In what ways could we see the use of appeasement in the inter-war period that may have led to WWII?

I believe national interests were largely responsible for the outbreak of WWII, as demonstrated through the use of appeasement to unsuccessfully deal with aggressor nations, and in particular Hitler. How can I prove this? I know about Hitlers Anschluss...In what ways could we see the use of appeasement in the inter-war period that may have led to WWII?I think you will find the following book an interesting read: 'The Origins of the Second World War' by A.J.P. Taylor. I had to read this at uni a couple of years ago and I found it very valuable for the topic you're doing. In this Taylor challenges the conventional, 'Nuremberg', view that WW2 was solely the fault of the Nazi's. (Note, it does not try to absolve them of their role, it just says that there were other factors that contributed to the war...It's important to understand that). In his argument he portrays Hitler as an opportunist who takes anything that comes his way.



This is a summary from a minor essay I did----Taylor suggested Hitler went about stirring trouble in countries he wanted and would hope for eventual 鈥榓nnexation鈥?of sorts (satellite countries).The British adopted the policy to 鈥榳arn鈥?Hitler while still attempting to appease him (at the threatened country鈥檚 expense), while providing false 鈥榓ssurances鈥?to the threatened country. These were notably Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland (Danzig) (Hitler was led to believe by the British that agitation in these countries was expected and would not provoke retaliation). When the time came, Hitler鈥檚 鈥榯hreat of force鈥?was used to get each country to cooperate. The Allies did not intervene despite their assurances (each not wanting to make the first move). However, Poland and the issue with Danzig eventually dragged the Allies into the war. Once Britain was committed so were the others.



Hope this helps--if you want more info, just ask