Preview

Do you think appeasement is good or not? Tell the reason.

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
675 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Do you think appeasement is good or not? Tell the reason.
Appeasement which was done by chamberlain was to satisfy Germany for preventing war. Actually, at that time, Germany was demanding many things which it lost through Treaty of Versaille. Chamberlain who was British prime minister thought Germany was too punished and had rights to return their prohibited things, and he also thought if he did appeasement, it will make Hitler who was the leader of Germany satisfy and war won't happen. So appeasement started. Nowadays, in general, people think Chamberlain was wrong and he shouldn't do appeasement. But it isn't true. Even if appeasement failed and war started, I think appeasement was good.

It's true that appeasement doesn't look like good. In fact, it had lots of disadvantages which looked very huge. At first, it made Hitler stronger. Through appeasement, Hitler had lots of lands and confidence he can do anything. For example, when Germany invaded the Rhineland and Austria, Britain and France did nothing. They believed if they returned the land which Germany was lost by Treaty of Versaille, Hitler will satisfy and be harmony with other European countries, so they even did Munich agreement and gave Hitler Sudetenland. Maybe it will give Hitler confidence which he can do anything and Britain and France are afraid of Germany. It also made more German Nazi (through the Germans in Sudetenland and Danzig.) which supported Hitler and more German territory for war. The second, through appeasement, no one trusted Britain, because there were many affairs which Britain couldn't keep their promises. For example, When Britain did appeasement, chamberlain said Germany surely won't make a war and he persuaded Czechoslovakia to give Sudetenland to Germany. (Actually, Czechoslovakia wanted to protect it) But he was completely wrong! Czechoslovakia lost Sudetenland and Hitler wanted more and more and finally invaded the Czechoslovakia which don't relate to Germany. (I mean in Treaty of Versaille.) No one trusted Britain.

Until now on,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    German Aggression Dbq

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages

    He also points out that his policy served to repair the damage caused by the Treaty of Versailles. Chamberlain further states: “Really I have no need to defend my visits to Germany last autumn, for what was the alternative? Nothing that we could have done, nothing that France could have done, or Russia could have done could possibly have saved Czecho-Slovakia from invasion and destruction.” There existed no other solution to German aggression against Czechoslovakia. With the Munich Agreement signed, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, without an Agreement, it still would have been likely that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Thus, Chamberlain remains blameless for German aggression because the German Empire would have invaded Czechoslovakia in either case. After establishing his innocence, Chamberlain states the inevitability of war against the German Empire: “Does not the question inevitably arise in our minds, if it is so easy to discover good reasons for ignoring assurances so solemnly and so repeatedly given, what reliance can be placed upon any other assurances that come from the same source?” How can any of the European powers trust the German Empire after the Munich Agreement was so abruptly ripped up? Any further peace talks will not produce satisfying results because there will always be doubt regarding the German intent to expand its territory. Chamberlain…

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    DBQ 19

    • 1059 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In 1939 the world was plunged into World War II because of the Munich Agreement. The Munich Agreement was an agreement regarding the Sudetenland Crisis between the major powers of Europe after a conference held in Munich in Germany in 1938. The Sudetenland was an important region of Czechoslovakia. The Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty created as a result of six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which put an official end to World War I between the Allies and Central Powers. The Munich Agreement caused many disagreements between European countries. Collective security was a more effective response to aggression than appeasement because more European countries disagreed than agreed with the decision made during the Munich Conference for various reasons and Germany had many ways of keeping its territories under control.…

    • 1059 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Last but not least, the speech announced by Neville Chamberlain led Britain and British people into the Second World War. The Second World War damaged all Europe and its economy and led Germany and Britain into bankruptcy. And the United States flourished the European economy after WW2. In my point of view, this speech was a useless speech that hit Britain and France into a war against…

    • 482 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    World War Two is the cruel, black scar that marks the back of the Twentieth century. Etched out by dictators, genocides and opening of the Atomic Era, how did this fiery conflict erupt into the biggest bloodiest War on this Earth? After World War One the seeds of World War Two were planted through the unbearable burdens put on the German people from the infamous treaty of Versailles. With the rise of the notorious dictator Hitler, the German people thirsted for a new beginning. The Western World appeased Nazi Germany which sought more land and threatened war if it’s demands were not met and the Great Powers complied to try to prevent another fierce war, but the new dictator couldn’t be appeased and eventually invaded Poland, sparking World War Two. In order to liken the prevention of war the League of Nations should have introduced collective security to deal with the German aggression instead of appeasement.…

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Intimidation from Fascist leaders was a factor that led to the illogical events of World War II. Adolf Hitler, chancellor of Germany, justified his barbaric actions on his attempt to benefit the "superior" German race. The effects of his ambitions were displayed during the Munich Conference in 1938. Hitler invited the Prime Minister of Britain and the Premier of France and demanded that the Sudetenland become part of Germany. Due to France and Britain's fear of another war, Hitler's demand was accepted. The appeasement, or agreement in order to maintain peace, at the Munich Conference was said to have "saved Europe from a world war," as stated by William Shirer. Contrary to Shirer, Europe would still be involved in war and things would only get worse.…

    • 436 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Another result of appeasement was Hitler gaining the support he needed as time passed. Lastly, Germany took control of Austria. The Holocaust and many other events could have been avoided if the world leaders did not choose to give in to the demands of Hitler. Even though the world leaders thought they were doing the right thing to protect their nation by standing by and doing nothing as Hitler went forth with his plans, they were actually hurting their countries even more because by choosing to appease Hitler, they allowed him to do things that would change the world…

    • 683 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    World War II DBQ

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In the early 1920s, as World War I ended, nations looked for peace as an outlet and hope for the future. As time passed, most countries were happy that the Great War had ended, however they were upset with the outcome. Since there were many costly expenses from the war, it caused many of the hostile nations to look for strong rulers for change. This allowed many harsh dictators to rise to power. These dictators were aggressive rulers and took forceful actions. In order to combat these aggressive rulers, other nations tried to resist war and give in to their demands. This type of action was known as appeasement. Not all countries felt the same way about this response; other countries believed that a collective security would work better.…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Munich agreement encouraged Hitler to take more land and spread militarism. Neville Chamberlain should have stopped Hitler in his tracks, and gathered Allies to defend Poland, as well…

    • 471 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    France and UK came up with the policy of appeasement which was a policy with nazi germany that would allow hitler to take a lot more land than he was supposed to. The reason being is the policy was put into place so that the UK and france would let Hitler do what he wanted as long as he didnt do what they told him not to do. The policy of appeasement however did not work because Hitler was not someone you could appease. Once Hitler invaded poland the policy ended thus ending the reign of letting hitler walk all over…

    • 545 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    q. Failure of appeasement, Munich: This marks the end of creating an international policy. Hitler went through a series of marches with no opposition. Appeasement is the idea of giving someone what they wants to get them to shut up, even though it isn’t good for them. The Munich Conference Hitler lies and promises that the expansion was over. Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf explained he was going to continue…

    • 1136 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Obama VS Chamberlain

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages

    When Chamberlain went to Munich on September 29th, 1938, to ask Hitler to discontinue, as he would have said, his plans to take over Poland, Chamberlain had good intention, but bad execution. He claimed that the appeasement was for, "The peace of our time," and that his agreement with Hitler, that which Hitler publically disregarded 7 days later, would allow Europe to continue war-free, sparing it from the trauma and anxiety associated with war. It is well known that Chamberlain failed utterly to accomplish anything with the appeasement, and war did in fact break out the following year. Recently, President Obama went to Geneva to negotiate peace terms with Iran regarding them physically possessing nuclear weapons, and failed to accomplish anything. In fact, Iran slapped America in the face by completely undermining America's request, and this is the cause for much controversy and ill feelings toward Obama as of late.…

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As Hitler’s power began to rise during the 30s, many Americans still believed that they could avoid the issue through a policy of appeasement (Document G), though it failed and both Britain and France…

    • 653 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Higher History

    • 673 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The result of the Munich agreements success in 1938 is very controversial, it undoubtedly failed its desired purpose for European peace however this seemed unavoidable. Its considered that Chamberlains meetings leading up to the agreement were successful in delaying war at the very start, its debated whether or not this was for the best or if they could have nipped the issue in the bud from the beginning and stopped such a large catastrophe. There were other successes such as doing as the British public wanted who remained strongly against war since the loss of life in the first war, British defences in 1938 were not prepared for another war, another war would bring unimaginable chaos and damage. However the Munich agreement betrayed Czechoslovakia who were strongly defended and allied both Britain and France, if all of them came together its likely war could have been avoided.…

    • 673 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Appeasement was the name of a group of British and (in part) French policies in the years leading up to World War 2, with their intentions being to avert war. This was to be succeeded through making concessions to Germany, Italy and Japan in the years leading up to WWII. Such matters generally were of fair (if not crucial) interest to those making the concessions. Although it is often spoken of pejoratively, appeasement did have roots both in traditional diplomatic practice and in the particular diplomatic circumstances of 1930s Europe. Although it is often described as a tactic used to buy time for rearmament by its creator Neville Chamberlain, more commonly and accurately appeasement is understood as an easy, negotiable “end”.…

    • 1400 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    - The British people had to want war - In 1938, public opinion was against war - so the policy of appeasement was sensible.…

    • 300 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays