Appeasement, particularly in the context of the pre-World War II era, is often viewed as a strategy aimed at maintaining peace and stability in Europe by conceding to some of the demands of aggressive powers like Nazi Germany. Proponents argue that it allowed time for nations to rearm and prepare for potential conflict, delaying war and providing a chance for diplomatic solutions. Additionally, it reflected the desire to avoid the horrors of another large-scale war, as seen in World War I. However, the effectiveness and morality of appeasement remain highly debated among historians.
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
Neville Chamberlain
yes
Good or bad didn't matter, appeasement failed to prevent Hitler's ambitions.
Hi bob
Appeasement.
It may have bought them some time, but the war wasn't prevented.
Appeasement simply didn't work . . . in fact, appeasement made the situation worse.
The idea of appeasing your enemy to keep him at arms length away from you is a good idea in theory to protect yourself. But, enemies do not always stay appeased. Appeasement does not really work if the enemy is not appeased as in the case of Adolf Hitler. He went against every nation that tried the appeasement tactic with him.
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?
Appeasement is an ineffective way to handle a screaming child.