Did the appeasement policy of the First World War show that peace does not lead to progress ?

The appeasement policy of the First World War does not mean that "peace does not lead to progress". We need to understand what exactly appeasement means, and can it really represent peace? We cannot just scratch the surface and assume the essence of another thing, and what is happening now has shown us that peace can bring progress, and that peace is a necessary step in the development of the world.

What is happening now is about to become a thing of the past, a thing of the past, and a lesson that can be taught to future generations that "peace leads to progress." <>

The policy of appeasement does not mean peace at all, it regards peace as a façade and an illusion of peace, and secretly it is still a life-and-death struggle between countries. The policy of appeasement refers to a policy of compromise that does not resist aggression, but blindly seeks peace, connives, and is bullied by other countries, and also sacrifices the interests of other countries at the expense. In the literal sense of the appeasement policy, we can see that this is not peace at all, and that peace does not come at the expense of the interests of other countries.

Whether in World War I or World War II, we can all know from history that these two world wars engaged in appeasement, but appeasement did not bring peace, and several wars were waged later. The policy of appeasement has not brought peace at all, and how can it be said that "peace does not bring progress". And history has taught us that only through peace can we achieve real progress, a long-term progress, and this progress is the progress of countless countries and the progress of the whole world.

Nowadays, we have been advocating for world peace, and "peace" and "development" have already become the trend of world development. Although we have not yet achieved peace in the whole world, and some countries are still at war, it is precisely because of this that there is a more stark contrast, on the one hand, there is a beautiful life, and on the other hand, there is a life of displacement, and this is not the expression = peace can bring progress.

It cannot be said that the peace brought about by the policy of appeasement is not a real peace, but a peace of appeasement is a peace that can be broken at any time, and this peace certainly cannot lead to progress.

I don't think the appeasement policy of the First World War actually means that peace cannot lead to progress, because the appeasement policy at that time was only a false peace, not a real peace.

This is not an absolute statement, but the implementation of appeasement also reflects the problem that sometimes the outbreak of war is unavoidable, and a blank retreat is not the fundamental way to solve the problem. Sometimes it is better to counter violence with violence in certain periods.

To put it simply, the First World War scared Britain and France, and the cannonballs accumulated during the Victorian period ran out in 10 days, so they wanted to bring disaster to the east and let Germany and the Soviet Union pinch it off. If you want to be specific, you can reply to me and tell you slowly.

The so-called principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes refers to the fact that in the course of exchanges and cooperation between countries, once a dispute or dispute arises, the parties concerned should resolve it through peaceful political or legal means, and any method of using force or threat of force is prohibited. The principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes is a direct extension of the principle of non-aggression.

The policy of appeasement is a policy of not resisting aggression, tolerating and conniving, retreating and yielding, and colluding and compromising with the aggressor at the expense of other countries.

The starting point for the peaceful settlement of international disputes is that all countries are equal and that there are matters to be negotiated on an equal footing. And appeasement is unequal, with large countries sacrificing the interests of small countries for their own interests.

First of all, the harm and impact of World War I on the American people has not been completely eliminated, and the American people are generally opposed to war, and people believe that World War II will be the same as the same war, and the flames of war will not burn the United States.

Second, the economic crisis that broke out in 1929-1933 made the United States not yet come out, and domestic employment and the resumption of production were the main problems facing the United States.

There is also the fact that the United States aided European countries during World War I, and the European side has been in arrears, and the United States no longer believes that the war will bring benefits to itself.

However, in the end, Pearl Harbor broke out, and the United States' dream of staying out of the world was shattered and it participated in World War II.

It's not that it's just a strategy, "Taoguang Yanghui"!! Now we can't help others, but we can only endure it. It's not good for me to talk to other people right now.

But the Chinese tradition. A knife on the head of the word ninja!! Let him run rampant first!

We should work hard to strengthen the country and enrich the people. Develop economy, science, national strength. Military.

Wait for my China to be revived. I'm settling accounts with him.