2007-07-02 06:13:50 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He was chomping at the bit to invade Czechoslavakia, but Britain and France annexed it to him, therefore in his diappointment, he did indeed look to futher his empire. I believe that if Britain and france had initiated military action against Hitler after his invasion of Poland He would have seen that his violation of the Treaty of Versaille would not be tolerated. Unfortunately, Britain and France just scolded him and gave him chunks of Czechoslavakia to appease him and look where it ended up.
2007-07-02 06:25:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Appeasing him in the beginning let him run through countries like Austria and Czechoslovakia and then have an easier time even with some European resistance to his moves in Poland and the Scandinavian countries. Hitler's war machine which under the peace treaty from WWI was not allowed to have certain weapons was given away also in appeasement thus giving him time to build up tanks, planes and other munitions for a war effort. Sound familiar to what we are doing for radical Islam.
2007-07-02 15:53:41 · answer #2 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did invasion work for Hitler? Clear thinking anyone?
Get a clue, there is a massive gaping continuum of options between "appeasement" and "invasion and occupation".
If "appeasement" is defined (by neo-cons) as not invading any nation which is hostile to the US, you (and pretty much everyone else between 14 and 70) better get ready to join up pronto.
2007-07-02 13:33:41 · answer #3 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not so much what he would "ask" for. Appeasment gave him the egomaniacal belief that other countries were afraid of a confrontation and it gave him confidence. History showed he seriously miscalculated the response his action brought about, or at least miscalculated his military's ability to defeat the allied powers. Either way, appeasement was counter productive and only cost more lives in the end.
2007-07-02 13:30:09 · answer #4 · answered by Scott B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
-Sir Winston Churchill
It's well documented that had the Allies stood up to Hitler at any of their numerous opportunities to slap him down, the war would have been much shorter and significantly less bloody. Had they attacked when he annexed Czechoslovakia, or re-occupied the Rhineland, or when 80-90% of his forces were engaged in defeating Poland, they would have been spared MILLIONS of lives.
Apparently history has taught us nothing. As we're left now with a sea of Chamberlains willing to sell their souls for peace, and not a Churchill in sight.
2007-07-02 13:34:48 · answer #5 · answered by Dekardkain 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. he also had a huge military and could take the things he wanted regardless of whether we appeased him or not. What does this question have to do with todays world? We aren't appeasing anyone....I would have to say that the Iraqis were probably happier before we helped them out.
2007-07-02 13:21:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Appeasement allows a tyrant to build up their military without opposition. Also, tyrants don't care about arms agreements, etc. I remember one of the Soviet Union thugs saying they got more through appeasement - detente - than they ever would have gotten had they gone to war.
2007-07-02 13:26:58 · answer #7 · answered by Matt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Standing up to Hitler early on would probably have prevented WWII
2007-07-02 14:19:38 · answer #8 · answered by mjmayer188 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. His quest for world domination did.
2007-07-02 13:31:53 · answer #9 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋