...Keen observation will reveal one thing about the world in which we reside today. If we have indeed found in compromise, the best solution to conflict, the world of terror, fear, international suspicion and animosity is rather devoid of it. Compromise, in my view, might serve as an effective measure to put a stop to a limited range of conflicts, but it is by no means capable of resolving all the conflicts that we encounter. The betraying weakness of compromise can be seen in situations that do not have a win-win resolution. The Treaty of Versailles, and the British Appeasement policy, which were among the factors that led cumulatively to World War Two, are historical examples that stand as testimony to the graves consequences that arise from making compromises that are not favorable to both parties. The failure of compromise as an effective solution is also seen in its inability to reconcile parties with clearly divergent mindsets. A notable example that comes to mind is the perennial debate surrounding abortion, with both the pro-life and pro-choice camps adamantly refusing to compromise any part of their personal sets of beliefs, which are deeply entrenched in their personal value systems. It is an unfortunate yet inescapable truth of our existence that the moral and legal standards of other men are in conflict with our own. What is to us, an unforgivable and heartless action can be to another a perfectly rational decision with a justifiable outcome, as evidenced by...
Words: 359 - Pages: 2
...work only when the issues at stake are not that important. Compromise does not work when there is a genuine difference of opinion about strongly held principles or ideas. Keen observation will reveal one thing about the world in which we reside today. If we have indeed found in compromise, the best solution to conflict, the world of terror, fear, international suspicion and animosity is rather devoid of it. Compromise, in my view, might serve as an effective measure to put a stop to a limited range of conflicts, but it is by no means capable of resolving all the conflicts that we encounter. The betraying weakness of compromise can be seen in situations that do not have a win-win resolution. The Treaty of Versailles, and the British Appeasement policy, which were among the factors that led cumulatively to World War Two, are historical examples that stand as testimony to the graves consequences that arise from making compromises that are not favorable to both parties. The failure of compromise as an effective solution is also seen in its inability to reconcile parties with clearly divergent mindsets. A notable example that comes to mind is the perennial debate surrounding abortion,...
Words: 588 - Pages: 3
...Barrons GRE High-Frequency 333 Words Vocabulary List WORD Abate Aberrant Abeyance Abscond Abstemious Admonish Adulterate Aesthetic Aggregate Alacrity Alleviate Amalgamate Ambiguous Ambivalence Ameliorate Anachronism Analogous Anarchy Anomalous Antipathy Apathy Appease Apprise Approbation Appropriate v. Arduous Artless Ascetic Assiduous Assuage v. Attenuate Audacious Austere Autonomous Aver Banal Belie MEANING subside , or moderate abnormal, or deviant suspended action depart secretly and hide sparing in eating and drinking; temperate warn; reprove make impure by adding inferior or tainted substances artistic; dealing with or capable of appreciating the beautiful gather; accumulate cheerful promptness; eagerness relieve combine; unite in one body unclear or doubtful in meaning the state of having contradictory or conflicting emotional attitudes improve something or someone misplaced in time comparable absence of governing body; state of disorder abnormal; irregular aversion; dislike lack of caring; indifference pacify or soothe; relieve inform approval acquire; take possession of for one’s own use hard; strenuous without guile; open and honest practicing self-denial; austere diligent ease or lessen (pain); satisfy (hunger); soothe (anger) make thinner daring; bold forbiddingly stern; severely simple and unornamented self-governing; independent assert confidently or declare; as used in law, state formally as a fact hackneyed; commonplace; trite; lacking originality contradict;...
Words: 1697 - Pages: 7
...To what extent was British public opinion the reason that Britain adopted the policy of appeasement? After a defeat in WW1 Germany was left seriously impacted (want this to be changed?ritain adopted the policy of appeasement? reason thAT torians have argued that milirary am by-election showed the true anti-war). This gave Chancellor Adolf Hitler the perfect opportunity to expand Germany’s territories and get rid of the restrictions placed on Germany after the war. Therefore, Britain’s policy of appeasement aimed to please Germany in order to prevent further conflict, and after the horrific events of WW1 most of the British public supported this. With the horrors still fresh in the public’s mind it can be argued that British public opinion was the main reason as to why Britain adopted the policy of appeasement. However, there are other significant factors that contributed to the adoption of appeasement including economic difficulties, military weaknesses, threat of communism, lack of reliable allies, attitudes towards the Treaty of Versailles and concern for her empire. One reason for the introduction of appeasement is public opinion. After the Rhineland crisis in a debate in the House of Commons in March 1936, Sir Winston Churchill warned that the atmosphere in Europe had changed recently to the extent that war was being regarded as a serious responsibility. He also described the German occupation of the Rhineland as a menace to Holland, Belgium and France. With the horrors...
Words: 2167 - Pages: 9
...In most situations, appeasement is an effective response to aggression. However, when the Big Four appeased Hitler, it caused more harm than good, and eventually plunged the world into WWII. MORE INTRODUCTION HERE!!!!!!!!!!! Collective security is avoiding the problem, very few problems can be solved by hiding and waiting for them to pass. Had the Big Four chose to use collective security instead of appeasement, the outcome of the war would have been very different. Collective Security sought to condemn and punish aggressors, and maintain peace in general. The League of Nations failed in this area, the biggest proof of this is the Second World War. Settling differences through appeasement is much easier than fighting a...
Words: 368 - Pages: 2
...‘Appeasement Was Politically Popular But Thoroughly Misconceived.’ Discuss Appeasement is the policy of making concessions to dictatorial powers to avoid conflict, which is what the British government, in particular, Neville Chamberlain, hoped to do in the 1930s. He and his generation had witnessed after witnessing the horrors that war can bring. There are two parts to this question because it suggests that appeasement was both politically popular and misconceived, both of which can be disputed. However there is not too much conflict over its popularity at the time because most people believed that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh and that another war was inconceivable after WW1 with a general feeling of ‘peace at any price.’ Whether it was misconceived or not has been argued by traditionalist and revisionist historians ever since. It is plausible to argue that Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement was naïve because, by giving in to Hitler’s demands, Britain would seem weak and make Hitler just want to push for more. Indeed this is exactly what happened at the Munich conference. Chamberlain was acting on the assumption that Hitler would honour his commitments and act in good faith. In this way Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, Foreign Secretary, showed that they came from a very different political and social background to Hitler and so were poorly equipped to make clear judgements on Hitler’s likely behaviour. Halifax wanted to believe that Hitler was a thoroughly changed...
Words: 1041 - Pages: 5
...Which was more important as a cause of the Second World War: * Hitler’s aims in foreign policy; * Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement, 1938-1939? You must refer to both causes when explaining your answer. (10 marks) Task Read both of the answers below and make notes on what makes the first answer “bad” and the second answer “good”. Things to think about: * Does it focus on the question? How do you know if it is focusing on the question? * Does it answer the question, e.g. does it focus on explanation or description, and does it come to a conclusion about which bullet point was most important? * Does it include irrelevant material, e.g. things which happened before or after the dates mentioned in the question? * Does the structure of the answer affect its quality? If so, how? * Is there anything good about the bad answer? Task Read both of the answers below and make notes on what makes the first answer “bad” and the second answer “good”. Things to think about: * Does it focus on the question? How do you know if it is focusing on the question? * Does it answer the question, e.g. does it focus on explanation or description, and does it come to a conclusion about which bullet point was most important? * Does it include irrelevant material, e.g. things which happened before or after the dates mentioned in the question? * Does the structure of the answer affect its quality? If so, how? * Is there anything good...
Words: 1080 - Pages: 5
...willing to stop them. British Prime Minister Chamberlain suggested that the best way to deal with Hitler was a policy of appeasement. Actions were taken that moved Europe toward war. The debate over the causes of World War II provides different perspective. To begin with, the one form of appeasement was done by Germany when they annexed Austria. In Winston Churchill’s speech (Document 6) he disagreed with Chamberlains policy of appeasement. He also warned England about following a policy of appeasement. This document also stated that England and France should have protected Czechoslovakia against the Nazi’s. Another form of appeasement can be seen in the Munich Agreement (Document 7). The Munich agreement was a desperate act of appeasement at the cost of Czechoslovakia. It was a hope to stop Hitler’s hunger for land. However the Munich Agreement was unnecessary because the Czech defenses were very strong and Hitler was too weak at the time to attack Czechoslovakia. After Hitler took the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia Hitler also wanted Hungary, Rhineland, and the Danzig. Hitler also invaded Poland which the breaking point and England and France declared war against Germany. Then Hitler attacked the allies in Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, and France. So appeasement never stopped the demand it only increased them. In my opinion I think Appeasement was a bad idea. It only gave Hitler more power and he wasn’t going to stop asking for more. In the end there was...
Words: 322 - Pages: 2
...Germany was in control of Rhineland, Austria, and the top of Czechoslovakia. Italy controlled Albania and Libya. Japan had control of Manchukuo, Karafuto, part of China and French Indochina. This was a mass murder and mass rape committed by the japanese soldiers. The non aggression pact showed that the two countries were working together and that when push comes to shove they would not turn against each other. The U.S. was afraid that any Japanese human on our soil was betraying us and that someone gave away the location of Pearl Harbor. The government sent all Japanese to a isolation camp during the war. The appeasement was a short term fix and it wouldn’t last long. The two countries didn’t realize how much Hitler wanted from the world...
Words: 589 - Pages: 3
...DBQ: Causes of WWII The road to appeasement, and thus to armed conflict, began in 1932 when the National Socialist party took control of the German government through a congressional election that gave Hitler authoritarian power. Tyranny must be fought when it first occurs as it is a virus that can spread if it is not eliminated. As Winston Churchill said, “I have always held the view that keeping peace depends on holding back the aggressor.” Unfortunately, Churchill’s predecessor believed in appeasement and diplomatic means when dealing with Germany, choosing not to believe that Germany had “made up its mind to dominate the world by fear” already. Unfortunately, by the time Great Britain, France, and Italy, had no choice but to knowledge this, plunging into WWII was their only chance of stopping Germany and Adolf Hitler’s reign of terror. There were many instances where one would hope that the international community would step in. The League of Nations was created by the Treaty of Versailles. However this organization did not react to earlier similar aggressions. For example,Italy attacked Ethiopia in 1935. Haile Selassie was the emperor of Ethiopia at the time. He approached the League of Nations and asked them to defend them with military sanctions. They did nothing. Selassie’s response was that “God and history will remember your...
Words: 657 - Pages: 3
...service member’s, if they were not altruists, who would defend our country in these times of war. If everyone only fended for themselves and for their own happiness, who would join the military. Our service members risk their lives every day, especially during this war on terrorism, they are sacrificing themselves for perfect strangers. If they were not altruistic individuals, how else would our country stay safe. Ayn Rand and her followers believed that the military draft was not right and went against individual rights. In the “In the lecture, “The Wreckage of the Consensus,” Rand specifically argues against withdrawal from Vietnam, calling it an act of “appeasement”: To continue it is senseless—to withdraw from it would be one more act of appeasement on our long, shameful record. The ultimate result of appeasement is a world war, as demonstrated by World War II; in today’s context, it may mean a nuclear world war. In other words, Rand opposed the thing that would have brought an end to the draft most quickly. She said there was no such thing as a “proper solution” to...
Words: 538 - Pages: 3
...Hitler’s plans- Abolish the Treaty of Versailles – Hitler hated the Treaty and called people who signed it November Criminals., and was a living reminder of the losses in WWI; and that when Hitler came into power he would reverse ToV., and he stopped paying reparations. Expanding Territory- Hitler wanted to reclaim territory, and Anschluss with Austria., and German minorities to rejoin Germany, and give more lebensraum (living space.) Defeat Communism – A German empire carved out of Soviet Union would help Hitler to defeat communism, because Bolsheviks had brought the defeat of Germany in WWI, and believed they wanted control of Germany. Rearmament After coming into power in 1933, Hitler began to rearm, while thousands of unemployed joined the army reducing unemployment., a v large problem, and allowed him to deliver on his promise to make Germany great again, challenging ToV. He knew Gs supported rearmament, but others would not, so he rearmed secretly. He then chose to leave the league, following Japans example. 1935, Hitler formed a rally celebrating German armed forces, and in 36 reintroduced conscription, breaking the ToV and was getting away with it, in this point many other countries were using rearmament to fight unemployment. Failure of disarmament conference meant that other nations were not prepared to disarm. Hitler knew Britain had sympathy with Germany over armament, and the limits on Germany were too strict, and that Germany could be a good ally against...
Words: 2127 - Pages: 9
...In the years preluding World War II, the German government had gone under drastic changes under the new chancellor, Adolf Hitler. Hitler despised the Treaty of Versailles, and sought to build a greater Germany in defiance of the Treaty. Hitler began to rebuild the military in secret, and soon, rearmed the Rhineland area bordering France, in clear violation of the Treaty. After this action passed with no action taken by Great Britain or France, Hitler became more aggressive, and set his sights on Austria. Austria’s population was almost entirely Germanic, and almost everyone spoke German. Hitler’s idea of a greater Germany included the unification of all Germanic peoples into one German Reich. So, Hitler’s troops soon marched into Austria...
Words: 283 - Pages: 2
...nations like Great Britain exercised measures to avoid the possibility of a similar situation ever reoccurring. The strategy of appeasement emerged from the war-traumatized nations of Britain and France, who recognized the expansionist trends of Hitler after he was elected in 1933. Neville Chamberlain, prime minister of England during the time, used the appeasement policy to avoid going to war with Germany. Britain, still recovering from the calamity of World War I, could not afford to go to war once again. However, an alliance between Britain and Germany was “never to be, as even Neville Chamberlain described Nazi Germany as the bully of Europe” (Neville 2005, 1). The motives behind appeasement seemed reasonable at first, as Germany complied with Britain’s requests and Hitler signed agreements with Chamberlain. Ultimately, appeasement failed to stop Hitler, as World War II broke out shortly after his invasion of Poland. Neville Chamberlain’s fatal flaw was his inability to realize that Hitler was far too compelled to be stopped by a strategy as fragile as appeasement. It can be generally agreed upon that a more militant approach should have been authorized shortly after Hitler’s election. After all, the “military in Britain backed Chamberlain and appeasement to the hilt as the only sound approach to weathering the storm” (Levy 2006, 2). Appeasement may have seemed like an appropriate strategy to the struggling nation of Great Britain, but today the policy is viewed in a more...
Words: 1700 - Pages: 7
...On Munich and Vietnam: The Lacking Prevalence of Historical Analogies In recent wars, the Vietnam analogy has been forgotten and the Munich analogy has justified large scale interventions. Appeasement was the key regret of World War II and the Munich analogy was formed to prevent it from ever occurring again. The National Review explains that “’Munich’ and ‘appeasement’ have been among the dirtiest words in American politics, synonymous with naïveté and weakness.” This analogy was used to justify the Vietnam War prescribing the destruction of appeasement and suggesting a military intervention to prevent Ho Chi Minh and communism from further expansion, the “domino effect” as most called it. However, the Vietnam War went off the rails and was...
Words: 1438 - Pages: 6
