Final answer:
William Lyon Mackenzie King and most European leaders hoped that appeasement would prevent another world war, while Winston Churchill warned that it was a futile policy that would not stop Hitler's aggression. Churchill was a vocal critic of appeasement and believed it would only encourage further territorial expansion by Hitler, who ultimately did not adhere to his promises, disproving the policy's effectiveness.
Step-by-step explanation:
Leaders like William Lyon Mackenzie King and Winston Churchill had differing views on whether Hitler could be appeased. King, as the Prime Minister of Canada, held a more neutral position, though sharing the widespread desire to avoid another world conflict following the horrors of World War I. Churchill, on the other hand, was a vocal critic of the appeasement policy, believing it to be a futile effort that would only encourage Hitler's aggression. While many European leaders and their populations desperately wanted peace and sought appeasement as a means to avoid war, Churchill foresaw the inevitability of conflict due to Hitler's expansionist agenda.
The appeasement policy adopted by European democracies, including the Munich Agreement, was originally aimed at preventing another devastating war by conceding to some of Hitler's demands. This policy was reflected in the reluctance of Britain and France to take military action even as Hitler annexed Austria and the Sudetenland. The idea was that satisfying Germany's proclaimed grievances might lead to stability in Europe. However, this approach was ultimately seen as a failure when Hitler broke assurances and continued his conquests, most notably with the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Concerning the comparison between William Lyon Mackenzie King's and Winston Churchill's perspectives on Hitler's appeasement, it is clear that King aligned more closely with the sentiment of many British and French leaders in hoping that war could be averted, while Churchill staunchly opposed the concessions made to Hitler, warning of the dire consequences of such a policy.