As germany and italy invaded other nations and expanded their empires, britain and france chose appeasement, allowing german and italian aggression. do you agree or disagree with the appeasement policy of britain and france during this time? explain your answer. i don’t understand this.

In the early 30s, all of Europe was woefully unprepared for a full scale war. Germany and Italy showed no regard for following the treaty of Versailles (the ww1 peace treaty) and were constantly threatening war with the countries they were demanding something from. Not wanting a full scale war, France and Britain adopted the idea of "appeasement" which was to give Germany and Italy what they wanted so they would stop pushing Europe to the brink of war. For example, when Germany demanded the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, Prime Minister of Britain Neville Chamberlain met with the Germans in Munich and gave them what they wanted. A part of this deal was that Germany would make no further attempts to seize territories from other nations. Both parties agreed (without the Czech government's permission) and Germany received the Sudetenland. However shortly after the treaty of Munich was signed, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia to "maintain stability in the country and protect German minorities". So I think we can all guess whether this tactic was good or bad (it was bad). When Hitler demanded Danzig from Poland not too long after annexing most of Czechoslovakia, the Poles refused to cede any territory and the Allies (France and Britain) said they would declare war if Germany attacked Poland. When Hitler did eventually invade Poland, appeasement ended and WW2 began.

the conditions that made the byzantine empire vulnerable to attacks by the muslin turks were the sack of constantinople by western crusaders, the conquests of the sultanate of rum, presence of rival kingdoms and finally the set up of fiefdoms at the empire which were owned by the ghazis (turkish warriors).

it maybe, we dont know. however lucky the lipercon seams guilty