Skip to main content

How did appeasement cause World War II?

We can argue that appeasement caused World War II because it allowed Hitler and the Nazis to build Germany’s military power until it was strong enough to fight a major war. Additionally, appeasement emboldened Germany, making it think the Allies would never have the will to fight. This made Germany much more aggressive and encouraged it to take the steps that eventually led to war.


If the French and British had not appeased Hitler, he would not have been able to build the German war machine. The Treaty of Versailles prohibited Germany from having a strong military. In 1935, Hitler renounced the treaty and started to rearm Germany with no regard for what the treaty said. If the French and British had stood up to Hitler at that time, he would not have been able to continue to rearm. The Treaty of Versailles said Germany could not have military troops or installations in a region of Germany called the Rhineland. In 1936, Hitler put troops in that area. Again, if the French and British had resisted, Hitler would have lost his ability to build his military power.


If the French and British had not appeased Hitler every time he enlarged Germany’s territory, WWII would probably not have happened. Hitler enlarged German territory three times. He engineered the “Anschluss,” which united Germany and Austria. He took the Sudetenland, which had been part of Czechoslovakia. Then, in March of 1939, Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia. In each case, the Allies appeased him. All of this emboldened Hitler, making him feel he could safely invade Poland. When Hitler invaded Poland, the Allies finally decided he had gone too far and went to war.


In the above ways, appeasement can be said to have caused World War II. It allowed Hitler to build his military power and made him so bold that he believed he could get away with any kind of aggression he wished. Hitler's aggression and military power allowed him to start World War II.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more