Appeasment In Cold War - Social 20 Level

World War II was an immense tragedy. Millions of people died under the foot of the Third Reich. Upon reflection of the past, World War II could have been avoided had the Allied powers refused to give into the demands of Hitler. In other words, if Prime Minister Chamberlain had not used appeasement as a policy the world could have been spared the destruction. Thus, does this mean that diplomacy and mediation are flawed and nations should just enforce their own resolution? No, the world would be in chaos if we did. Nations should continue to be diplomatic in a crisis and try to find a peaceful resolution. However, appeasement should not be a policy of nations especially for tyrants.

Appeasement is a policy of accepting terms laid out by an aggressor in hopes of preventing escalation of the situation. In British history there are two notable cases of the use of appeasement, Munich Agreement in World War II and the Anglo-Irish Treaty. In World War II, the UK gave Hitler the Sudetenland to try to prevent another world war. This was an utter failure. Instead of halting the expansion, the Munich Betrayal, as it was later called, gave Hitler the necessary time and resources to begin his assault on the world.

Diplomacy can halt the oncoming of a disaster, however appeasement only delays it. In the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the UK gave into the demands of the Irish to try to pacify the Irish. In the short term it was able to create a moment of peace in the conflict. However, even today the Northern Ireland is a disgruntled powder keg ready to explode. In North Korea, the world gave into the demands of Kim Jung-Il whenever he escalated world tension with threats of attack. Through appeasement we may have satisfied his needs, but when they grow again we can expect another escalation. How much longer can we continue this vicious cycle? Appeasement is not a means to an end.

The diplomacy used by countries should be about compromise, not appeasement. Both sides