Revenge vs. Appeasement

3-27-13

              Revenge and appeasement are both are bad ways of solving a conflict between people because they both can result in negative consequences.
              Revenge is trying to get back at someone who has done wrong to another. To start, revenge is one of the more common ways of dealing with a conflict. But this isn't an affective thing to do because when someone takes revenge, then the person they take revenge on most likely will try to get back at them again. Eventually the side who sought revenge will end up being hurt by whom they sought revenge on. Or both sides could continue to take more, and more dramatic actions which in turn, gives both sides negative consequences. In history, revenge can be proven to not be effective. After World War 1, Britain and France were mad at Germany and sought revenge on them for the war. They did so by making them sign The Treaty of Versailles which stated that Germany couldn't have an air force, couldn't have more than 6 ships, couldn't make an alliance with Austria,  had to pay off all the war debt, limit their number of troops and where they could go, and take all the blame for causing World War 1. This only made Germany very angry and eventually they got back at Britain and France for doing this by starting World War 2.
          Appeasement is also an ineffective strategy for dealing with conflict as well. Appeasement is when a person has done another wrong, but the person does nothing about it. If somebody has done something to wrong someone else, if that person does absolutely nothing about it then there is no reason for the other person to stop doing it. For example, if a girl continuously trips a boy in the hallway, if the boy doesn't do anything about it then the girl will continue to trip him. Reason to back up that this strategy is ineffective is in history. An example could be from after World War 1. Once Britain and France took revenge, then Germany just became angry with them. Once Hitler rose to power, he started to break the agreements from the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler started to build an air force, Britain and France did nothing. Hitler started to build an army over the set amount, Britain and France did nothing. Hitler began to build his navy, and Britain and France did nothing. This continued until almost all agreements from the Treaty Hitler had broken. Next, Hitler started to take over parts of surrounding countries, but Britain and France still didn't do anything but hold a meeting. In this meeting they told Hitler he wasn't suppose to do that, but Hitler said if he could just have this land then he would stop. Britain and France agreed to let him have it but they said if he continued taking territory then they would go to war with him. Hitler took the land they said he could, but plus more. Unfortunately, by the time Britain and France decided to do something about it Germany had a powerful army again and attacked.
           In conclusion, these two methods of dealing with conflict have been proven to be unhelpful in present, and from past situations.