The two main arguments for appeasement are the desire to maintain peace and stability and the belief that addressing the grievances of aggressive nations can prevent larger conflicts. Proponents argue that making concessions can buy time for nations to strengthen their defenses and promote diplomatic solutions, potentially avoiding the devastation of war. Additionally, appeasement can be seen as a pragmatic approach when facing a militarily stronger adversary, allowing for the preservation of resources and lives in the short term.
appeasement is like calming something down, while intervention is like coming between two or more things. intervention won't necessarily calm whatever it is down.
appeasement encouraged aggression
the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain is associated with appeasement
why did France and britiain choose the policy of appeasement
the act of appeasing
Appeasement.
give two arguments that those who oppose LBOs might use
Appeasement simply didn't work . . . in fact, appeasement made the situation worse.
There are several possibilities. They can be called arguments and there are two kinds, variables and constants. Variables can have different values and constants are always the same.
Appeasement
appeasement is like calming something down, while intervention is like coming between two or more things. intervention won't necessarily calm whatever it is down.
appeasement before world war 2Britain and France was after WWII but Britain and Germany before WWIIAnsweri only know two countries that held an appeasement before war broke out in 1939. these two countries are BRITAIN and GERMANY. i hope that this has helped you with your reasearch.
AppeasementThe 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 Difference between Appeasement and Accommodation?
The Difference between Appeasement and Accomadation?