn't make Germany a strong enough country to take over most of Europe in a matter of months.

stupid Chamberlain... if he had just stopped them in Rhineland it would have made it so much harder for Hitler to take power... -.-

Anonymous said...

Even though the cause of the second world war was hitlers fault.I also blame England aswell, Hitler even said if england and france had intervened with what he was doing he would have stopped but instead they did nothing. I am not saying hitler is in the right but neither was chamberlain. The policy of appeasment did nothing and it took them years to realise that, If it were not for woodrow wilson trying to be a do-gooder with his appeasment policy both england and france would have realised that.

Anonymous said...

hi to 1234 woodrow was dead in 1924 ha.

1234 said...

Hi 1244 I really dont care if woodrow wilson was dead in 1924 im talking about his idea of the leagueof nations, an organization that settled diputes with non violent actions-appeasment-get the picture. so my point is on his do-gooder league of nation idea. so HA HA HA

el said...

i think stalin was clever

Joe said...

Appeasement was altogether not a bad idea, if used with a country they controled. This is where i believe Chaberlain went wrong with his idea's, rather than controling what he gave Germany he let them carry on there demands. They should of been allowed what they asked for and no more, the worst case being Czezhoslovakia where it got out of control, first giving them the sudentantland then allowing them the whole of czshoslovakia. Nev was a fool to think that Hitler would stop when he clearly stated labesraum, When they started to re arm they should of been stopped, maybe not my military force but threatened with military force. It also should o been foreseen by Great Britain when the German Army of 100,000 men is made up purely off officers. Appeasement was a good idea but it was used on the wrong country being Germany and used by the wrong man, a man who was kin but had no backbone to stand up to Germany untill it got late.

Ambreen said...

Britian shouldn't have appeased hitler- obviosly wen u giv in 2 a bully- it will only get worse. And guess wot happened- It got worse with the 2nd WW!!!!!

Juice said...

We're all only human and I'm sure Chaimberlain did what he felt was right at the time. People seem to forget that appeasement was what the majority of people wanted-they wanted to avoid another war at all costs. I think there would have been a war anyway, even if Chaimberlain hadn't followed a policy of appeasement. I'm not defending the policy, however, I just don't think that we should pin loads of th blame on Chaimberlain!

Anonymous said...

I believe that at the time with the information they had and the economic crisis still having its toll on the country, appeasment did seem to be the best way to at least postpone the war which seemed almost inevitable. This agreement was a way for Chamberlain to ready the country in case of war. Appeasment i belive in the circumstances was the right thing to do.

Anonymous said...

I believe that appeasement was the right thing to do because economies had been shattered by the great depression and therefore Britain and other countries needed time for re-armement so they were prepared for the outbreak of the inevitable war.

Mrs Nicholls is making me do this. said...

The thing is, is that Chamberlain did see it comming. He was subtly preparing for war by issuing gas masks and ordered trenches to be dug. Britain and France are both powerful countries and could of put more pressure on Hitler to lay off his more empowering and ever increasing demands. However, Chamberlain and other countries leaders gave Hitler everything he requested and found it fine for him to intervene Czechoslovakia and destroy the treaty of Versailles. On the other hand, Chamberlain did not want to cause a riot too soon, and this made a useful delay for countries to prepare themselves, this would give us the advantage.

rorytalbott said...

Britain didnt know what to do or who to side with as Hitler was a valueble ally against Russian Communism, but Hitler was also becoming an ever growing threat to Britain, France and world peace. Britain, and France to a degree, was in the middle of it with Mussolini and Hitler making an alliance, Hitler and Stalin making an alliance, so Britain was running out of allies and was being ganged up on in a way.

Miss Nicholl's best friend (AKA George) said...

Hitler was a very important ally to win over. With Britain and France both against communism, and the USSR ever growing, they needed to be on level ground with Germany. Without knowing what Hitler was capable of, or what he was going to do, Britain and France made a sensible chopice in pleasing the opponent. Niether one of them were in a suitable position to threaten Germany with War. B & F wanted to be able to secure the USA as a back up, but by failing to do this, it made them weaker, leaving them very little choice but to please the future force that would grip the upcoming world war 2. Chamberlain had a vague idea of abnoher world war, and by pleasing Hitler's wants, it gave him time to prepare for war. Hitler took a gamble in asking for all these things to be done, and i think he expected a little more bite from B & F, so when they were rather reluctant to speak up about this supicious character, Hitler become very egotistical, and realised his plans were slowly slippiong into place. If B & F had not made this appeasement, and not prepared for war, we may not have been the successor's of WW2.

George shouldn't write so much cos it makes us look bad! said...

Great Britain and France believed that their resources were limited compared to Gremany's. Appeaesment bought time for the two countires to rearm and prepare for a war that everyone knew was coming. Many believed that the Treaty of Versailes was too harsh on Germany and by giving Germany what they wanted, it would ease the ever more increasing tension between the nations. Therefore, I think Appeasement was a good policy.

Anonymous said...

Britain and France should have stopped Germany in their tracks. They both knew that as soon as Hitler started doing things against the treaty that it would lead to something bigger. Britain and France were just people pleasing so they could buy time, they really should have stopped germany the first time.

Anonymous said...

It's easy for us to say that Britain should have stopped Hitler because we know that war was coming. But how were the British people supposed to know that back then? They were just doing what they thought was right.

nige said...

"At no time did Hitler threaten to initiate war against France and England. He simply threatened to 'retaliate' if they attacked him. The Munich crisis had an incredible sequel in March 1939. ... Hitler occupied the rest of Czechslovakia. The technique he used is such an obvious prototype for a future aggressor armed with H-bombs that it is of extreme value to all who are concerned with the problem of maintaining a peaceful and secure world ..."

- Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, Princeton University Press, 1960, p. 403.

Herman Kahn explained how lying weapons effects exaggerations nurtured World War II in a culture of fear in place of a relatively limited war to disarm the Nazis, in the following testimony to the 1959 hearings on the Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, page 883:

“... before World War II, for example, many of the staffs engaged in estimating the effects of bombing over-estimated by large amounts. This was one of the main reasons that at the Munich Conference and earlier occasions the British and the French chose appeasement to standing firm or fighting. Incidentally, these staff calculations were more lurid than the worst imaginations of fiction.”

Herman Kahn goes on to explain how such exaggerations of weapons effects in popular media disarmament propaganda encouraged the secret proliferation of Nazi weapons, in his book On Thermonuclear War, Princeton University Press, 1960, pp. 390-1:

“... in spite of the tremendous scale of the violations it still took the Germans five years, from January 1933 when Hitler came in to around January 1938, before they had an army capable of standing up against the French and the British. At any time during that five-year period if the British and the French had had the will, they probably could have stopped the German rearmament program.... it is an important defect of ‘arms control’ agreements that the punishment or correction of even outright violation is not done automatically ... but takes an act of will ... one of the most important aspects of the interwar period [was] the enormous and almost uncontrollable impulse toward disarmament ... As late as 1934, after Hitler had been in power for almost a year and a half, [British Prime Minister] Ramsey McDonald still continued to urge the French that they should disarm themselves by reducing their army by 50 per cent, and their air force by 75 per cent.

“In effect, MacDonald and his supporters urged one of the least aggressive nations in Europe to disarm itself to a level equal with their potential attackers, the Germans. ... Probably as much as any other single group I think that these men of good will can be charged with causing World War II. [Emphasis by Herman Kahn.] ... Hitler came into power in January 1933 and almost immediately Germany began to rearm ... but it was not until October 14, 1933 [that] Germany withdrew from a disarmament conference and the League of Nations ... Hitler's advisors seem to have been greatly worried that this action might trigger off a violent counteraction - for example, a French occupation of the Ruhr. But the British and the French contented themselves with denouncing the action.”

Harry Coppock said...

Neville Chamberlain is often considered as foolish for appeasing Hitler but that iss not takeing in account that Neville didnt know how unnreasonable Hitler was in his campain for a "grosa deutchland"(a bigger Germany).At this point in time England wasnt ready for a war: due to the wall street crash in the 24th of Octobre 1929 england was not only weakend but america would not support them due to them trying to restore the policy "The American dream".Britain also needed time to rearm to face a chance againced Germany.Hitler even said that Chamberlain tricked him ,Hitler wanted a war before the treaty of munich about Czechoslavkia on the 29th of septembre 1938.He wanted a full scale war with Czech while the worlds super powers were "sleeping"and while britain and france were weak .Neville had lived through the horrors of the first world war and i do not blame him trying his hardest to cease the build up for a second in the most peaceful way.Many of the things hitler had done up to this point seemed perfectly reasonable for example rearming the rhineland in1936or the invasion of Austria in 1938which proved in a plebiscite showed that over 90 %of people wanted to join with germany.Hitler was simply retakeing germany territory that was unfairly taken from them in the versaille treaty it was not untill germany invaded poland that britain declaired war.

Ryan Trinder said...

Chamberlain knew what he was doing, yes the treaty was unfair, yes we could have prevented world war 2 if we had acted sooner. but i believe that Chamberlain knew exactly what Hitler wanted, all these meetings were just buying time to re-arm Britain as her army was too weak, and the French had political problems but thanks to Mr. Chamberlain all of this was sorted out and we stopped Hitler from getting any further. Hitler was an evil man all he wanted was to prove the strength of Germany so war was definitely going to happen.

I personally believe Neville Chamberlain was a great man and he knew what he was doing. without him we would all be German speaking Nazis.

Anonymous said...

I personally think appeasment was a bad idea. But that's very easy to see with hindsight. Also Chamberlain hated war and when he did declare war on Germany he stepped down as he couldn't face leading his country into Germany. I think he must realised that war was inevitable and stepped down to allow someone who was prepared to do the best for the country even if it meant war. I f we hadn't appeased Germany they wwouldn't have been able to invade so many countries which made them harder to defeat in the end (bigger army). It also would have stopped Hitler building up his ar,y and discovering (luftwaffe).

Anonymous said...

(Btw I'm the same person who psted the previous comment. I know I need a life! Lol.) Appeasement doesn't ever prevent war it just at best delays it. For example, if a child really wants a sweet and throws a massive trantum so finally the mum gives in and buys the child the sweet, do you the think the child will be satsified? The child now knows that if it throws a tantrum it will eventuallly get what it wants. And the more you give into the child the worse it will become and soon the child will be asking for more expensive stuff and won't just want sweets. But like with Hitler you can see why apppeasement is so apppealingly sometimes you just want the child to shut up and stop making a fuss.

Anonymous said...

I think that Appeasment was good because it temporarily postponed the war.

Anonymous said...

The last person who said that Appeasment was good NO!!!! It was very bad indeed because we don't want to postpone war we want to stop war. If they had stood up to Hitler at the start instead of trying to please him then the war may have never happened.

Anonymous said...

But postponing the war allowed Britain and France to build up their weapons so they stood a chance against Hitler.

Anonymous said...

We have to remember that when Germany took over the Rhineland he only did it with a mere force of 22 000 men. Britain or France could have easily stopped him thus preventing the growth of Naziism, but of course they just handed it to him.

Michael Woodgate said...

Wether or not appeasement was wrong in the second world war, if it had been considered by politicians in the run up to the first world war, a great deal of human suffering would have been averted. No first world war- no horrors of the trenches- no second world war- no Nazi invasion of other countries, and most importantly, no holocaust.

Mr John D Clare said...

GREAT point, Michael Woodgate!

Anonymous said...

I feel that the appeasement is quite necessary because if not for it and if Britain just went straight into war without properly arming themselves, Britain would most probably lose. What if the strength between Germany and Britain is a really BIG gap, then there's no point charging straight to fight against someone times stronger, you will get thrown over quick...and after battle, if Britain loss, Germany would properly try and step into Britain and claim it. So there's no point charging straight into war. Appeasement brought time for Britain to make arm themselves and make themselves stronger...like this there could have a better chance of winning. Yes,yes...I know you guys must be think that it will probably also bring more time for Germany to grow stronger too. Butt if time's given to Britain, they can quicken the pace of strengthening their army and soon the army strength gap would probably be smaller.

History4MYP said...

Dear Mr John D Clare-Thank you so much for your ideas and your readiness to share them :)

Anonymous said...

I am not in this school. but yes if hitler would have been stoped then this all would not have happened the britain and france were anyway too selfish at that time no offence. they always looked for their profits even in treaty of versailes in an example.

BlizzX123 said...

We all have perfect 20/20 hindsight. Who knew Hitler was going to be that evil at the time. Like the page said, many British agreed with several points Hitler had. If they thought that it would a) Make Germany feel less rage at everyone for the Treaty of Versailles and b) Prevent Russia's advances and c) Maybe prevent war, then it was worth it. Hitler was pretty well a young up and comer at the time, I think. Plus we don't know if an early war would have even nipped it in the bud.

Anonymous said...

`After ww1 there was nothing more the big 3 wanted than peace, they were right to give in to hitler because either way there would have been war.

Anonymous said...

basically Chamberlain made a mistake ever trusting Hitler however, that doesn't mean appeasement was wrong... after all Chamberlain just wanted to secure.. 'peace for our time'!

Anonymous said...

I think it was good of Britain to try to appease Germany, because then they knew they had done all they could to try to make peace, but it was wrong of them to trust Hitler.
(comment posted with hindsight!)

Anonymous said...

check out http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII4.htm of your website the words get jumbled over

R9000 said...

Despite what many people say, I don't think Chamberlain was daft. In the time he looked like he was 'sucking up' to Hitler to avoid war, he was secretly building up Britain's air force in the background. He was a perceptive man.

History said...

Personally, i think appeasement was one of the important reasons for causing ww2 because if hitler's werent met in the first hand, then there wouldnt be much trouble caused. appeasement gave hitler the feeling that britain and france were weak and ready to give in to hitler's demand. this made hitler more determined and confident to go further and invade other places in europe and to achieve his foreign policy.

Anonymous said...

I agree with thouce! ;)

Anonymous said...

Well...it would be an ongoing debate...yes it was right as it delayed the war...and no it was flawed as war actually took place!...--peace--

Am0oO said...

Appeasement had positives and negatives. The positives were that it kept peace (for a while). Noone in Britain wanted a war and appeasement was the only thing that could prevent Hitler from going to war. He was an aggressor and would threaten war with or without appeasement, but appeasement bought Britain time to rearm after WWI and allowed peace to be kept. However, apeasement also had negatives. It allowed Hitler to become stronger and more aggressive. It also allowed him to meet his aims in foreign policy, which gained him support and made him stronger. Appeasement can be seen as as selfish because only demands that did not effect Britain were met. Also, without appeasement, Hitler would not have been a big enough power to sign the nazi-soviet pact. Stalin saw Hitler as a threat and therefore signed the pact to give him time to prepare for when Hitler and Germany invaded Russia. Without the nazi-soviet pact, Hitler would not have invaded Poland and WWII would not have broken out.

Anonymous said...

I think it was the right thing to do, stop him early and cause a war with a weak army? Germnay would have beat us, we needed time to re-arm, so we did, i think at the time and situation, it was the best thing to do, although maybe if he was stopped right after the Rhineland re-militarized then we could have avoided hitlers rise and waR?

Elias E. N. said...

I think that they could of stop Germany before the war started if France and Britain would not have given Hitler what he wanted.

Leonardo Villasana said...

The best thing britain could have done is continue Appeasing hitler, so that they could buy themselves time to build their army again.

Rodrigo Mendoza said...

In my opinion, giving in to Hitler's demands was not a bad idea, as it meant he could have been satisfied, and would not have had the need to start a war; however, this was not certain. The risk of Hitler's ambition not being satisfied having the Sudeteland was still present, but could lead to much more severe consequences.

Evidently, Hitler did not have enough, making the League of Nations' not stopping him a grave mistake. Giving the Sudeteland, in the end, did not help the League at all, as it was only a step further to the war's inception.

Another thing that one must bear in mind is the fact that the German people would not be as angry with the League's leaders if the Treaty of Versailles was neglected. In fact, Neville Chamberlain himself believed the Treaty was too harsh, which is why Great Britain allowed or did not prevent several things that Hitler planned on doing from happening.

Jorge Barrios said...

We know how strong and powerful hitler was, but we also know that Britain has defeated powerful nations and conquered many territories. Chamberlain feared to start a war with a Germany and instead of fighting he appeased hitler and avoided trouble, however; Many countries feared Hitler and they are all cowards for appeasing, but I understand also that no one would want to start a war with a terrifying maniac.

JOSHISNOTONFIRE said...

The appeasement of 1938 gave Britain the morale high ground, as when war came, the British people knew they had done everything possible to keep the peace. However, appeasement would never of stopped Hitler- for he intended to both go to war and destroy the League.

The League should have been formed properly, with Germany's invitation not being delayed and Woodrow Wilson should have insured that America could join, before forwarding the idea to Europe and the larger, but less powerful nations such as France and Britain.
If the League's inception would have been orchestrated correctly, then it would of had the force to prevent Hitler from ever going all out against Versailles, and preventing him from invading nearby countries. This would of given him the impression that he couldn't simply disobey the League, and give a level of enforcement for the League when a drastic crisis occurred. Britain and France would have had higher prestige and authority throughout the world, with the help of America, and would have been able to crush Germany if war ever broke out.

Anonymous said...

The first British mistake was doing nothing when the Wehrmacht invaded Czechslovakia, maybe if Britain and France chose to enforce the Treaty of Versailles at that time, then the Wehrmacht's military strength would have been easier to defeat then later on when their forces poured into France.

Anonymous said...

The first British mistake was doing nothing when the Wehrmacht invaded Czechslovakia, maybe if Britain and France chose to enforce the Treaty of Versailles at that time, then the Wehrmacht's military strength would have been easier to defeat then later on when their forces poured into France.

Anonymous said...

Appeasement was our only option after 1936, but if we would have stopped Germany during the invasion of the Rhineland, it would have left a still hateful Germany, and the option of peace would have deteriorated later on anyway. There was always going to be another war.

Annika C 1st Hour said...

Overall, appeasement let every country have more time to prepare for war. However, this also allowed Hitler to gain more power and brought the war to a more destructive level. If the war had started earlier without appeasement, the war probably would've been shorter and much less destructive. The length of time before the war also allowed for the destruction of the Czechoslovakian army. This was a major loss for the allies, all they were allowed to build up their own armies during this time, that meant that Hitler could also build up his. Appeasement's effect overall was worse than its benefits.

Peter L said...

The biggest thing appeasement did was that it gave Hitler more power at no cost to him or his army. Hitler was able to easily build up his power because Chamberlain just gave him everything he wanted.

Anonymous said...

I think appeasement was a bad idea because it pretty much revolved around giving Hitler whatever he wanted in the hopes that he would back off, but for someone as crazy as Hitler is unlikely to ever stop wanting more

Anonymous said...

Appeasement both helped and hindered Britain. It was definitely mixed in its results. Overall I think it was a bad policy and gave Germany more of an edge.

Isak Keller said...

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 however I'm sure Britain would trade their extra peace period to eradicate Germany earlier on, even if it meant going to war after the horrors of WW2.

Anonymous said...

Appeasement was bad.

Shivam said...

In my opinion, giving into Hitler"s demands like that was just sheer cowardice. At the very time of appeasement, Britain and France could have crushed Germany even though Germany had started to rearm.
Chamberlain was a failure!

Anonymous said...

in my opinion it was a good thing in the long line because it helped briten prepare for the war because at te time if thay had strted war briten probobly whould have lost and save thousands of lives in the long run and he did it on good terms because the legitametly thorght gremany whould bring down comunisum

Sophie said...

It's clear that Britain weren't as naive as they were presented (93% of the British public thought appeasement wouldn't stop hitler in 1938) therefore the aim of appeasement must have been to rearm. Even whilst chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement he was approving a MASSIVE increase in arms spending, implying he knew Britain wasn't prepared. Even so, Germany too were strengthened by the delay and went from having 30 aircrafts in 1932 to 8250 in 1939. Britain should have seen the signs of War earlier and begun building up its army more steadily rather than sacrificing Czechoslovakians and Austrians to the Nazis.

Khaleesi said...

The truth is that while appeasement raises many issues and resulted in the takeover of countries such as Austria and Czechoslovakia, if Britain had gone to war in 1938 (or even earlier) it would not have had the support from other countries needed to win the Second World War. Australia, New Zealand and America all refused to support Britain in a war over the Sudetenland, with only Canada promising to help, which would've left Britain in a much weaker position against Germany - particularly without America's financial backing in the early years. There was also a lack of support within Britain in 1938, too - there was a lot of sympathy for Hitler and at the time the public would not have wanted a repeat of the horrors of the First World War. However, the situation changed after Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. This move on Hitler's part demonstrated that he was not to be trusted, and convinced many countries that he needed to be stopped. When war finally broke out in September 1939, Britain had the guaranteed support of not only Canada, but also New Zealand, Australia and other parts of the British Empire all over the world. America supported them financially in the early years of the war and joined in fully after the bombing of Pearl Harbour. Therefore I think that appeasement was a policy that helped Britain to bide time, gain support and prepare for a war which Chamberlain knew was inevitable.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Chamberlain was a weak man. But sometimes weakness is strength.

Gia Khanh said...

Appeasement was not the answer. The policy allowed Hitler to rearm Germany into a powerful army, it encouraged Hitler to do whatever he wants to (for example, the Rhineland, Hitler just walked in like its nothing and no one opposed him). Hitler would never be satisfied as his demands would go on and on. Although it gave time for Britain to get stronger, it also made the war more destructive due to Hitler's rearmament. Did Chamberlain really think that Appeasement would prevent any further war?

Mr L said...


Britain did not believe that they were strong enough but i fully believe that if Britain had acted, Hitler would have stopped his expansion plans. Hitler took a huge gamble in re entering the Rhineland in 1936 and had told his troops to not resist if they were stopped and although this gave him huge confidence going into the next couple of years, i believe he would have stopped if Britain exerted more pressure onto him. What really let Britain down was the policy throughout the 1930s which gave precedent to the policy of appeasement, for example, the Anglo-Naval treaty (& Rhineland). By continuing to follow the policy, it allowed for a much stronger Germany to go to war with and a war that would last much longer than if Britain had been stronger and stood up to Hitler.

Ngoc Bao said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anti Gia Khanh said...

Gia Khanh, he clearly did think appeasement would prevent another war and hence why he met with Hitler on multiple occasions and came back proudly waving that piece of white paper. If the people of Britain did not want war then surely the only decision was for the British PM to adhere to his people's wishes.

Tuong Anh said...

In my opinion, appeasement was a bad idea as it makes war inevitably Will happen. Appeasement encouraged Hitler to do what he wants without the fear of being stopped. Hitler had grown out of control and had continuously broken every promise. If Britain had not appeased Germany, they never would have gotten so powerful.

Duc Anh Le said...

Britain's weak army wasn't strong enough for go to war alone with Hitler without other strong nation got involve such as the USA or Russia but the appeasement gave time to Britain for rebuild it own army. It's also obvious that Chamberlain couldn't go to war without the support of the people but most people wanted peace after 1939.

minhtrang said...

In my opinion, appeasement was wrong because it allowed Hitler to break the Treaty of Versailles and the appeasement gave Hitler the advantage to grow stronger and stronger then other countries couldn't get involve in order to stop Germany but if Britain had stopped Hitler in 1936, the results would become different.

Ngoc Bao said...

The appeasement may not that bad because it did make some time for Britain to re-arm, although Germany also built up their army in that time but Britain couldn't do anything else except for the appeasement because British army was too weak in 1938, it couldn't defend it's empire and fight a war with Germany. America was isolationist, France didn't want war, Britain couldn't fight Germany alone, the appeasement was the only thing they could do. Furthermore, British people didn't want war anymore, also they didn't know if Hitler was going to go to war or not (not until war did happen), the appeasement was seem as a good thing at that time

Mj said...

If Britain have went for an attack in 1938, they wouldn't have got any support from other foreign countries and from their own British people. At that moment when the appeasement happened, politicians and general public had understood what Germany was doing, that Germans were taking their rights. The appeasement gave time for Germany to rearm, but also gave time for Britain to ensure and to prepare for war. Even though the war became enormous, I think that the support from the public and foreign countries helped to stop Hitler surely.

Gia Khanh said...

DEAR ANTI GIA KHANH,
I THINK THE BRITISH PM SHOULD HAD THINK ABOUT WHAT WAS RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY, WHICH IS NOT TO HAVE AN APPEASEMENT POLICY, INSTEAD OF GAINING FAME. HE ALSO SHOULD HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF IT, BRITISH LOOKING WEAK AND IT ENCOURAGES THE GERMANS TO INVADE MORE LAND AND MAKE THEIR ARMY STRONGER.

sOrRy FoR tHe CaPLOcK.

Huu Trung said...

The appeasement could have been the right thing to do in short time as it could entrain Hitler into wrong think of security and The Munich Agreement allowed the German to attack Sudetenland of Cz. Even though Britain and France together had an army twice the size of Germany’s army and they continued to do nothing.

mai said...

I think that appeasement was wrong because it gave Germany the chance to grow stronger. It allowed Hitler to do what he wanted therefore World War II happened on a much larger scale than it would have if Britain took actions earlier. It was useless to stop a man as evil and powerful as Hitler.

Nhat said...

i think that the appeasement was wrong because appeasement was seen as an innocent policy because Hitler was an evil man. It implied the weakness of democracies, also impulsed the Fascist power.It gave Germany a chance to become stronger because it met all of Hitler's demands.

pL said...

Appeasement was clearly the wrong approach to prevent Hitler from taking over Europe as it gave him the boost of confidence like the event in Rhineland. Chamberlain obviously knew that war was inevitable but he fooled the British people into thinking that he had stopped the Nazis. The appeasement policy only bought Britain more time to prepare for WW2, but if Chamberlain had took action earlier there would have been a better chance of stopping the war. Hitler took advantage of Chamberlain's hesitant attitude and continued his expansion policy, gambling his way to ww2.

Anonymous said...

Appeasement was clearly appropriate answer to stop the Hitler conquering the Europe(e.g Rhineland) and to give confidence to Britain to get ready for rearming even though it encouraged Hitler to require more demands.
For case of Chamberlain, he already realized that he has only 'Appeasement' to stop the war. He wanted to help people from fear of war which meant he focused on what people wants.
Some people thought that Appeasement wasn't the best approach to Hitler but, i believed it gave some hope and encouragements to Britain to face the difficulties of war.

just somebody with an opinion said...

How can a simple piece of paper stop someone with a mindset of expanding their country making their country stronger no matter what? The treaty of versailles did stop WW1 but it caused WW2 to happen and this appeasement supported the happenings of WW2 even more. If treaty of versailles could be broken even though many powerful country supported it then so could the little appeasement made by wishful thinking at the price of the principle. The appeasement did gave Britain time to build their army for war but it also gave Germany more power and time to build their army even more. If your argument was that the appeasement meant peace then why do you even need to build your army for? Of course war! This meant that war with Germany was inevitable. The appeasement made Britain look weak, it was a moral cowardice

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

i honestly think that Hitler could have not been stopped as Britain and France were way too weak to stop Hitler.
Hitler wanted war to happen and so it did. Sure countries did make clear pathway for Hitler to do what he wanted but I don't think even if he was threatened he'd stop.
However, France and Britain could have formed an alliance with USSR, it was clear that Germany would be surrounded and Hitler would eventually stop. Instead Hitler and Stalin made their own pact, everyone knew that they wouldn't keep up to their word. Hitler broke most of the pacts and treaties he signed. Everytime he was awarded with what he wanted he asked for more, Britain and France knew that but still chose to let Hitler do what he wanted.
Chamberlain was a pretty naive man, he thought he has made "world peace" by signing a peace contact with Hitler who was known for not living up to his words.
Appeasement just bought Britain time to rearm, thats all.

Anonymous said...

Appeasement wasn't good, but nor was it bad. Through all the events leading to WW2 we can create sided arguments (just as the british people were encouraged to do at the time!). However, in my opinion, appeasement weighs up more on the good side. I agree with a previous comment explaining how it allowed time for the Brits, without this time who knows where we'd all be now. Chamberlain was under great pressure from the LoN, the British people, and the countries being invaded by an inhumane and fascist dictator.
We have to remember that these poor people had lived through the horrors of WW 1, the deaths of 8 million soldiers and 9 million civilians world wide. What they were slowly approaching seemed like hell, no one wanted to go back -as you may well know Chamberlain lost his brother and his son in WW 1.
ANYTHING to avoid war seemed like a good idea at the time.