The year of 1938 was a scary time for the majority of European people due to the threat of Nazi Germany. Under the control of Adolf Hitler, Germany was expanding its borders and was gaining power and support of the German people. The League of Nations was created to stop another massive war from happening. Many believed that it was the League’s responsibility to deal with Hitler’s aggressive stance on taking over nations. The problem was that the League could not agree with an action to stop Hitler also they did not see the threat of Hitler because he was just taking over country’s that had a large population of Germans. With this threat expanding west, France and Britain started to feel as if their national security was starting to be threatened.
…show more content…
They both had a good argument for each stance. Churchill wanted to keep Germany from thinking they could do whatever they wanted, he felt it would have been better to show Germany that they couldn’t just do whatever they wanted. Chamberlain believed that to start another war was not in the best intentions of Europe. Many nations were still rebuilding from the last war and no one was ready for another devastating conflict like the last one. I believe that these arguments of both men can be related to today’s time. For example in some cases we should try to avoid war by negotiating, also you can see that creating a treaty during a war to end it is also a form of appeasement. An example of this would be how Russia is becoming a threat once again, the United States is using an appeasement method with this situation and so far it seems to be working. On the other side I feel that responding to threat with action can be useful but very dangerous. An example of this would be after 9/11 we may not have declared war but we have punished those who were responsible for what happened. War is never a good situation but as history proves sometimes peace will not always work and a strong response is sometimes necessary to protect the best interests of a
They both had a good argument for each stance. Churchill wanted to keep Germany from thinking they could do whatever they wanted, he felt it would have been better to show Germany that they couldn’t just do whatever they wanted. Chamberlain believed that to start another war was not in the best intentions of Europe. Many nations were still rebuilding from the last war and no one was ready for another devastating conflict like the last one. I believe that these arguments of both men can be related to today’s time. For example in some cases we should try to avoid war by negotiating, also you can see that creating a treaty during a war to end it is also a form of appeasement. An example of this would be how Russia is becoming a threat once again, the United States is using an appeasement method with this situation and so far it seems to be working. On the other side I feel that responding to threat with action can be useful but very dangerous. An example of this would be after 9/11 we may not have declared war but we have punished those who were responsible for what happened. War is never a good situation but as history proves sometimes peace will not always work and a strong response is sometimes necessary to protect the best interests of a