Justifying Appeasement in the 1930s The policy of appeasement, adopted by Britain and France in the 1930s, was ultimately an attempt to achieve to a peaceful agreement with Germany. The Great Powers were keen to end all German influence in Eastern Europe. One of the points which suggested that appeasement was justifiable was that it was popular with the British public, who still had grave memories of the First World War. The United Kingdom was extremely reluctant to fight due to the psychological trauma resulting from witnessing the mass deaths of large numbers of young people. For example, many British cities have lost up to 40% of all young men; Many families lost all their sons and most young male relatives. Second, appeasement gave Britain the opportunity to rearm. Chamberlain and his ministers were aware of the lack of military capability at their disposal. This was due in part to the belief among many ruling elites that war would no longer be an option and that military budgets could be adjusted accordingly. Additionally, the Wall Street crash forced governments to cut spending and address rising poverty levels. Under these circumstances, a heavily financed army was not financially possible. There was also the fact that Britain had not recognized the evils of Nazism. In the 1930s, most of Central and Eastern Europe was ruled by dictators, and at first it was not realized that the Nazi regime in Germany was worse than these other dictatorships. Even Winston Churchill, while recognizing the military threat posed by an armed Germany, was slow to recognize the evil of Nazism itself. There are, however, also reasons to suggest that appeasement was not justified, such as the fact that it gave Germany more time to rearm. In 1935, Hitler announced that Germany was preparing to rearm, a complete violation of the Treaty of Versailles. In 1936, Hitler continued to disobey post-Great War restrictions by announcing the mobilization of troops in French-occupied territories..