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.
Seems clear with hindsight that Appeasement allowed for constant aggression by dictatorial powers, but you can't help but think Chamberlain did what anyone would for most of the 30s; tried to de-escalate and avoid reliving the country's shared trauma, and instead follow the general consensus striving for peace. While there were obviously some red flag comments for us, or what we each consider watershed, its hard to decide whether maybe appeasement was followed for good reason, even if it was unsuccessful, and did indisputably lead to war...
In my opinion appeasement was a good idea because of how weakened Britain was at the time, along with it’s biggest ally (France) still recovering after WW1, and America isolating itself from European conflicts, Britain has almost no ally to go up against the newly militarized Germany. Another benefit of appeasement was now they can direct the target of communism towards Germany instead of having to deal with it, making precious time to militarize themself before finally declaring war on Germany. This was also backed up by the fact that war was a hugely unpopular option within Britain, which meant appeasement toward Hitler also means appeasement toward the British people. The economic crisis also contributed to the decision of appeasement, with Britain now focus on their citizen instead of rearmanent.
Nam Khanh I think the Appeasement was a bad idea because it gave Hitler time to form a strong Fascist side and develop his armies. Furthermore, the Appeasement encouraged Hitler to do more, as he knew that Britain wouldn't do anything because they were weakened and afraid of another war. Lastly, I believe Britain and France should have united to stop Hitler earlier so he couldn't reform and become a bigger threat.
Quang Minh I believe the policy of appeasement pursued by the United Kingdom and France in 1938 towards Nazi Germany's expansionist demands was ultimately a misguided approach. In 1938, the Nazis demanded to get Sudeten land located in the region of Czechoslovakia, which had a large ethnic German speaker. Under intense pressure from Hitler, the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed to this demand at the Munich Conference, believing it would satisfy German ambitions and prevent a wider European war. However, this policy of appeasement proved to be a profound mistake. Rather than being satisfied, Hitler's wanting for territorial expansion only grew, and he soon get the rest of Czechoslovakia in 1939. The failure of appeasement encourage the Nazis and contributed to the outbreak of WW2 just a year later. Overall, I think it was not sensible for Britain to agreed with the demand because it led to the outbreak of WW2 and only a piece of paper would not do anything and it’s useless.
ON the one hand, appeasement could be viewed as giving hitler time to prepare for war and future arms conflict. It could also be viewed as giving hitler confidence, giving up on small weak countries despite they are the leaders LofN and encouraging him to make more demands and threaten Britain to help satisfy their demands. However, the policy of appeasement i s justifiable because britain did not have other options to choose from. British public and Britain’s ally countries rejected to fight a war as they were severely impacted from WW1, and the TofV also had very harsh terms.. They wanted a peaceful solution by discussing with Hitler. Moreover, British army wasn’t prepared for war because of Great Depression and lack of funding. Appeasement not only gave hitler time to rearm, but also time for british forces to prepare, rearm to fight a war.
Despite of the fact that I’m not a fan of the appeasement policy, i must admit it’s sensible for Britain to choose this. Britain at that time not gained much support from other nations. Her military force weren’t not ready for another war. People still struggled with horror memories in WWI and Chamberlain didn’t want his people upset. Britain had lots of problems to deal at that time such as LoN, so she just chose the quickest way to solve the situation with the Germany Nazis
In my opinion, appeasement was the best way Britain could do at that time as they haven't fully recover from the depression. They know that they couldn't afford for another war and that no country would support them. Also, Britain and their allies are too weak, so even if there are war, it wouldn't last long. The war would just bring further depression and struggles for the citizens. Overall, appeasement was the most suitable deal Britain could do to decrease the tension. kp
220 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 220 of 220Appeasement 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.
Seems clear with hindsight that Appeasement allowed for constant aggression by dictatorial powers, but you can't help but think Chamberlain did what anyone would for most of the 30s; tried to de-escalate and avoid reliving the country's shared trauma, and instead follow the general consensus striving for peace. While there were obviously some red flag comments for us, or what we each consider watershed, its hard to decide whether maybe appeasement was followed for good reason, even if it was unsuccessful, and did indisputably lead to war...
In my opinion appeasement was a good idea because of how weakened Britain was at the time, along with it’s biggest ally (France) still recovering after WW1, and America isolating itself from European conflicts, Britain has almost no ally to go up against the newly militarized Germany. Another benefit of appeasement was now they can direct the target of communism towards Germany instead of having to deal with it, making precious time to militarize themself before finally declaring war on Germany. This was also backed up by the fact that war was a hugely unpopular option within Britain, which meant appeasement toward Hitler also means appeasement toward the British people. The economic crisis also contributed to the decision of appeasement, with Britain now focus on their citizen instead of rearmanent.
-Thien Bao
Nam Khanh
I think the Appeasement was a bad idea because it gave Hitler time to form a strong Fascist side and develop his armies. Furthermore, the Appeasement encouraged Hitler to do more, as he knew that Britain wouldn't do anything because they were weakened and afraid of another war. Lastly, I believe Britain and France should have united to stop Hitler earlier so he couldn't reform and become a bigger threat.
Quang Minh
I believe the policy of appeasement pursued by the United Kingdom and France in 1938 towards Nazi Germany's expansionist demands was ultimately a misguided approach. In 1938, the Nazis demanded to get Sudeten land located in the region of Czechoslovakia, which had a large ethnic German speaker. Under intense pressure from Hitler, the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed to this demand at the Munich Conference, believing it would satisfy German ambitions and prevent a wider European war. However, this policy of appeasement proved to be a profound mistake. Rather than being satisfied, Hitler's wanting for territorial expansion only grew, and he soon get the rest of Czechoslovakia in 1939. The failure of appeasement encourage the Nazis and contributed to the outbreak of WW2 just a year later. Overall, I think it was not sensible for Britain to agreed with the demand because it led to the outbreak of WW2 and only a piece of paper would not do anything and it’s useless.
ON the one hand, appeasement could be viewed as giving hitler time to prepare for war and future arms conflict. It could also be viewed as giving hitler confidence, giving up on small weak countries despite they are the leaders LofN and encouraging him to make more demands and threaten Britain to help satisfy their demands. However, the policy of appeasement i s justifiable because britain did not have other options to choose from. British public and Britain’s ally countries rejected to fight a war as they were severely impacted from WW1, and the TofV also had very harsh terms.. They wanted a peaceful solution by discussing with Hitler. Moreover, British army wasn’t prepared for war because of Great Depression and lack of funding. Appeasement not only gave hitler time to rearm, but also time for british forces to prepare, rearm to fight a war.
Despite of the fact that I’m not a fan of the appeasement policy, i must admit it’s sensible for Britain to choose this. Britain at that time not gained much support from other nations. Her military force weren’t not ready for another war. People still struggled with horror memories in WWI and Chamberlain didn’t want his people upset. Britain had lots of problems to deal at that time such as LoN, so she just chose the quickest way to solve the situation with the Germany Nazis
In my opinion, appeasement was the best way Britain could do at that time as they haven't fully recover from the depression. They know that they couldn't afford for another war and that no country would support them. Also, Britain and their allies are too weak, so even if there are war, it wouldn't last long. The war would just bring further depression and struggles for the citizens. Overall, appeasement was the most suitable deal Britain could do to decrease the tension. kp
Post a Comment