Anti. One you give someone a little power, or a little of what they want, that person will want everything that they originally wanted. Appeasement just gives people the false hope that maybe they'll get everything they want, and when they don't, they get disappointed and angry and the desire to want everything they originally did want. If any of that made sense, that's why I'm anti appeasement.
I agree with Catherine on this. I believe more in anti-appeasement because I think naturally, when given something, we enjoy having it and want more of it. If you look at Hitler as an example, he corrupted the appeasement Chamberlain gave him- he caused more and more international tension when he demanded that Germany have power over Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, desiring for more land. This is a perfect example of what can go wrong when using an appeasing approach when dealing with other countries- once someone gets something, they want more. Later, Hitler even broke the Munich Agreement when he seized the rest of Czechoslovakia, causing his appeasement with Chamberlain to stop. This shows that appeasement doesn't last long because of the human tendency to want more.
I agree with both Evan and Catherine. Appeasement just seems to prolong the time before war and whet the appetite of the one who is power hungry (as Catherine pointed out). I also think that appeasement is bad because it could give the enemy more time to build up their forces and become stronger and an even bigger problem to deal with when one can no longer appease them. Take Hitler for example. The appeasement gave him more time to develop the army which had been reduced by the Treaty of Versailles. I can see why people might want to appease someone though. They don't want war and will try almost anything to avoid it. Unfortunately, as is the case with WWII, an appeasement just puts off war until a later time when it'll eventually occur. So it doesn't seem like appeasement accomplishes anything (other than maybe giving the enemy the upper hand).
I think that concession of some point and negotiations are reasonable. It makes sense to try to find a common ground between to parties. But what is not ok is when you give someone like Hitler what he wants out of fear or complacency. Sometimes you have to take a stand for your ideas, and refuse to be pushed aside. Appeasement is useless because you are just giving into demands, proving that the your opponent has nothing to be afraid of- your wrapped around their finger! Why wouldn't Hitler ask for more? No one made any moves to stop him, so why not invade Poland? Appeasement prolongs the problem rather than resolving it, as the others have pointed out.
I agree with Paige. Sometimes it can be nice to negotiate your way out of war, but appeasement out of fear is almost never a good thing. You can not show your enemy that you are afraid of them and will give them what they want. If you do, they will just call your bluff. This is exactly what happened during the Munich Conference. Chamberlain gave Hitler the Sudetenland because he was scared of Hitler and thought that it was better to have a powerful man at least think that you're on their side rather than against him. He also thought that Hitler would stop once he had what he wanted. Little could they imagine the events that were to come, but I think they should've realized that Hitler was too power hungry to stop. A short 5 years before, Hitler was appointed Chancellor to try to appease him and encourage him to stop searching for power; however, this did not work. I think that they should've at least realized this.
This is a tough question, on the one hand I agree that appeasement could lead to to false hope but as Nick brought up in class wouldn't you rather have a little hope in avoiding war rather than confronting and fighting a war immediately? However, I think that given my hindsight appeasement was a decent choice but action could have taken place to avoid Germany's position of having the power to take the Sudetenlands.
Anti. One you give someone a little power, or a little of what they want, that person will want everything that they originally wanted. Appeasement just gives people the false hope that maybe they'll get everything they want, and when they don't, they get disappointed and angry and the desire to want everything they originally did want. If any of that made sense, that's why I'm anti appeasement.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Catherine on this. I believe more in anti-appeasement because I think naturally, when given something, we enjoy having it and want more of it. If you look at Hitler as an example, he corrupted the appeasement Chamberlain gave him- he caused more and more international tension when he demanded that Germany have power over Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, desiring for more land. This is a perfect example of what can go wrong when using an appeasing approach when dealing with other countries- once someone gets something, they want more. Later, Hitler even broke the Munich Agreement when he seized the rest of Czechoslovakia, causing his appeasement with Chamberlain to stop. This shows that appeasement doesn't last long because of the human tendency to want more.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Evan and Catherine. Appeasement just seems to prolong the time before war and whet the appetite of the one who is power hungry (as Catherine pointed out). I also think that appeasement is bad because it could give the enemy more time to build up their forces and become stronger and an even bigger problem to deal with when one can no longer appease them. Take Hitler for example. The appeasement gave him more time to develop the army which had been reduced by the Treaty of Versailles. I can see why people might want to appease someone though. They don't want war and will try almost anything to avoid it. Unfortunately, as is the case with WWII, an appeasement just puts off war until a later time when it'll eventually occur. So it doesn't seem like appeasement accomplishes anything (other than maybe giving the enemy the upper hand).
ReplyDeleteI think that concession of some point and negotiations are reasonable. It makes sense to try to find a common ground between to parties. But what is not ok is when you give someone like Hitler what he wants out of fear or complacency. Sometimes you have to take a stand for your ideas, and refuse to be pushed aside. Appeasement is useless because you are just giving into demands, proving that the your opponent has nothing to be afraid of- your wrapped around their finger! Why wouldn't Hitler ask for more? No one made any moves to stop him, so why not invade Poland? Appeasement prolongs the problem rather than resolving it, as the others have pointed out.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paige. Sometimes it can be nice to negotiate your way out of war, but appeasement out of fear is almost never a good thing. You can not show your enemy that you are afraid of them and will give them what they want. If you do, they will just call your bluff. This is exactly what happened during the Munich Conference. Chamberlain gave Hitler the Sudetenland because he was scared of Hitler and thought that it was better to have a powerful man at least think that you're on their side rather than against him. He also thought that Hitler would stop once he had what he wanted. Little could they imagine the events that were to come, but I think they should've realized that Hitler was too power hungry to stop. A short 5 years before, Hitler was appointed Chancellor to try to appease him and encourage him to stop searching for power; however, this did not work. I think that they should've at least realized this.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tough question, on the one hand I agree that appeasement could lead to to false hope but as Nick brought up in class wouldn't you rather have a little hope in avoiding war rather than confronting and fighting a war immediately? However, I think that given my hindsight appeasement was a decent choice but action could have taken place to avoid Germany's position of having the power to take the Sudetenlands.
ReplyDelete