During the 1930’s, Britain and France followed the policy of appeasement. Neville
Chamberlain, the British prime minister was particularly keen to pursue the policy. The Oxford definition of appeasement is: “the action or process of appeasing.” Britain and France were crippled from the emotional, economic, political and psychological costs of war, therefore they gave Hitler what he wanted in order to maintain peace and avoid conflict. The appeasement encouraged Hitler’s aggression as he gained confidence from the sympathy towards Germany after the harsh punishments Germany received after World War I. For example, The Treaty Of Versailles. Despite the fact that the Appeasement had good intentions, it was not a successful policy because it …show more content…
If Chamberlain took action earlier instead of being frightened, the outcome may have been entirely different. Appeasement was beneficial in some instances, Britain was not prepared for another brutal war so Chamberlain killed time, so that the Britain troops could get prepared. He also misjudged Hitler- he believed that Hitler ‘was a man who could be relied on.’ The appeasement also provided the public, and even some politicians, with the misconceptions that peace was restored when a war was inevitable. This was preventing people from realising Hitler’s true goals (world domination-as stated in Mein Kampf- Hitler’s autobiographical book) and taking action to stop him earlier. The ideal idea of the Munich Agreement had restored peace but fooled the Allies into a stagnant state, since everyone was shocked when World War II was declared in September
Chamberlain, the British prime minister was particularly keen to pursue the policy. The Oxford definition of appeasement is: “the action or process of appeasing.” Britain and France were crippled from the emotional, economic, political and psychological costs of war, therefore they gave Hitler what he wanted in order to maintain peace and avoid conflict. The appeasement encouraged Hitler’s aggression as he gained confidence from the sympathy towards Germany after the harsh punishments Germany received after World War I. For example, The Treaty Of Versailles. Despite the fact that the Appeasement had good intentions, it was not a successful policy because it …show more content…
If Chamberlain took action earlier instead of being frightened, the outcome may have been entirely different. Appeasement was beneficial in some instances, Britain was not prepared for another brutal war so Chamberlain killed time, so that the Britain troops could get prepared. He also misjudged Hitler- he believed that Hitler ‘was a man who could be relied on.’ The appeasement also provided the public, and even some politicians, with the misconceptions that peace was restored when a war was inevitable. This was preventing people from realising Hitler’s true goals (world domination-as stated in Mein Kampf- Hitler’s autobiographical book) and taking action to stop him earlier. The ideal idea of the Munich Agreement had restored peace but fooled the Allies into a stagnant state, since everyone was shocked when World War II was declared in September