There are varying opinions on the effectiveness of appeasement as a diplomatic strategy. Some argue that appeasement can be effective in avoiding conflict and maintaining peace in the short term. By making concessions and giving in to the demands of an aggressor, it is possible to prevent a full-scale war. This approach was seen in the Munich Agreement of 1938 when Britain and France agreed to Hitler's demands for the annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland in the hopes of avoiding war.
However, others argue that appeasement can be counterproductive in the long run. By appeasing an aggressor and allowing them to expand their power unchecked, it can embolden them to make further demands and escalate their aggression. This was evident as Hitler broke the Munich Agreement by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia and eventually invading Poland, which led to the outbreak of World War II.
Therefore, while appeasement may have short-term benefits in preventing immediate conflict, its long-term consequences can be detrimental as it gives aggressors the impression that their actions will be tolerated. The effectiveness of appeasement largely depends on the specific context and the behavior of the aggressor.
Which statement best evaluates the effectiveness of appeasement
1 answer