CreateDebate


Debate Info

46
52
Appeasement necessary Appeasement unnecessary
Debate Score:98
Arguments:88
Total Votes:107
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Appeasement necessary (41)
 
 Appeasement unnecessary (47)

Debate Creator

vicknesh_82(52) pic



Appeasement policy caused WW2! It was totally unnecessary

Appeasement necessary

Side Score: 46
VS.

Appeasement unnecessary

Side Score: 52
3 points

When debating this we must consider that we're looking on the matter with hindsight.

At the time, the financially and militarily weak Germany was seen as a minor threat compared to the colossal communist state that was Russia. Britain especially was worried about increasing Marxist and Socialist influences within Western Europe, allowing Germany to grow more powerful would create a "buffer zone" between Western Europe and the USSR, many people actually approved Hitler coming to power because he was so anti-communist.

Another reason for letting Germany grow was due to trade, before the First World War, Germany was Britain's second largest trading partner. The financially weak post-war British Empire needed to regain economic power quickly, allowing Germany to regain industrial strength supported that cause, especially since Britain had to repay war loans to the U.S.

Also, Hitler just got lucky. The timing of his initial expansion into the Rhineland coincided with French elections, thus none of the French political candidates wanted to declare war even though it was all turned out to be just a big bluff.

The League of Nations, which was proposed by the U.S president, was militarily weak because the U.S and U.S.S.R never joined, leaving the British and French Empires, whom had just suffered heavily losses, to try manage things and nullifying the military action sanction that the League of Nations had. The U.S also undermined the League of Nations' trading sanctions, when a trade embargo of oil was issued against Italy to halt their expansion in Africa, America continued to sell them oil. With both military and trading sanctions made redundant, the League of Nations was only left with verbal sanctions, which were just laughed off by the offending nations.

Another incident which occurred at Versailles was the creation of many small Eastern European States, one of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, bearing in mind that Wilson was the first American President to go to Europe. These smaller nations were very weak and conflicts also immediately arose after the war because of the division of different races between these states. These small nations were easy pickings when in came around to Nazi and Communist expansion.

But even if we hadn't had appeasement and the Second World War as we know it did not occur, who's to say that it couldn't have happened inevitably?

Churchill had wanted an immediate march on Russia as soon as WWII ended to halt the spread of communism, but this was prevented due to the heavy losses from WWII.

If the atomic bombs hadn't been used in WWII would they have been used in the Cold War?

Just because appeasement failed to prevent World War II doesn't mean no appeasement could have prevented an even greater war at a later date.

Side: Appeasement necessary
2 points

Why was this argument downvoted without dispute? If there is something you disagree with please debate about it.

Side: Appeasement necessary

I thought it was accurate and well written. *

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

Appeasement was important because Hitler was a scumbag and my history teacher said so!

Done by: B1 and B2

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

The appeasement was necessary because british's military strength is weak in order to buy some time for britain to rearm to prepare any war against Nazi Germany .

Yew loon , adil ,Ryan

Side: Appeasement necessary
vicknesh_82(52) Disputed
1 point

But they could have stopped hitler early on- like when the clown went into the Rhineland. You would not need to build a big army and air force like they had to much later!

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
adilmuhammad(1) Disputed
1 point

Rhineland is part of Germany, there is nothing wrong for them to reoccupy that land. Furthermore, Britain and France did not have the military strength to start a war at that time as they are still recovering from World War I

Side: Appeasement necessary
chalmers002(4) Disputed
1 point

That was true, however they could have prevented any war when Hitler was stopped earlier.

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
nataliegoh13(2) Disputed
1 point

They could not possibly have stopped Hitler because they were unaware of Hitler's capabilites and how far he would go to unite Germany.

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

Agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

•Appeasement allowed the British and French to ignore an imminent threat and produced a fake peace which led to many deaths.

•Appeasement bought Britain the precious time it needed to prepare for an inevitable war.

•Appeasement led Hitler to believe that no one would oppose his expansionist policies. In short, if Europe had abandoned its appeasement policy by 1935 WWII probably could have been averted

•Thus, Appeasement was definitely NECESSARY.

-ChongJun. :D ChalmersYeo D:

Side: Appeasement necessary
vicknesh_82(52) Disputed
1 point

You are confused! lallalalalalalalalalalalalalalalllalalalallalallalal

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
0 points

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

England under the premiership of Chamberlain, I believe, made the correct deision to appease Germany, a weakend, abused country deeply buried in debt after its ill-treatment in a post treaty of Versailles Europe. Slowly climbing out of debt, England had not the economy, or gun power to risk and survive an all-out war with any country. Chamberlain also upheld beliefs about peace and felt that diplomacy, not mindless slaughter, was the answer in dealing with a responsible leader, as Hitler was to his German people. (Jews and other minorities were not threatened at the time.) Hitler was not the epitomy of evil, and should not have been treated as such, at that time.

-Chalmers D: -ChongJunChen :D

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

Appeasement was necessary because it could help to create peace. Britain also had a small army, and needed time to re-arm, and appeasement could help to buy time.

France did not want war, and Britain could not fight Germany alone.

Many people believed in the League, that quarrels could be ended by negotiation.

Rebuilding economy is an important priority, thus appeasement is definitely necessary.

Done by : Cheryll , XueYun, Rex.

Side: Appeasement necessary
bryan_98(4) Disputed
1 point

But Britain's troop was enough to stop Hitler from sending troops to Rhineland. Hitler ordered his troops to withdrawn if when met with resistance. Even when Hitler's troop doesn't withdrawn Britain army is still enough to stop them as they lack in essential equipment and they do not have air support.

- Bryan , Martin and Lorenzo

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

Britain was the one who do not want war and hence , France could not fight Germany alone .

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

It is necessary because the britain was badly damaged by world war one and Great Depression. The Government needs to rebuilt the economy. Having a war will only destroy it. lIn addition, in Germany pulled out of disarmament conference in October 1933. Hitler announced conscription. Litle reaction to rearmament and TOv not enforced. This led to Hitler having 550,00 men in 1935. A moderately sized army that could post dangers to other nations.

Apeasement is also necessary because many countries was feared of a war. If we do not make peace with Hitler , then there will be another war and millions of young men will die caused by the war.

By : Chow,LOW,Chua

Side: Appeasement necessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

Appeasement led Hitler to believe that no one would oppose him to invade other countries . If Europe had ended its appeasement policy early , WWII probably could have been averted and millions of young men will NOT die because of the war.Hence appeasement is unnecessary.

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement was necessary as the fear of war was present and this policy had given the people of both sides a peace of mind.

-HK, YR and Nat

Side: Appeasement necessary

You can't fight everyone .

Side: Appeasement necessary
Fujiroro(9) Disputed
1 point

You are right. You cant fight everyone but signing an appeasement was totally unnecessary. There were proves saying that there were other better ideas of settling this situition other than through appeasement. Why was appeasement even necessary when Hitler broke the rules so many times and no actions were done to him?

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement is necessary because Rebuilding Economy As Important. The British economy was badly damaged by WW1 and the Great Depression. The government needs to rebuild the economy. Having a war will only destroy it.

By : Chow,Low,Chua

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

Appeasement is necessary because, To Buy Time In Armament. Germany has modernised its military and is ready to fight a war. Britain and France are not ready. Appeasement will give them more time to modernise our armies.

By edwin CHOW,LOW,Chua

Side: Appeasement necessary
Axmeister(4322) Disputed
2 points

When Germany first militarised the Rhineland, their army was significantly weaker than both French and British Forces, to the extent that if the French had reacted the Germany army had orders to retreat at once.

One of them main reasons Britain and France didn't respond with military action was because they were under the impression that German forces were much larger than they actually were, as Hitler's many military rallies gave the illusion of a large army.

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
blurfur98(5) Disputed
1 point

Firstly, Germany's army was not weak at that time. I don't think that Hitler will have the balls to violate the TOV if they have a weak army. Secondly, Britain and France did not response is not because they're scared of the army, they were tired of war and do not want to start another one as they are financially weak.

CHOW, LOW, CHUA

Side: Appeasement necessary
bryan_98(4) Disputed
1 point

It also allowed Hitler to do whatever he likes and take whatever he wants. The West gave in to his demands in order to appease him in hopes of preventing another war. However, instead of just appeasing Hitler, it embolden him and even led him to invade Poland, marking the start of WW2.

TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.

- 36, 38, 40

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

Appeasement was totally unnecessary as it didn't help British and to buy time in armament but instead , it helps Germany to gain more power and become more powerful than previous.

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement is necessary because of, NO U.S Support.

Britain and France cannot win a war against Germany. They can only win if the USA support them. However, the USA is currently following a policy of isolation. It would not get involved with other nations.

Secondly is because of, Communism As The Enemy But Not Nazism.

Communism is a greater threat than Nazism. A strong Germany will prevent Communism from spreading to Central and Western Europe.

Thirdly is because of, Colonialism as important policy.

The colonies like India and Palestine, want independence. They do not have Troops to keep orders in our colonies and fight a war in Europe at the same time.

By : edwin Chow,Low,Chua

Side: Appeasement necessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

Britain and France could actually win a war against Germany at the start when they invade Rhineland . Hence, appeasement helps Germany to gain more power and become more powerful . Thus, because of appeasement , Britain and France cannot win a war against Germany w/o USA to support them.Thus, Appeasement policy was totally unnecessary.

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

The outbreak of World War II might be caused by the appeasement policy, but if the League of Nations was capable of settling international disputes, they do not have to adopt the appeasement to prevent the outbreak of another world war.

Furthermore, at that point of time, the appeasement policy was the right thing to do as Hitler was seen as a potential ally against communism. They thought that by giving in to Hitler, he could prevent another war. Hitler repeatedly made promises to Chamberlain and then broke them. Therefore, the outbreak of world war II was not solely because of the appeasement policy but the weakness of League of Nation and Hitler's action.

Side: Appeasement necessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

Appeasement is unnecessary as it makes Hitler bolder and invade other country by ignoring France and Britain as you said , 'Hitler repeatedly made promises to Chamberlain and then broke them' . This means that Hitler don't care about Britain as he broke his promises to Chamberlain again and again. Chamberlain should have know that Hitler is an ambitious man and shouldn't have believed him again . Hence , the appeasement was totally unnecessary as it allows Hitler to disregard British and go far too much.

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

It is necessary for Appeasement.
The rebuilding of economy was important. The British economy was badly damaged by WW1 and the Great Depression. Therefore the appeasement needed to be there to prevent war so that they could rebuild the economy. Britain and France needed more time to modernise their army, so the appeasement had gave them more time. The Treaty of Versailles had been unfair, that is why the Appeasement is necessary to make this treaty less unfair and once all these problems are solved, Germany would become peaceful again. In the event of Remilitarisation of Rhineland, the appeasement allows the German to get back its backyard therefore its fair for the appeasement to exist. Furthermore, in the event of Anschluss with Austria, more than 98% of the people voted for Hitler. Lastly, in the Sudetenland Crisis, they have promised to stop their expansion. Therefore, it is necessary for the appeasement.

Done by Ang Jia Xuan & Xu Jiamin

Side: Appeasement necessary
Audrey2(2) Disputed
1 point

British is just giving what Germany needs and wants and hence causing Germany to become more powerful. As Germany becomes more powerful, she will not stop developing and wanting to concur more lands by rearmaments and remilitarization. Thus this appeasement does not stop anything but trigger WW2 to start. Aslo in the Sudetenland Crisis, they have promised to stop their expansion. Do you think they will stop expanding when Hitler had already taken over Sudetenland? And he is still thinking of taking over Poland. Therefore appeasement is unnecessary.

done by: Audrey Tan

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
Jiaxuan(1) Disputed
1 point

But this appeasement help British too. Both Britain and France also gain from the appeasement. They were not ready for war and needed more time for armament. They used the time to modernise their armies. The British also used this time to rebuild their economy and they cannot afford to start a war with Germany. If they did not adopt the policy of appeasement, they might not have time to prepare and the war would start earlier. Britain would then lose the war more quickly being unprepared. Therefore, Appeasement is needed.

-Ang Jia Xuan , Xu Jiamin

Side: Appeasement necessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

you said that 'in the Sudetenland Crisis, they have promised to stop their expansion.' However , we know that Hitler broke his promise to Chamberlain that he will stop their expansion as he take over the rest of Czechoslovakia after taking over Sudetenland .Thus, appeasement causes Hitler to rise in power as he had more land and army than previously . Hence, Britain should have stop him earlier to prevent Hitler to become stronger . Therefore , i think that appeasement was totally unnecessary as it didn't help British and to buy time in armament but instead , it helps Germany to gain more power and become more powerful . This lead to WW2.

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement was necessary as many Conservatives liked and supported Hitler’s strong, right-wing government, however, we all know that Hitler uses propaganda such as claiming that Germans in the Sudetenland and Poland were being mistreated and had caused many innocent lives of others during WW1.

Communism is a far greater threat than Nazism and many Britons saw Hitler as a defence against Russian Communism.

Colonialism as an important priority as Britain are having problems in many parts of their empire. They could not defend her empire and fight a war in Europe at the same time.

France and Britain could not fight against Germany alone as there is a lack of U.S. support. However, USA at that time is following a policy of isolation and won't get involved with other nations.

The Treaty of Versailles was unfair and Hitler is merely making this treaty less unfair. When these problems are solved, Germany will become a peaceful nation again.

Done By: XueYun, Cheryll, Rex

Side: Appeasement necessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

Britain and France could actually fight a war against Germany alone at the start when they invade Rhineland . it was only later , when Germany start to invade more countries to increase territory (due to appeasement )that they become more powerful and stronger. .Thus, Appeasement policy was totally unnecessary.

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

The appeasement policy was necessary as it was to prevent war. Who would want war? Of course the west would do whatever they could to avoid war.If they were to give Hitler what he wanted, he would supposedly leave it in peace. The main cause of war is Hitler. He supposedly wanted to claim back what was supposedly Germany's, and that it was 'fair'. with the evidence, it is blatantly obvious that Hitler was conniving to rearm Germany and strengthen his power. ~~~~~

-YR (39)

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

Appeasement policy is necessary.

firstly, we much understand why the appeasement policy was even created and started.

- we must understand that Chamberlain was not a dictator or the dictator of britain or any of the countries or big three,

Chamberlain did not have the right to start a war without the support of the people and he had to by all means, try his very

best to prevent war and maintain the peace as long as he could, moreover even up until 1939, most of the people wanted

peace at almost any price.

Moreover the appeasement policy was able to help the british as it helped the british to be at a better military position.

Many would think that the british being at a better military position is just a small thing, but we need to understand that Britain was part of the big three powers during that period, people literally looked up to them.

and if Britain is one of the powers, it is expected for them to have the ability to be able to fight well in the war,

if the british were not in a better military position, they would be easily conquered and overwhelmed, and if that was to happen, what would the people from other countries think?

they would be like " wow, isnt britain supposed to be really strong? and now they lost? we better back out and cooperate with germany then..."

and that is definitely the last thing we would ever want, once people see the british lost, they would feel that their country, which even isnt a big power would definitely be taken over and they would definitely lose, thus they will help hitler and help germany instead which will make the big three and its allies have a even hard time trying to stop germany and their goals.

HOWEVER,

it was thus because of the appeasement policy that helped made britain even stronger and to be at a better military position.

this meant that at least the british could put up a good fight, and eventually other countries would follow suit and thus germany would finally be overcomed.

One may now say that appeasement policy caused ww2, and now i would reply back saying that,

if appeasement policy was not around, wont ww2 happen even much more before that it actually happened?

ww2 would have broke out long ago if appeasement policy wasnt around.

the countries would rashly just declare war on germany the moment germany break any terms of the treaty of verasilles and thus the terrible ww2 would break out.

therefore appeasement policy infact didnt cause ww2, instead it delayed it.

Done by : Faith wang (7) and Clement Boey (23)

Side: Appeasement necessary
bryan_98(4) Disputed
1 point

Hitler’s comment after sending troops into the Rhineland in 1936.

“The 48 hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking of my life. If the French had opposed us then

we would have had to withdraw. Our forces were not strong enough to even put up with moderate resistance.”

well. WW2 WILL have been prevented if the French or Britain nip Hitler in the bud. But nah, they had no backbone. This is evident as the West kept giving in to Hitler's unreasonable demands.

( In Munich they gave in again despite Hitler showing in 7 days how his idea will change )

Simply they allowed Hitler's forces to grow. Eventually Germany > everyone else involved.The Appeasement didn't cause WW2 nor delay it, it allowed it to happen.

- 36, 38 , 40

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

I agree that your pt. that if appeasement policy was not around, ww2 will happen even much more before that it actually happened. However, appeasement causes a grater impact between countries involved in it and causes more man to die in ww2 as the size of army increases when Hitler invade other countries. Hence, appeasement is unnecessary as it causes greater impact during WW2.

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement was necessary

Germany turned out to be the Central Power most involved in WW1. Because their country produced madman in the history, the British and France are afraid that Hitler might be another of the breed due to his extremist mindset and racism. The France were kicked hard in WW1 and they themselves were weak and would not dare to go for a war without Britain's support. The British on the other hand focused on the recovery of their economy and funds allocation to the Army came last behind the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

Since Hitler was heavily against Communist, they thought they Hitler could be used to control the largest thread to them - Communist Mother Russia ! Thus allowing Hitler to expand and signed treaty with them as act of "insurance", thinking that they would not be involved in the war.

Done by ChalmersYeo D: and ChongJunChen :D

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

Appeasement was necessary as Hitler was not a man you could appease. Any sign of weakness only encouraged him. any accommodation France and British made for him, the exceeded until it led to war . Also British economy was badly affected by Great depression;By the end of 1930 unemployment had more than doubled from 1 million to 2.5 million and in world war 1 France used $24,265,583,000 which is the 3rd country which spend the most money and following up is Britain spending $35,334,012,000 . Hitler army was also filled with well trained generals which the chances of the Germany to win the war is higher. Hitler also anticipated world war 2 and he build his army early while british and france prepare their army after the german troops march into rhineland .

Done by :Adil , Ryan , Yewloon

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

Appeasement was necessary. If Britain had gone to war over the Rhineland, most of the population would have been opposed to war, because most people in Britain at that time agreed with Hitler that the Treaty if Versailles WAS unfair in this respect. Britain could never have won the Second World War with doubt on the home front. Appeasement meant that, when Chamberlain did eventually declare war, the British people went to war knowing that they had done everything in their power AND MORE to keep the peace. And that knowledge helped to keep them going through six years of total war. The labour party in British wanted to spend money on housing and social care, not re-armament – and they were right; there was desperate poverty in Britain, and it needed dealing with. It was right that they should put the needs of British people first.

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

The Americans were determined to be isolationist. France did not want war. And Britain could not fight Germany alone. The USA was not in the league of nation too

Side: Appeasement necessary
Fujiroro(9) Disputed
1 point

There would be both pros and cons for the action of wanting an appeasement. What you stated is only the main few reasons of appeasement. But if you looked at this matter in full details, there are alot of diasdvantages and it also brought discomfort to many

Fuqi, ZhiRong, Yunjia

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement

Appeasement is the policy of pacifying or placating dictatorial powers by making concessions. It is a foreign policy adapted by Britain and France in the 1930’s toward Germany. Many believed that appeasement was the solution, hoping in turn that it would calm the nations of Europe and prevent a Second World War. However others thought it was only preventing a war that was bound to happen as well as being one of the main causes leading to WW2.

In March 1936, Hitler took a gamble to capture and remilitarise the Rhineland. However, this was forbidden under Versailles (peace treaty after WW1 to prevent another war). There was no confrontation from either Britain or France. In a way, this can be thought of as the first appeasement. Hitler ordered his troops to retreat if Britain or France resisted. He admitted at this time that his troops were still inferior to France. Hitler could have been stopped and humiliated in front of his generals. Moreover, it would demonstrate the strength of Britain and France as well proving Hitler isn’t always right. Not interfering allowed him to take the Rhineland and increased his confidence. Also, Germany realised that the allies wanted to avoid confrontation. However, in the light of the allies, it is easy to see that they didn’t’ know Hitler’s true intentions. They thought once his reasonable demands had been satisfied, he would stop. Following this further, Hitler only got back what was rightfully Germany’s; it was like walking into their backyard. Britain wanted peace, they didn’t want to start a war over the Rhineland; ’it has to be over bigger issues.’ Pursuing this further, there is a quote from the Conservative Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain explaining why to avoid war, “War wins nothing, cures nothing, 7 million men cut off in their prime, the 13 million who were maimed or mutilated, the misery and the suffering” etc.

Chamberlain became Prime Minister in May 1937, and straight away the pattern of appeasement was set. In March 1938, Hitler’s Anschluss (union) with Austria presented once again no interference from the allies. After this, on the 15th of September, Chamberlain met with Hitler and it was agreed that Germany gets all areas of Czechoslovakia with a German population of more than 50%. Hitler then altered his criteria and demanded that Germany gets the Sudetenland. Czechoslovakia was strongly against this, and had an alliance with France who promised to defend them. However, on Sep 30th 1938, it was agreed that Germany gets the Sudetenland and no more war. France agreed. I strongly disagree with this for many reasons. But I will first list the reasons for it. Firstly, Hitler would be satisfied with the ‘free land’ (Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland). Secondly the dominions (most powerful voices of empire, self-governing countries) - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa were great supporters of appeasement. At the meeting In Munich, they made it clear that they would not back Britain if it came to war over Czechoslovakia. Thirdly USA, a potential power house was strong for its isolationist’s policy. Fourthly, appeasement gave Britain time to build up their forces previously weakened by WW1. Fifthly It was making sure that war was definite certain. The following includes the reasons I fail to agree with appeasement. Firstly, giving Germany the Sudetenland was a big mistake. Firstly, it gave Germany 66% of Czechoslovakia coal; used to power Nazi War machines, 70% of its iron, steel, coal and electrical power. Hence leaving the Czech nation open to absolute domination by Germany; surely the allies saw that. Secondly It is unfair to say that the dominions (once part of Britain) wouldn’t come to war if Britain declared war over Czechoslovakia. They wouldn’t support immediately, but they would eventually come; except maybe South Africa. Remember, if Britain went to war so would France. Thirdly, although the USA was following the isolationist policy, Britain had Czechoslovakia and even Poland on their side. Hence Britain had many allies and this was a huge advantage. Hence, the war could end in a short time. Nevertheless when they went to war, they knew the USA would not get involved for a while or not at all Fourthly Britain having time to build up their forces also meant time for Germany to do the same. Fifthly, there was enough evidence at the time that the war was bound to happen. . Hitler took the Rhineland and Austria without permission. This would make me stop and think, would Hitler really be trustworthy and is it worth trusting him. My suggestion is. Be patient with the decision. Try to find out more about him; how he got into power, what his true intentions are. Mein Kampf (evidence of his true evil intent), MI5 realised his aims were without limits and German Generals risked their lives to warn Chamberlain. Even though German Generals don’t seem trustworthy, it should make the allies, especially Chamberlain think even more about trusting Hitler. I assume Neville didn’t take much notice of ‘experts’, or others who disagreed. He was driven by a fear to avoid war at a very high cost. And we know fear isn’t a good emotion as it gets in the way of logical thinking. If Hitler takes the Sudetenland, go to war.

After getting the Sudetenland (Sep 30th 1938), in March 1939, they took the rest of Czechoslovakia, without any support from the allies. It was clear appeasement had failed. Hitler’s next target was Poland and he didn’t expect any action from the feeble and witless British and French so he attempted to get another country. However, the French and British did in fact declare war on Germany. But Germany was victorious getting all of Poland. With all that land Germany now had, it would surely be a major war. What went wrong? Appeasement went wrong.

In conclusion, appeasement was only preventing a war whilst being one of the main causes leading to WW2. Whether appeasing the Rhineland or even Austria was justifiable, I admittedly think that giving Germany the Sudetenland was wishful thinking as the information at the time was satisfactory to know that Hitler wasn’t worth trusting.

Side: Appeasement necessary
3 points

The Policy of Appeasement was the attitude and policy that Britain and France took against Germany in the pre-WWII years -the willingness to give in to agressive powers. It was an important cause of war.

Czechoslovakian Crisis - Hitler intended to bring the German-majority Sudentenland of Czechoslovakia into Germany's jurisdiction. British PM Neville Chamberlain gave in to demands of Hitler which became bolder in the end gave the entire Sudentenland to Germany, and other parts of Polish and Hungarian populated areas to Poland and Hungary.

This was despite the fact the Czech President Eduard Benes opposed to the plan and the Western Powers would not help him against Germany.

the evidence to support is:

Anschluss - Hitler completed the Anschluss with Austria in 1938, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. However, Britain and France undertook the Policy of Appeasement when they allowed Anschluss to happen.

Appeasment allowed Germany to do as it pleased while Britain and France would be giving in all the way. It was not until Hitler became more confident that his Invasion of Poland would face no opposition from the West that Britain and France finally saw the failure of appeasement.

:)

valval and catcat hahahah

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
TakahashiRen(3) Disputed
0 points

Hitler was the main cause of war not the countries giving in. Even without the appeasement policy Hitler would not have stopped. Like the TOV he ignored all conditions.

~YR (39)

Side: Appeasement necessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

W/o the appeasement policy , Hitler would not have the ability to invade other countries so soon . Therefore, the Appeasement policy let WW2 start earlier.

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

The appeasement policy was a failure that was a major factor that caused world war 2.

Britain allowed Germany to have an anschluss with Austria,which in turn,lead to Germany having a greater area of land and more areas bordering the new Germany,thereby,Germany is a greater threat but Britain did not take any action as they were financially weak and needed time to recover from world war one

Done By:Seah Dong Hua and Nicholas Khor

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
vicknesh_82(52) Disputed
1 point

Could Germany have made an effective argument about how all these lands were actually part of Germany once and that Germans were merely acting reasonable...?

Side: Appeasement necessary
nicholas2436(3) Disputed
1 point

However,Sudetenland now belongs to Czechoslovakia and thereby,this in turns threatens the territory of the new country

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
jesline(2) Disputed
1 point

Britain did not stop Germany from completing the Anschluss of Austria because they believed that Hitler had certain aims and that once he had achieved these he would help to prevent another war. Furthermore, many people sympathised with Hitler's claims and accepted that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh and that Germany should have been treated more fairly. So they did not object too much when Hitler built up his armed forces, increased his navy and moved his troops into the Rhineland.

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

Appeasement gave Germany and other Axis powers an opportunity to build strength before attacking the rest of Europe.

However, like Chamberlain who is 'naive', people seem to think that politicians operate in a vacuum, which is not the case. He wanted to avoid war for he knew they were military unprepared.

Hitler having the chance of 'peace' between the two nations , took this advantage to 'backstab' them . The appeasement policy could be altered which Hitler did so, therefore it is unnecessary.

Furthermore, although it had given Britain chance to be more military prepare, Germany had ALSO time to be more stronger in its military , therefore having a greater urge for a war

Furth

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

The Appeasement was unnecessary. Chamberlain thought ‘a piece of paper’ would be able to control Hitler from doing things that would cause a war. And therefore came out with the appeasement policy. He only had the intention to prevent Britain from war again. but due to his actions, millions of Austrians and Czechs were abandoned to the brutal Nazi terror. During the meetings, none of the sides considered the feelings and thoughts of the Czechs Government and people. So what was an appeasement for when it was to bring peace and to satisfy both parties when the Czechs feelings werent considered. And also from research, appeasement was not the only choice possible. in fact there were many other alternatives like, securing support at home for an anti-German alliance and worked to build a barrier to Hitler's expansion. Appeasement was also the reason that had caused all the events that lead to WW2. Even Churchill ( who took over Chamberlain position in war) said this " A terrible policy - Hitler now thinks he can get away with whatever he wants!" He too find that it was unnecessary.

FuQi,ZhiRong,Yunjia

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

The Appeasement Policy was totally unnecessary.

Appeasement allowed the British and French to ignore an imminent threat and produced a fake peace.

Appeasement led Hitler to believe that no one would oppose his expansionist policies. During the 1930's Britain and France let Hitler have whatever they considered necessary to preserve peace in Europe. They believed that Hitler had certain aims and that once he had achieved these he would be satisfied. So they allowed him to re-arm, invade the Rhineland (1936), complete the Anschluss of Austria (1938) followed by the Sudetenland. Appeasement assumed Hitler would keep his side of the bargain.

The appeasers made the mistake of treating Hitler as a rational politician who was open to reasoned argument. They did not realise until it was too late that he was a determined tyrant who saw each concession as a sign of weakness and they failed to recognise that the more he was given, the more he demanded. During appeasement, time and again Germany broke international agreements without punishment, they were allowed to re-arm, invaded the Rhineland, achieved the Anschluss and took control of Czechoslovakia in return for meaningless promises. It is true that the Appeasement Policy allowed Britain to rearm herself and be in a better position to fight, it also allowed Germany to grow stronger as she gained more territory. The Policy basically allowed Hitler to do whatever he liked and take whatever he wants.

The policy failed and Hitler used this time to strengthen his forces, expand his boundaries and when war was finally declared

Germany was in a stronger position than either Britain or France.

The most important factor that led to WW2 was the fact that the Appeasement Policy led Hitler to think that nobody is going to stop what he's doing. This is proven by the fact that the West agreed to Hitler's demands again and again.

Adolf Hitler : ''The Munich Conference has convinced me that Britain and France will never go to war over other countries. I can now safely plan to take over other countries without worrying about France or Britain.''

WW2 could be prevented if Hitler was nip in the bud. If actions were taken when Hitler first marched into Rhineland, he will not have the mentality that he can push his luck. Also if they had stopped Hitler from seizing other land, it will halt Germany growth in power as well. Appeasement gave Germany an opportunity to build strength before attacking the rest of Europe.

- 36, 38, 40

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

It was unnecessary. Because the only good thing that came to appeasement would be it would grant preparation time in case of war. However, it was a mistake as Germany desired lebensarum of living space and would do it by conquest as Austria Czechoslovakia , Holland ,Poland , France and Belgium etc. and did it quickly so appeasement did not work and ruined political careers. For example, when Hitler annexed Austria, neither the League of Nations nor Western politicians did anything concrete to stop him. When Hitler demanded the Sudetenland, Britain and France gave in. When he took over the rest of Czechoslovakia, they again did nothing. Besides this appeasement encouraged Hitler to be aggressive as every time Hitler got away with one of his aggressive acts, he became more daring and believed that none of the allied countries would attempt to stop him. There is evidence that Hitler was very unsure and nervous about marching the soldiers into the Rhineland. To his surprise, no one tried to stop him. If the allied countries would have acted then, Hitler could have been stopped, instead they let Hitler push his way around Europe.It was not until Hitler invaded Poland that the Chamberlain of England and Daladier of France finally did something, but by then it was too late. These countries seemed to let World War II happen. Therefore, the appeasement is totally unnecessary.

fuqi,zhirong,yunjia

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement was unnecessary because every time Hitler was given an inch, he took a yard. Hitler took it as a sign of weakness on behalf of the Western allies and assumed that they had no will to go to war. Hence he kept pushing back the Versailles Treaty - developing a bigger army/navy and airforce, re-militarising the Rhineland, Anschluss, the Sudetenland etc. At every violation of Versailles France and the UK didn't try and stop him. Even after Munich when Hitler was allowed to re-colonise the Sudetenland a treaty was drawn up and signed by France and the UK allowing the return to Germany of this territory. Hitler then reneged on that treaty and promise and invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia.

When Britain signed a treaty with Poland to go to her aid if she were attacked, Hitler thought that the British would again back down. Appeasement was designed to give Hitler something to keep him quiet, but it failed because the western allies failed to understand what Hitler's ultimate objectives were and that was to militarily dominate central Europe way beyond Germany's borders. And in the meantime, it certainly did strengthened the British military, but it also, gave Hitler extra time to strengthened the German Army and this further triggered his urge to go to war.

YunJia Fuqi ZhiRong

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Britain adopted the appeasement policy as 1)Britain was afraid of having another war 2)needed time to rebuild its economy 3)Wanted to buy time in armament,etc...

Germany needed land for lebensraum and the appeasement policy merely allowed Germany to expand her territory.An example is when Germany had taken over the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia as Britain,France and Germany had agreed to allow Hitler to possess part of Sudetenland where there were many Germans and only if they voted to join Germany without the consent of the ruler of the land itself,Czechoslovakia.However,Hitler is not contented to take over only that piece of land.Instead,he invaded the whole of Czechoslovakia.This shows that the appeasement policy is merely a tool and helpline for Germany for expanding its territories and thereby,the appeasement policy is unnecessary.

Done By:Dong Hua

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

The appeasement was adopted because they Fear of war. Hence, Britain and France decided to give Hitler what he wants as long as it prevents another war.

The Sudetenland Crisis

Britain and France agreed to let Hitler possess parts of Sudetenland. However, in March 1939, Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. This made Hitler even stronger than before.

Therefore, I think that the Appeasement is Unnecessary

Done By : Nicholas Khor

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
haokiatmkay(4) Disputed
1 point

Wasn't Nevile Chamberlain the one who agreed to let Hitler have parts of the Sudetenland? Britain and France did not do anything to support or dispute this idea.

According to what you have stated in the third paragraph, 'in March 1939, Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia', is because Hitler was confident he would be able to get what he wanted as he has a really strong army, a strong backup and at that point of time, he already gained possession parts of the sudetenland. He knew that chamberlain would have trusted him as during the first meeting, chamberlain felt that Hitler's demands are reasonable and therefore decided to give him what he wanted. Chamberlain also thought of whether his decision would have benefit his country as well. Chamberlain knew that Germany have a strong army. He did not want war to happen as well, being leader of the country, his job is to protect the country and reap benefits for the country. If Chamberlain had rejected Hitler's demands, Hitler might have to go through war to get what he wanted. More men would have been killed or injured and economy will cripple once again as a lesson learnt from WW1.

Therefore appeasement was necessary to prevent war between countries

Side: Appeasement necessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

'Chamberlain knew that Germany have a strong army. He did not want war to happen as well, being leader of the country, his job is to protect the country and reap benefits for the country. If Chamberlain had rejected Hitler's demands, Hitler might have to go through war to get what he wanted. More men would have been killed or injured and economy will cripple once again as a lesson learnt from WW1.' What you had stated above is all because of the appeasement policy. The Britain and France could have stop Germany when Germany invaded Rhineland as Germany was not so powerful then. Hence , it was the appeasement policy that the causes WW2.

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement was actually not necessary. Because it is a small factor, as there are other bigger factors that lead to World War Two. Such as, Hitler Invasion.

Even if the appeasement policy was absent, Hitler would still try to regain what was rightfully theirs.

Another factor is that the League Of Nation as it only talks a lot but no action was taken An example is when Germany tried to invade Poland. The objective of the League Of Nations was to prevent Germany from having more land. Whatsmore, Poland was right next to Russia, which was another major country in Europe, lead by Stalin.

Another reason is that Stalin did not prevent the invasion of Poland and thus Germany was able to gain more land, army, navy and Air Force, which was something the Treaty Of Versailles objected on.

Another side factor is that Hitler wanted to show to the whole world that Germany was one of the better countries, and thus would have started World War Two, even without the Appeasement Policy.

Done by Kwok Yu Hin (29), Khoo Gin Xiang (27)

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
chimpanze123(2) Disputed
1 point

Appeasement was totally necessary.

And appeasement is definitely not JUST a small factor.

Appeasement was actually of much help towards the other countries, especially Britian.

you stated the "if appeasement policy was absent, Hitler would still be able to regain what was rightfully theirs" what you said is true, however, it is through appeasement, that no fights or much deaths were needed for hitler to obtain what he needed?

if appeasement was absent, Hitler would INDEED get what was rightfully theirs, however appeasement made it a smooth and a much more better journey when hitler got what he wanted.

lets say for example the Rhineland,

the Rhineland is indeed Germany's territory, however it was been taken away from them and dimilitarised.

But Hitler just went marching into the Rhineland and just took it away just like that.

There wasnt any fights or disputes when he took it, and this is all because of the Appeasement policy.

IF the appeasement policy was absent, Hitler would require to go through armies and protestants and many others, just for him to get back Rhineland. and by going through armies, i meant fights, fights would definitely break out if Hitler just marched into Rhineland if the appeasement policy. And fights would eventually lead to deaths and more deaths and injured people.

and eventually, hitler may be stalled from getting Rhineland, but all of us know his capabilities to get whatever he wants, especially with the army of his.

Thus appeasement policy was absolutely necessary, if without this policy,

who knows the number of deaths would have been caused just by " hitler regaining and reclaiming what was rightfully Germany's " ?

the number would definitely be large and beyond numbers, if hitler is able to randomly throw people into prison cells and concentration camps just because they are suspected of going against him, all the more he would definitely kill and exterminate and get rid those that would go against him and make him unable to get what he wants - the territories which were once germany's ?

You've even started you argument with " Appeasement was actually not necessary. Because it is a small factor" since you've stated that appeasement policy is such a small factor, then i would really ask you to clarify how did such a SMALL factor caused WW2? after all the motion we're arguing about is that ' appeasement policy caused ww2 '

so i think you've just seriously contradicted whatever motion you're going for.

please do clarify!! thanks :-)

done by : faith wang (7) clement boey (23)

Side: Appeasement necessary
Genevieve(8) Disputed
1 point

i agree that appeasement is definitely not JUST a small factor. It is a BIG factor that caused WW2 as it allows Germany to have a larger land to become more powerful . If appeasement policy was absent , Britain and France could have just stop Hitler when he invades Rhineland. In addition ,Hitler had a motive for invading Rhineland . He doesn't want to get was rightfully Germany's , but instead he want to make Germany STRONG AGAIN by BREAKING the TOV (recovering lost land). Hence appeasement policy was unnecessary.

Genevieve

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
bryan_98(4) Disputed
1 point

you are confused. so your stand here is ?

''however appeasement made it a smooth and a much more better journey when hitler got what he wanted.'' < bad.

''IF the appeasement policy was absent, Hitler would require to go through armies and protestants and many others, just for him to get back Rhineland. and by going through armies, i meant fights, fights would definitely break out if Hitler just marched into Rhineland if the appeasement policy. And fights would eventually lead to deaths and more deaths and injured people.

and eventually, hitler may be stalled from getting Rhineland, but all of us know his capabilities to get whatever he wants, especially with the army of his.'' < no he won't. The march into Rhineland was a gamble. Hitler ordered his troops to retreat if the France or Britain resist. Hitler admitted that during that point in time his troops were still inferior to the France.

'' Thus appeasement policy was absolutely necessary, if without this policy,

who knows the number of deaths would have been caused just by " hitler regaining and reclaiming what was rightfully Germany's " ?

the number would definitely be large and beyond number '' < .... this allowed WW2 to happened. The number of lives that were lost during WW2 compared to the number of lives that will be lost if the France resisted. .... 0. Hitler ordered his troops to retreat immediately if they are fired upon.

'' if hitler is able to randomly throw people into prison cells and concentration camps just because they are suspected of going against him, all the more he would definitely kill and exterminate and get rid those that would go against him and make him unable to get what he wants - the territories which were once germany's ? '' < your purpose here is ?

'' Appeasement was totally necessary. And appeasement is definitely not JUST a small factor. '' + '' then i would really ask you to clarify how did such a SMALL factor caused WW2 '' < so u meant that Appeasement is a big factor in causing WW2. Appeasement is a nono.

However your stand is NECESSARY. = Appeasement is a plus. its good. it delayed the war. caused lesser loss of lives or something.

im confused.

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
haokiatmkay(4) Disputed
1 point

'Even if the appeasement policy was absent, Hitler would still try to regain what was rightfully theirs.' I disagree to this statement. Of course, Hitler will try to regain what was rightfully theirs, however will they succeed, without the appeasement policy? With appeasement, Germany is then able to take their own sweet time to actually re-militarise their country to make Germany a powerful country once again. Hitler did not give a shit to the TOV as he knew that other powerful countries such as Britain and France were still in a financial crisis due to WW1, no one can be bothered to stop him. He did whatever he wanted, he opposed the TOV. Got his army to about 500,000 men although the TOV stated that his army cannot exceed 100,000 men. An army of 500,000 men can be a treat to another country.

Side: Appeasement necessary
Fujiroro(9) Disputed
1 point

Based on Hitler's abilities i believed that Germany would do well even without the appeasement. Appeasement may have made life easier for Hitler since he managed to get Britain and France from getting into his way. But, since Hitler wanted to increase lebensraum and also wanted all German speaking people to live together in 'Greater Germany'. We believe that he would do anything to obtain these goals. The appeasement also allowed Hitler to do all the things to obtain his goals openly. So we could say that the appeasement was the one that made Hitler feel more powerful and also successful. This eventually led to more unhappy events when thoughts of people werent considered.

Fuqi. Zhirong. Yunjia

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement would have been unnecessary if the League of Nations and the two superpowers of Britain and France had paid more close attention to Germany and could have intervened straight away if they had broke any terms of the Treaty of Versailles. If Germany had broken any terms they should have had punishments imposed on them for breaking them. When Germany was rearming and acquiring land, the League should have sent someone to check on Germany and the two superpowers should have had led the way by having a firm stand on it. When Germany re-militarized the Rhineland the French should have drove them away immediately and should have asked Britain for support if they needed help.The two superpowers should have also stopped the Anschluss of Germany with Austria which expanded Germany. This events would have motivated Hitler to expand Germany more as no one stopped him. ~Lorenzo(36)

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
haokiatmkay(4) Disputed
1 point

I had to agree that if the two superpowers of Europe had a firm stand from the start, Germany would not have able to reinforce their army and the country's economy. However, there are also reasons for the two superpowers to not have stepped in to stop Germany from getting anymore powerful. When Germany first took over the Anschuluss of Austria, which you have mentioned was the period of time for France and Britain to recover from WW1. Their economy was crippled and they needed that time to restore their economy to let their people a better lead a better life. In addition, Rhineland was originally the German's, it was only taken away from them due to the TOV. By re-militarising Rhineland, Hitler was merely 'returning to his homeland'. There was nothing wrong by returning home. I have to comment that Hitler was also smart as well. He predicted when he could take proper actions to rearm Germany again. None of the countries can be bothered to actually 'punish' Germany for breaking the TOV as they are recovering from WW1, including the USA.

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

USA at that time is following a policy of isolation and won't get involved with other nations.

Side: Appeasement necessary
Alfredism(4) Disputed
1 point

The France did had reactions against Hitler's troops walking into Rhineland. France's top military official, General Maurice Gamelin, informed the French government that the only way to remove the Germans from the Rhineland was to mobilize the French Army, which would not only be unpopular; it would also cost the French treasury 30 million francs per day. Gamelin assumed a worst-case scenario in which a French move into the Rhineland would spark an all-out Franco-German war. The British also thought that their treaty of "insurance" would buy them safety and did not do any actions against the march. You claimed that the League should have sent someone to check on Germany's action, but even the two big man hid their guns and served tea, what makes you think any minority would dare to challenge Hitler ?

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

The appeasers made the mistake of treating Hitler as a rational politician who was open to reasoned argument. They did not realize until it was too late that he was a determined tyrant who saw each concession as a sign of weakness and they fail to recognize that the more he was given, the more he demanded.

Hitler planned a massive rearmament programmer to build up Germany defenses. From 1933 to 1934, the Nazi stepped up their secret rearmament and conscription programme to the world until march 1935. This was after he took complete power over Germany by merging the offices of chancellor and president in 1934, and building up the Germany army until felt confident to do so. However, under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany's army and navy were severely limited, and they were not allowed to have an air force. But by March 1935, Germany possessed 2 500 plane Luftwaffe and 300 000 strong army. Germany also instituted compulsory conscription and planned for an army for 550 000. Due to the pacifist mood in countries such as Britain and the weakness of the League of Nations, the Allies only made verbal protests instead of imposing sanctions on Germany. Hitler was thus able to transform Germany into a formidable and dangerous military power. At the same time, Britain who now favored a policy of appeasement signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement with Hitler in June 1935, allowing German a limited build up of its navy.

On 7 March 1936, Hitler order German troops yo cross the Hohenzollern Bridge to remilitarize the Rhineland. When questioned, he used the Franco-Soviet Alliance as an excuses, saying Germany was now under threat from France and the Soviet Union and should be allowed to defend its own frontier.Although he knew that many in Britain would sympathize with Germany he was not sure about France. Hence he did not send in strong forces to Rhineland and when met with resistance, his troops will withdraw. The France however did not respond.

On 16 March 1939, Hitler invaded and took over the rest of Czechoslovakia after gaining control of Sudetenland. Neither the Czechs nor the Allies fight back.

By following the policy of appeasement, the Allies missed a number of opportunities to resist Hitler and stand up to him and preventing the outbreak of World War II

-Bryan , Martin and Lorenzo

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement is not the only factor that caused WW2. There are other factors like failure of the League of Nations, alliance with each other (Allies and Central powers),ccompetitions for colonies, assassination of Archduke of Austria-Hungary and others. without appeasement, WW2 may also occur.

done by:Audrey Tan

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
bryan_98(4) Disputed
1 point

Assassination of the Archduke of Austria-Hungary - WW1. not WW2

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

Appeasement was the policy followed by the British, and later by the French, of avoiding war with aggressive powers such as Japan, Italy and Germany, by giving way to their demands, provided they were not too unreasonable.

My opinion is that the whole appeasement policy was wrong because it was applied to a wrong person. It might have worked with some German government, but with Hitler it was doomed to failure. During the period of the appeasement policy, Hitler was still exploring the terrain in order to see how far he can go. Britain and France should have taken a firm line with him before Germany had become too strong: an Anglo-French attack on western Germany in 1936 at the time Rhineland occupation would have taught Hitler and a lesson and might have toppled him from power.

There are many reasons why the appeasement policy was unnecessary. Big part takes the national self-interest, showed by all the big powers, especially by Britain. This showed Hitler two main things: first, that the West is not united and thus easy to deal or fight with; and second, that the West doesn't really care about the small eastern-European stated such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, which gives him a free way to get what he wants without making too much noise.

Britain had showed its self-interest many times, both directly, and indirectly. When Austen Chamberlain, the British Foreign Minister said at the time of Locarno that no British government would ever risk the bones of a single British grenadier in defence of the Polish Corridor, it seemed to Germany that Britain had turned her back on eastern counties. The British reaction on re-occupation of Rhineland was shocking: Lord Londonderry was reported to have sent Hitler a telegram congratulating him on his success. All this, together with the later pressure over Poland to surrender Danzig, showed that Britain is ready to sacrifice any country except from itself, just to satisfy Hitler and ensure its security.

by Yun Jia, fuji, zhirong

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
Alfredism(4) Disputed
1 point

You said that Britain is ready to sacrifice any country except itself, just to satisfy Hitler and ensure its security. So you're making the point that Britain is as good as dismissing all her small eastern-European states such as Poland and Czechoslovakia and Hitler would be allowed to conquer all these lands by freewill without worrying about angering the British. What makes you think that in this way, allowing Hitler to conquer these land under freewill over time would not cause another war to break out ?

Side: Appeasement necessary
1 point

We are saying that since Britain is so unwilling to sacrifice herself to protect the other smaller countries then why is there even a need to sign an appeasement with Hitler( Germany). When their only intention is to protect themselves. Britain could have spent the time on recovering on the loss from the war and also creating new weapons instead of spending time dealing with Germany. Wouldnt that prepare them sufficiently if a war breakout?

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

The appeasement policy was unnecessary.Britain and France could have attacked the Rhineland in 1935 and stopped Hitler from achieving so much more later on.Instead Hitler was able to trick Britain and France that they had a large army and was buying time to start rebuilding their army.They also should not have allowed Hitler to take over Sudetenland, it was obvious that Sudetenland was the only defense in Czechoslovakia and if Hitler possessed it he would so easily be able to take over the whole of Czechoslovakia. They should have stopped Hitler from taking Iver other countries and send a warning to Germany.

-Raker

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

The appeasement was unnecessary. Firstly, it did not keep up its purpose and agreement. The appeasement was signed between Britain, France and Germany, main purpose to prevent war between these countries by allowing Germany occupy Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. However, Hitler had other plans , he has further territorial conquest to redeem, he took over more land then he should redeem in the later years. The appeasement was invalid. Secondly, by appeasing Hitler to sign the appeasement, this shows Britain and France fruitless effort in preventing war with Germany. Shown through the desperation by agreeing letting Hitler gain Czechoslovakia at the conference without any comment from the checks. This highlighted their desperation to prevent the war from Germany, giving him confidence to stir up commotion later on. Germany ignored the appeasement and carried on his own desires. The appeasement was therefore unnecessary. Thirdly, by giving in to Hitler request, this allows him to be more ambitious to demand for more land.

Alloysius Lim (20) , Chermaine Ang (3)

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement is totally unnecessary as it gave the green light for aggression, as demonstrated in abyssinia 1935 mussolini could get away with doing what he wanted without the major powers such as Britain and France getting involved. Hitler thus began to create an aggressive foreign policy. Hitler carried out the remilitarisation of the rhineland in 1936 and then went on to take Austria and Czechoslovakia without facing opposition. This portrayed that chamberlain was inexperienced with international politics and relations and showed the allies to be weak. Beside this , the appeasement also led to a devastating war that could have been stopped earlier. Hitler gave orders to his army to retreat if faced by opposition in the remilitarisation of the rhineland in 1936, however britain was unwilling to become involved in an 'irrelivant' piece of land and france was unwilling to act alone. If Hitler was opposed and his army retreated then he would have faced public humiliation and eventually been deposed. Furthermore through appeasement the allies lost a strong potential ally- Czechoslovakia. They have an army of 34 divisions and were extremely powerful however at the munich conferences 1928, they appeased hitler and allowed him to take the whole of the sudetanland. Eventually this appeasement led hitler to believe that Britain and France would yet again appease him in Poland, which is when war was declared on the 3rd september 1939.

fuqi, zhirong, yunjia

Side: Appeasement unnecessary
1 point

Appeasement

Appeasement is the policy of pacifying or placating dictatorial powers by making concessions. It is a foreign policy adapted by Britain and France in the 1930’s toward Germany. Many believed that appeasement was the solution, hoping in turn that it would calm the nations of Europe and prevent a Second World War. However others thought it was only preventing a war that was bound to happen as well as being one of the main causes leading to WW2.

In March 1936, Hitler took a gamble to capture and remilitarise the Rhineland. However, this was forbidden under Versailles (peace treaty after WW1 to prevent another war). There was no confrontation from either Britain or France. In a way, this can be thought of as the first appeasement. Hitler ordered his troops to retreat if Britain or France resisted. He admitted at this time that his troops were still inferior to France. Hitler could have been stopped and humiliated in front of his generals. Moreover, it would demonstrate the strength of Britain and France as well proving Hitler isn’t always right. Not interfering allowed him to take the Rhineland and increased his confidence. Also, Germany realised that the allies wanted to avoid confrontation. However, in the light of the allies, it is easy to see that they didn’t’ know Hitler’s true intentions. They thought once his reasonable demands had been satisfied, he would stop. Following this further, Hitler only got back what was rightfully Germany’s; it was like walking into their backyard. Britain wanted peace, they didn’t want to start a war over the Rhineland; ’it has to be over bigger issues.’ Pursuing this further, there is a quote from the Conservative Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain explaining why to avoid war, “War wins nothing, cures nothing, 7 million men cut off in their prime, the 13 million who were maimed or mutilated, the misery and the suffering” etc.

Chamberlain became Prime Minister in May 1937, and straight away the pattern of appeasement was set. In March 1938, Hitler’s Anschluss (union) with Austria presented once again no interference from the allies. After this, on the 15th of September, Chamberlain met with Hitler and it was agreed that Germany gets all areas of Czechoslovakia with a German population of more than 50%. Hitler then altered his criteria and demanded that Germany gets the Sudetenland. Czechoslovakia was strongly against this, and had an alliance with France who promised to defend them. However, on Sep 30th 1938, it was agreed that Germany gets the Sudetenland and no more war. France agreed. I strongly disagree with this for many reasons. But I will first list the reasons for it. Firstly, Hitler would be satisfied with the ‘free land’ (Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland). Secondly the dominions (most powerful voices of empire, self-governing countries) - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa were great supporters of appeasement. At the meeting In Munich, they made it clear that they would not back Britain if it came to war over Czechoslovakia. Thirdly USA, a potential power house was strong for its isolationist’s policy. Fourthly, appeasement gave Britain time to build up their forces previously weakened by WW1. Fifthly It was making sure that war was definite certain. The following includes the reasons I fail to agree with appeasement. Firstly, giving Germany the Sudetenland was a big mistake. Firstly, it gave Germany 66% of Czechoslovakia coal; used to power Nazi War machines, 70% of its iron, steel, coal and electrical power. Hence leaving the Czech nation open to absolute domination by Germany; surely the allies saw that. Secondly It is unfair to say that the dominions (once part of Britain) wouldn’t come to war if Britain declared war over Czechoslovakia. They wouldn’t support immediately, but they would eventually come; except maybe South Africa. Remember, if Britain went to war so would France. Thirdly, although the USA was following the isolationist policy, Britain had Czechoslovakia and even Poland on their side. Hence Britain had many allies and this was a huge advantage. Hence, the war could end in a short time. Nevertheless when they went to war, they knew the USA would not get involved for a while or not at all Fourthly Britain having time to build up their forces also meant time for Germany to do the same. Fifthly, there was enough evidence at the time that the war was bound to happen. . Hitler took the Rhineland and Austria without permission. This would make me stop and think, would Hitler really be trustworthy and is it worth trusting him. My suggestion is. Be patient with the decision. Try to find out more about him; how he got into power, what his true intentions are. Mein Kampf (evidence of his true evil intent), MI5 realised his aims were without limits and German Generals risked their lives to warn Chamberlain. Even though German Generals don’t seem trustworthy, it should make the allies, especially Chamberlain think even more about trusting Hitler. I assume Neville didn’t take much notice of ‘experts’, or others who disagreed. He was driven by a fear to avoid war at a very high cost. And we know fear isn’t a good emotion as it gets in the way of logical thinking. If Hitler takes the Sudetenland, go to war.

After getting the Sudetenland (Sep 30th 1938), in March 1939, they took the rest of Czechoslovakia, without any support from the allies. It was clear appeasement had failed. Hitler’s next target was Poland and he didn’t expect any action from the feeble and witless British and French so he attempted to get another country. However, the French and British did in fact declare war on Germany. But Germany was victorious getting all of Poland. With all that land Germany now had, it would surely be a major war. What went wrong? Appeasement went wrong.

In conclusion, appeasement was only preventing a war whilst being one of the main causes leading to WW2. Whether appeasing the Rhineland or even Austria was justifiable, I admittedly think that giving Germany the Sudetenland was wishful thinking as the information at the time was satisfactory to know that Hitler wasn’t worth trusting.

Side: Appeasement unnecessary