What positive results did neville chamberlain see emerging from the appeasement policy?

Answer 1

What he got was a few more years peace, which gave the British enough time to build Spitfires and more Hurricanes, which was the difference between winning and loosing the Battle of Britain.
As an aside, the extra fighters were built because a senior politician went against the military advice of the time and bought them because they were cheaper than bombers. If the military experts had got their way the RAF would have been fighting with Wellingtons instead of Spitfires.
It also gave the Poles time to give the British their information about decoding enigma, and for the British to set up a good decoding organization, which was absolutely crucial to getting the troops out of France (because it showed the British they Germans were going to win the Battle of France no matter what they did) and winning the Battle of Britain.
Lastly, it gave the British time to set up a radar chain along the coast, which meant fighters could be kept on the ground conserving fuel instead of having to fly patrols over the English Channel.

Answer 2

I cannot see any positive results. By his policy of appeasement Neville Chamberlain completely misread the situation and showed that the UK was not fully committed in its readiness to restrain and challenge a warmonger. This embolden Hitler and probably increased the likelihood of war which in fact was what took place eventually. It would however be wrong to say that this was the main cause of the outbreak of the War but it certainly contributed towards the readiness of the Nazis to use war as an extension of their politics.

Answer 3

The idea of appeasement grew out of the the hard line stance that was associated with World War I. The idea was that being flexible would not force the countries into a war as it had twenty-five years earlier. As a result of the rigid alliances that led up to World War I, the simple act of an assassination of an Archduke, led to a war between the entire continent.

Answer 4

Iran hasn't invaded anybody, and they are nonetheless a minimum of 5 years from a weapon. North Korea? take me back to the truth again, lower than whose watch did North Korea construct its first nuke? You people save speaking about Chamberlain. The area that you bypass over (because you do not honestly recognize a lot about Chamberlain) is that Chamberlain negotiated away Poland's territory in a bid to avert warfare. there's no parallel the following. The North Koreans attacked a South Korean deliver. If South Korea doesn't favor to commence a warfare over it, why are you banging the warfare drums?

Answer 5

Positive results from the appeasement policy? Time for the US, England and Russia to catch up to Germany's rearmament. I think that's the real story but didnt want to admit he dangerously neglected keeping an eye out.

Answer 6

He wanted "peace in our time"- and got it for five minutes. He is a perfect example of half brained peacenik who cannot see beyond his self-interest. In his opinion he was buying peace for the UK, and if it meant slavery for the Czechs, Slovaks, Austrians...? too bad. classic Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) syndrome.

What he got? In the capture of Austria and Czechoslovakia hitler got enough weapons and tanks to equip 40 divisions. Czech tanks were in fact much better than anything hitler had at that time. In the end, some 50% of the tanks which rolled up France were of Czech manufacture.

A lesson lost on today's peaceniks

Answer 7

the avoidance of a war that would kill over 50 million people