Trying To Prevent Ww2 Persuasive Speech

Appeasement, it didn’t work when trying to prevent WWII and it doesn’t work today. You can’t try to make a deal with someone that you know won’t keep their end of the deal, like Hitler with Chamberlin prior to WWII. By trying to appease Hitler and telling him not to attack it just showed Hitler that he had power and that people would listen to him. Today when dealing with stubborn and aggressive enemies appeasing will lead to lies and tricks. We can see what appeasement did to prevent WWII, nothing, and it will do the same today. When you try to use appeasement to stop an enemy that won’t stop at anything it simply won’t work. Telling Hitler to stop trying to take over the world it’s like telling a serial killer to stop killing, they won’t listen. Sure there is a law or an agreement against that but that won’t stop evil people like Hitler or a serial killer from doing evil. Hitler even said that he did not care about the deal he had made with Chamberlin …show more content…
Chamberlin, on the other hand thought he could reach world peace by offering The Munich Agreement which let Hitler to take control of Sudetenland but he had to promise to stop taking over any other land after that. First, this just showed Hitler that he had what he wanted, power, because people gave him what he wanted in fear of what might happen if they didn’t. Making a promise with Hitler was absolutely pointless because he even said it himself, “make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it”, he had no problem with lying. Churchill strongly disagreed with Chamberlin’s decision to appease Hitler and described it by saying, “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last” which is exactly what Great Britain was trying to do at the time. Chamberlin’s appeasement was exactly what Hitler wanted, fear from other nations to show how powerful he was, and it even gave Germany more