Why Is Collective Security Better Than Appeasement?

Winston Churchill once wrote, “Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace, and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war.” This quote means that the men and the countries sitting on the sidelines and letting Germany blame the Jewish population for their depression. Rather than taking action, nations waited until Germany dragged them into the war. Instead of choosing collective security, many countries chose appeasement until they became a target. Countries should react to aggression with collective security rather than appeasement because allied countries will lose less lives, increase odds of victory, and create a sophisticated relationship with each other. In the event that the allied countries do form an alliance, they will lose less lives by stopping the problem with force. This strategy could have help because when allied nations work together, they would not lose as many soldiers as the aggressor. Haile Selassie spoke to the League of Nations saying , “God and history will remember your judgment. . . . It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.” If the countries form an alliance quick enough, they can stop the …show more content…
Churchill said that, “After Hitler’s seizure of Austria in March, I appealed to the government. I asked that Britain, together with France and other powers, guarantee the security of Czechoslovakia. If that course was followed, events would not have fallen into this disastrous state...” Churchill blames Britain for the fall of Czechoslovakia because they did not form an alliance with each other. With the amount of soldiers the aggressor would have to face alone would make them back down. After composing an alliance, the nations would have a military strength exceptionally stronger than the aggressors. Appeasement is an inferior choice to collective security because then the aggressor will know that the allies are not a force to reckon