Appeasement was an illusion of peace, whether Chamberlain admitted to having done it for preparation purposes. Chamberlain presented the British people, who all wanted to thwart the nightmare of the first World War. However, every day, Hitler was drawing up a new plan to conquer another region for his international policies, but these plans were only truly acknowledged by the governments. Ordinary civilians would not be able to comprehend the seriousness of these invasions, and would not hesitate to turn a blind eye because Hitler would never get to them, because they weren't as vulnerable as the Sudetenland. For that, Chamberlain had a duty to consider their opinions, too. As much time as Britain gained to prepare, so did Germany to make alliances and terrorize the world. Appeasement dragged Britain's reputation through the mud only to end in a war, which began because she had to keep her promise to Poland. Anschluss was justified, the Sudetenland was granted, and the Rhineland marching was ignored. War was inevitable for a man like Hitler. He had always wanted more and was determined to achieve his goals through any measures, including broken promises and deception.
In my opinion, appeasement was justifiable as Britain is not ready to go to war. Britain had badly suffered from the Great Depression and the government rather wanted to spend on housing and food than re-armament. This made Britain's small army was too weak to go to to immediately, she needed time to re-arm while Germany had already been doing for years. Also, appeasement was supported by the general public at that time which give Chamberlain the idea that he had brought peace to the world / done the right things.
I think the war was never avoidable and appeasement never made a huge impact on preventing war but it just gave Hitler a higher chance of success since he was an opportunist. Hitler got to re arm, invade and have military practices with his army; Britain and France were never taken serious because of their negligence. However, it was not their fault because the people were already scared and not willing to go to war. But it would've been better if they were more aggressive towards Hitler rather than giving him opportunities
Given the results now, it might not have been the most reasonable decision to appeased Hitler, because we know that war was unavoidable and meeting up with Hitler's demands would only expand his power and make the outcome a lot worse. Also, the appeasement would tell Hitler that Britain and other major powers are not capable of preventing him, thus it will give him the confidence to invade. Now, we can also see that Hitler's list of demands grow and it will contribute to worsening world peace even more. Although, given the fact that Britain and France were recovering from the impacts of the Great Depression, fighting with Hitler may have resulted in a loss that may be worse than appeasement.
- I think the Appeasement was not a good idea as it encouraged Hitler to be more aggressive, with each victory giving him confidence and power. And as they already seen how Italy and Japan got away with being aggressive, this will give Hitler a “shield” as Japan, France and Italy did not set a good example for Hitler by aggressively invade Machuria, Ruhr and Abyssinia, which will give Germany an excuse for starting another war. Furthermore, the appeasement gave Hitler more time to develop Germany’s economy and army as Hitler was already rearming, this will give Germany a chance to grow even stronger.
In my opinion, appeasement was not a good idea. It is because appeasement leads to Hitler growing confidence. This is shown in the increasing severity of Hitler's action. It only started with him occupying, taking small territories and then a whole country like Czech and Poland. Appeasement also leads to Hitler being able to rearm and become stronger which directly lead to a deadly WWII. Hitler also said that he would have to back down in 1936 if Britain and France act when he march into the Rhineland. This statement shows that appeasement is a soft policy which led to Hitler not being stop in time. In conclusion, appeasement wasn't a good idea to stop Hitler.
The policy of Appeasement was a starting spark to Hitler's plans in the WW2. It directly encouraged the activity of the Nazis and continuously let innocent countries be usurped by Germany's power like: Czechoslovakia. Not only did this forever stain the relationship between Britain and countries at loss, it initiated the rise of other fascist forces. Furthermore, Germans' sense of raging nationalism after the unfair treaty of Versailles meant that Hitler's exploitations of that would be increasingly successful with Britain's appeasement.
In my opinion, appeasement was a bad strategy for several reasons. After the Spanish civil war, it could be clearly seen that Hitler was aggressive and not afraid to engage militarily. However, Chamberlain still naively believed that the matter could be solved diplomatically, even going as far as giving Hitler the Sudetenland so that he wouldn't invade Czechoslovakia; this was a horrible decision and a total failure as Hitler broke his promise and annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia shortly after. In addition, the policy of appeasement required Britain to give Germany neighboring lands to stop her expansion. Yet, giving lands meant Chamberlain had to betray his allies/friends, this was critical, as it makes Britain less able to fight against Germany in war, as they would have no friends.
In my opinion, I believe that appeasement was a wise decision since Britain was not prepared for war, could not finance conflict, was worried about France's dominance, and was unsure whether or not America would get involved given its isolation from the rest of the world. Britain needed time to recover from the League of Nations incident before it could battle Europe on its own. Additionally, if they continue to battle, more people will die, which will serve as a reminder of how cruel the Treaty of Versailles was. Another reason why they shouldn't fight is because of their fear of communism.b
I think it is understandable that Britain agree whit the appeasment because at that time they were not enough strong to fight against Germany. One of the main reasons for this, was that everyone wants peace after WW1 and therefore countries like France decide to not fight against Germany,so Britain decide to agree with the appeasment and this gave them time to prepare to fight against Germany.
In my opinion, appeasement played a significant role in causing World War II. By initially meeting Hitler's demands, it gave him a sense of the weakness and willingness of Britain and France to compromise. This emboldened Hitler and fueled his ambition to expand his influence and carry out his aggressive foreign policy objectives. If the appeasement approach hadn't been taken, it is possible that Hitler's advances could have been halted earlier, potentially preventing the devastating conflict that followed. In hindsight, it is clear that appeasement had unintended consequences and demonstrated the dangers of underestimating the resolve of aggressive powers.
In my opinion, the Appeasement was a good idea for Britain. Britain was not prepared properly as Britain had damaged hugely from the Great Depression. Furthermore, it was not guaranteed that other countries in the League of Nations would engage into the war between Britain and Germany to support Britain. Britain needed time to build not only its power but also other nations’ in the League of nations too.
I don't agree with the appeasement because the appeasement give hitler load of times to rearm and prepare for the war as the alliance will not involved in if hitler have any act that go against the Treaty. Moreover, appeasement allowed Germany to expand its territory and influence without facing significant opposition from the Western powers, the policy created divisions among the Allies, with some countries, such as Italy, supporting Germany's expansionist policies, while others, such as France, Britain, and the Soviet Union, felt increasingly isolated.
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213Appeasement was an illusion of peace, whether Chamberlain admitted to having done it for preparation purposes.
Chamberlain presented the British people, who all wanted to thwart the nightmare of the first World War. However, every day, Hitler was drawing up a new plan to conquer another region for his international policies, but these plans were only truly acknowledged by the governments. Ordinary civilians would not be able to comprehend the seriousness of these invasions, and would not hesitate to turn a blind eye because Hitler would never get to them, because they weren't as vulnerable as the Sudetenland. For that, Chamberlain had a duty to consider their opinions, too. As much time as Britain gained to prepare, so did Germany to make alliances and terrorize the world.
Appeasement dragged Britain's reputation through the mud only to end in a war, which began because she had to keep her promise to Poland. Anschluss was justified, the Sudetenland was granted, and the Rhineland marching was ignored.
War was inevitable for a man like Hitler. He had always wanted more and was determined to achieve his goals through any measures, including broken promises and deception.
In my opinion, appeasement was justifiable as Britain is not ready to go to war. Britain had badly suffered from the Great Depression and the government rather wanted to spend on housing and food than re-armament. This made Britain's small army was too weak to go to to immediately, she needed time to re-arm while Germany had already been doing for years. Also, appeasement was supported by the general public at that time which give Chamberlain the idea that he had brought peace to the world / done the right things.
I think the war was never avoidable and appeasement never made a huge impact on preventing war but it just gave Hitler a higher chance of success since he was an opportunist. Hitler got to re arm, invade and have military practices with his army; Britain and France were never taken serious because of their negligence. However, it was not their fault because the people were already scared and not willing to go to war. But it would've been better if they were more aggressive towards Hitler rather than giving him opportunities
Given the results now, it might not have been the most reasonable decision to appeased Hitler, because we know that war was unavoidable and meeting up with Hitler's demands would only expand his power and make the outcome a lot worse. Also, the appeasement would tell Hitler that Britain and other major powers are not capable of preventing him, thus it will give him the confidence to invade. Now, we can also see that Hitler's list of demands grow and it will contribute to worsening world peace even more. Although, given the fact that Britain and France were recovering from the impacts of the Great Depression, fighting with Hitler may have resulted in a loss that may be worse than appeasement.
- I think the Appeasement was not a good idea as it encouraged Hitler to be more aggressive, with each victory giving him confidence and power. And as they already seen how Italy and Japan got away with being aggressive, this will give Hitler a “shield” as Japan, France and Italy did not set a good example for Hitler by aggressively invade Machuria, Ruhr and Abyssinia, which will give Germany an excuse for starting another war. Furthermore, the appeasement gave Hitler more time to develop Germany’s economy and army as Hitler was already rearming, this will give Germany a chance to grow even stronger.
In my opinion, appeasement was not a good idea. It is because appeasement leads to Hitler growing confidence. This is shown in the increasing severity of Hitler's action. It only started with him occupying, taking small territories and then a whole country like Czech and Poland. Appeasement also leads to Hitler being able to rearm and become stronger which directly lead to a deadly WWII. Hitler also said that he would have to back down in 1936 if Britain and France act when he march into the Rhineland. This statement shows that appeasement is a soft policy which led to Hitler not being stop in time. In conclusion, appeasement wasn't a good idea to stop Hitler.
The policy of Appeasement was a starting spark to Hitler's plans in the WW2. It directly encouraged the activity of the Nazis and continuously let innocent countries be usurped by Germany's power like: Czechoslovakia. Not only did this forever stain the relationship between Britain and countries at loss, it initiated the rise of other fascist forces. Furthermore, Germans' sense of raging nationalism after the unfair treaty of Versailles meant that Hitler's exploitations of that would be increasingly successful with Britain's appeasement.
In my opinion, appeasement was a bad strategy for several reasons. After the Spanish civil war, it could be clearly seen that Hitler was aggressive and not afraid to engage militarily. However, Chamberlain still naively believed that the matter could be solved diplomatically, even going as far as giving Hitler the Sudetenland so that he wouldn't invade Czechoslovakia; this was a horrible decision and a total failure as Hitler broke his promise and annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia shortly after. In addition, the policy of appeasement required Britain to give Germany neighboring lands to stop her expansion. Yet, giving lands meant Chamberlain had to betray his allies/friends, this was critical, as it makes Britain less able to fight against Germany in war, as they would have no friends.
In my opinion, I believe that appeasement was a wise decision since Britain was not prepared for war, could not finance conflict, was worried about France's dominance, and was unsure whether or not America would get involved given its isolation from the rest of the world. Britain needed time to recover from the League of Nations incident before it could battle Europe on its own. Additionally, if they continue to battle, more people will die, which will serve as a reminder of how cruel the Treaty of Versailles was. Another reason why they shouldn't fight is because of their fear of communism.b
I think it is understandable that Britain agree whit the appeasment because at that time they were not enough strong to fight against Germany. One of the main reasons for this, was that everyone wants peace after WW1 and therefore countries like France decide to not fight against Germany,so Britain decide to agree with the appeasment and this gave them time to prepare to fight against Germany.
In my opinion, appeasement played a significant role in causing World War II. By initially meeting Hitler's demands, it gave him a sense of the weakness and willingness of Britain and France to compromise. This emboldened Hitler and fueled his ambition to expand his influence and carry out his aggressive foreign policy objectives. If the appeasement approach hadn't been taken, it is possible that Hitler's advances could have been halted earlier, potentially preventing the devastating conflict that followed. In hindsight, it is clear that appeasement had unintended consequences and demonstrated the dangers of underestimating the resolve of aggressive powers.
In my opinion, the Appeasement was a good idea for Britain. Britain was not prepared properly as Britain had damaged hugely from the Great Depression. Furthermore, it was not guaranteed that other countries in the League of Nations would engage into the war between Britain and Germany to support Britain. Britain needed time to build not only its power but also other nations’ in the League of nations too.
I don't agree with the appeasement because the appeasement give hitler load of times to rearm and prepare for the war as the alliance will not involved in if hitler have any act that go against the Treaty. Moreover, appeasement allowed Germany to expand its territory and influence without facing significant opposition from the Western powers, the policy created divisions among the Allies, with some countries, such as Italy, supporting Germany's expansionist policies, while others, such as France, Britain, and the Soviet Union, felt increasingly isolated.
Post a Comment