Policy of Appeasement: Good or Bad?
After the Great War, Germany and a couple other countries were greatly punished, having to pay reparations and territorial losses. Hitler, soon to be a dictator, wanted to change that. He believed that Germany had been punished too severely and wanted revenge; because he had such a strong government and military, there were many ways of going about stopping him. During the 1930’s, the policy of appeasement was the most effective response to Hitler’s aggression because of many reason but mainly that it keep peace and didn’t start war, the people did not support the war, and because the British needed more time to prepare for war.
First of all, one reason why appeasement was the most effective response because for the time being, it kept peace throughout Europe, and after only 20 years of peace from the Great War, people didn’t want another. While Chamberlain was secretly trying to get more time he claims that he is just trying to keep peace but if necessary, he will take action, “I shall not give up the hope of a peaceful solution…yet if it were sure that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by its fear of force, I should feel that it must be resisted…but war is a fearful thing” (Document 7). This quote signifies that although Chamberlain said he was a man of peace that if he thought it was necessary he would start a war. One problem with appeasement is that some people think that war could have been totally avoided if Hitler had been stood up, “because the Czech defenses were very strong… and because the German generals, conscious of Germany’s relative weakness at that moment, were actually prepared to attempt to remove Hitler” (Document 9). So if the British had stood up to Hitler and beat him, the war would have been over and Hitler subdued.
Furthermore, appeasement was a good policy because even if Chamberlain had wanted war, the Congress didn’t and after just coming out of a pointless war that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document