The Policy of Appeasement Had Been a Total Failure.
The policy of appeasement had been a total failure.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer.
I agree that the policy of appeasement had been a failure but to a certain extent. This is because, appeasement had failed to curb Hitler's appetite for power or land. In fact, what appeasement had done was it encouraged Hitler to demand for more and to go back on his words. Even though he had promised to stop, this was not to be. He took over Poland 6 months after he got the last territory that he had promised- Sudetenland. The point is, given how Hitler had taken advantage of the Allies' desire to avoid war, this only proves that indeed appeasement had been a failure. It was seen that eventually, the very act of appeasement only encouraged Hitler further to the point where he no longer kept his desire to be master of Europe a secret and this led to second world war in Europe.
However, I disagree that appeasement had been a total failure. This was because appeasement did allow Europe to have peace – albeit (though) for a temporary period. The fact that Europe did not have to encounter confrontation and be thrown into a second world war in 1935 is significant. It gave the many nations who had been traumatized by the first war a short respite. Given how fresh the memories of world war 1 were in the minds of the people, it thus was be a positive thing for appeasement to have been carried out. Hence, this is why I disagree that it had been a total failure.
Besides the above, appeasement had also not been a total failure because, it had been a good intention. It was meant to avoid war at all cost and this was why I believe that it had not been a total failure. In addition, another reason why I say that its not a total failure is because by carrying out appeasement and giving in to Hitler's demands, at least it allowed the European countries to recognize Hitler as a threat and to work on building their armies. This is a practical and shrewd decision that was made because
I agree that the policy of appeasement had been a failure but to a certain extent. This is because, appeasement had failed to curb Hitler's appetite for power or land. In fact, what appeasement had done was it encouraged Hitler to demand for more and to go back on his words. Even though he had promised to stop, this was not to be. He took over Poland 6 months after he got the last territory that he had promised- Sudetenland. The point is, given how Hitler had taken advantage of the Allies' desire to avoid war, this only proves that indeed appeasement had been a failure. It was seen that eventually, the very act of appeasement only encouraged Hitler further to the point where he no longer kept his desire to be master of Europe a secret and this led to second world war in Europe.
However, I disagree that appeasement had been a total failure. This was because appeasement did allow Europe to have peace – albeit (though) for a temporary period. The fact that Europe did not have to encounter confrontation and be thrown into a second world war in 1935 is significant. It gave the many nations who had been traumatized by the first war a short respite. Given how fresh the memories of world war 1 were in the minds of the people, it thus was be a positive thing for appeasement to have been carried out. Hence, this is why I disagree that it had been a total failure.
Besides the above, appeasement had also not been a total failure because, it had been a good intention. It was meant to avoid war at all cost and this was why I believe that it had not been a total failure. In addition, another reason why I say that its not a total failure is because by carrying out appeasement and giving in to Hitler's demands, at least it allowed the European countries to recognize Hitler as a threat and to work on building their armies. This is a practical and shrewd decision that was made because