There are many reasons which do justify appeasement and also many reasons that don't justify appeasement.
Firstly, appeasement was justified because many military experts in Britain calculated that there would be over 1 million deaths in the first 60 days of war if war broke out in September 1938. This meant that many people wanted to have a negotiated peace because Britain was not ready for war.
Furthermore, appeasement was justified because Britain wanted to play for time so she could rearm and massively increase the number of men in the army (through conscription) and the number of RAF planes. This also links to the calculations made by the military experts as Britain knew that if they did not rearm then many civilians would die in air raids. Instead, politicians knew that buying time would decrease that risk.
However, appeasement was not justified because only 7% of the British population believed that Hitler would not demand to take over any other European countries. This meant that 93% of the population thought Hitler would take land that was not rightfully German which would inevitably result in war.
Furthermore, appeasement was not justified because giving in to Hitler's demands at the Munich Conference meant that Hitler would have more confidence and perhaps take a gamble to demand more land in the future. This also links to the fact that Germany would become much stronger through appeasement which would make it much harder to defeat a stronger Germany in the future.
In my overall opinion, I don't think appeasement was justified because it gave Hitler the confidence to demand more land. This was evident when Hitler demanded the Polish Corridor and Danzig in August 1939, which eventually resulted in war. The public opinion in Britain also was a reason to abandon appeasement because many thought Hitler would demand further, which did happen, and this links to the point I said about Hitler growing more confident and stronger. However, the possible death toll in the first 60 days of a war was incredibly high if Britain did not play for time and rearm.
The policy of appeasement encouraged Hitler and contributed to the war starting in the first place. When Winston Churchill's son Randolph was verbally attacking Chamberlain for his appeasement policy, Churchill defended Chamberlain by saying "he had hope" "hope for what" blurted Randolph, "for the noblest desire of the human heart, Peace," replied his father.
AnswerPolicy of appeasement was justified as there was no other realistic alternative. Also the British public at that time were unwilling to go to war again after the terrible images of the First World War. In September 1939, When the time came to go to war, the British public understood that Chamberlain had done all he could to try and avoid another war.It was the policy of giving something or some things to someone or a group to get something, for example, to prevent war.
In the years before World War 2, the policy of appeasement failed miserably. Nothing it did helped.
IMO, it can't. Compromise yes, appease no. There is a difference.
yes it did work all because of the German's
Appeasement.
appeasement
Policy of appeasement.
No it failed
appeasement
no
Appeasement simply didn't work . . . in fact, appeasement made the situation worse.
Appeasement.
AppeasementThe policy of appeasement.
why did France and britiain choose the policy of appeasement
Appeasement is the policy of giving in to the demands of an aggressor to keep the peace.
Appeasement never works. See answer to this question.What_is_wrong_with_the_policy_of_appeasement
The policy of appeasement.
The policy of appeasement was not successful at all. The Axis powers had no interest in brokering peace but wanted war.
Appeasement
Hardly, the blitzkreig hunger to conquer broke that tactic.
appeasement