The appeasement that we see in history, referring to Hitler in particular, is similar to our everyday examples; however, it is on a more extreme scale. People didn't rebel and just did horrible things to please Hitler for a reason; basically, many people did what they did for their safety. I give in just to stop drama. For some germans in the 1930's, they followed the Nazi party to keep their life. There hadn't been any notable rebellions against this socialist party, a huge example of appeasing. Citizens gave into this controlling force for a variety of reasons, but one of many overarching questions is what other choice did they have?
***Addition***
I don't think I initially understood all aspects of appeasement. Honestly, reading more op-eds on compromise vs. appeasement, I've become more confused. But I do understand the basic differences and appeasement is not the way to go. Appeasing others is the easier way out, or so it seems at the time. It's easier to give in then to go through all the trouble of compromising. But in the long run, settling the problem initially is better. Appeasement just puts the problem aside and eventually it will come back to haunt you. This isn't the path to take because all it does is put off the issue until later, nothing good, except for possible temporary peace, can come of appeasement.
No comments:
Post a Comment