Pros And Cons Of Appeasement

Throughout the 1930s, Adolf Hitler rose to power and successfully became chancellor of Germany by 1933. Throughout his course as a leader, many foreign policies were planned and achieved, debatably imposed for pre-war requisites and expansion of Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe, more known as Lebensraum. Such expansions intimidated Western European countries, most importantly, the United Kingdom. By November 1937, Neville Chamberlain’s cabinet has been in office for only a brief 6 months, while Hitler had risen to an extent where he has achieved nearly absolute dictatorship and totalitarianism in Nazi Germany. Hitler began to pursue his aggressive program and act of expansion against the will and power of the British, believing them to be an envisaged and possible alliance. Adolf Hitler’s rigorous advances in Eastern Europe had led Great Britain and France to enforce an appeasement

As a result, one can deduce that the Appeasement policy agreed between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler was both a feasible and non-feasible approach from both sides; both having pros and cons and different results if they acted differently towards the policy.

In the eyes and views of many historians and analysts of World War II and Neville Chamberlain’s Appeasement policy with Adolf Hitler, many say that the appeasement was the right choice during the inter-war period because it was “based on traditional perceptions of foreign interests and a rational assessment of military means and political will.” REF The people of Great Britain did not want to suffer another war, having already been hit harshly from World War I, hence, allowing the cabinet to use terms of negotiation with Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany and form some sort of “peace” between one