Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Chalmers002
| Reward Points: | 4 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 71% |
| Arguments: | 4 |
| Debates: | 0 |
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
England under the premiership of Chamberlain, I believe, made the correct deision to appease Germany, a weakend, abused country deeply buried in debt after its ill-treatment in a post treaty of Versailles Europe. Slowly climbing out of debt, England had not the economy, or gun power to risk and survive an all-out war with any country. Chamberlain also upheld beliefs about peace and felt that diplomacy, not mindless slaughter, was the answer in dealing with a responsible leader, as Hitler was to his German people. (Jews and other minorities were not threatened at the time.) Hitler was not the epitomy of evil, and should not have been treated as such, at that time.
-Chalmers D: -ChongJunChen :D
That was true, however they could have prevented any war when Hitler was stopped earlier.
•Appeasement allowed the British and French to ignore an imminent threat and produced a fake peace which led to many deaths.
•Appeasement bought Britain the precious time it needed to prepare for an inevitable war.
•Appeasement led Hitler to believe that no one would oppose his expansionist policies. In short, if Europe had abandoned its appeasement policy by 1935 WWII probably could have been averted
•Thus, Appeasement was definitely NECESSARY.
-ChongJun. :D ChalmersYeo D:
|
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |
