The anti-violent practices followed were not able to stop the outbreak of the Second world war thus showing that violent actions must have been taken to stop Hitler. “Great Britain and France, convinced that Hitler was not bluffing, decided that the only way to avoid a general European War was to accept the principle of self-determination, even for Czechoslovakia”(Snyder, 437). According to Snyder Britain and France knew that there was a very real possibility of war and in sticking to the practices of the appeasement non-violent actions were taken but even then the outbreak of the war had followed, showing that the practices of appeasement by Neville Chamberlain were not effective. This was just one example of how the British policy of appeasement failed to stop the outbreak of World War …show more content…
This caused an enlarging German military, capable enough for its country to partake in a second world war. When the appeasement was set down, Britain did not analyze what the enlarging military could be used for, and overlooked the possibility of its purpose to be used in a second world war. Partially due to the naive qualities of Chamberlain and his beliefs on another World War. This caused the wrong act in preventing Hitler's ambitions, as the British did not know the intentions of Germany when they were setting them down.
The outbreak of the Second World War was directly due to the failure of the British Policy of appeasement. Through the anti-violent terms of the policy itself, the incorrect judgement call of important individuals when negotiating other agreements such as the Munich agreement, and
the true character of Adolf Hitler did not agree with the British Policy and therefore is why it failed its