Arthur Neville Chamberlain (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940) was a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940.
The most well-known case of appeasement is one which ULTIMATELY FAILED — the appeasement of Adolf Hitler by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. The Munich Agreement in particular stands as a major example of appeasement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_Hitler
2006-11-09 23:23:22 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I concur with ‘Boudicca's dream’.
I have not just read 'Appeasement of Hitler' on the 'wikipedia.org' website but spoken to any people including those who were around in those days and of an age to form and opinion then. My own understanding is that the attitude of the establishment, today is the same as what it was in the pre-WWII days.
2006-11-10 06:04:13 · update #1
Very good analysis by 'Vernita G'.
Essentially the workings of the Political Correctness (as it reflects what the asker or audience would like to hear) and Apeasement (a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor) are the same.
If we are already aware of the results of one, can we not expect the results of the other to be the same?
Is the West, not already in a state of 'armed resistance' against terrorism by Islamic extremists?
The conclusions drawn by 'Vernita G' show that this is the outcome of accepting Political Correctness/Appeasement.
2006-11-10 08:30:31 · update #2
I have to say this is so true and think about it that is what our country seems to do...appease every race, religion, culture etc!! I have to agree and this will ulitmately work against us....it is slowy but surely going to affect what founded this country...I can't say much more without sounding racist and that I am not!
2006-11-09 23:34:35 · answer #1 · answered by One Of The Girls 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception. --wikipedia.
Well, very much like appeasement, political correctness involves sacrificing the ideal for the pragmatic. That's why it's called being correct rather than right or the truth. Political correctness is not the truth, it's a euphemism, a half-truth, it's an answer that doesn't express the opinions or feelings of the answerer as much as it reflects what the asker or audience would like to hear.
However, it is not like appeasement in many ways--technical aspects. It's just a way of doing things that we follow so as to avoid unnecessary bother--such as the expense and bloodshed of war. This isn't exactly cowardly--not in all cases--it can be sensible, reasonable, yielding because you would rather not break.
There are two aspects to consider, like there are in many other questions. Political correctness is something the world could do without. But before the answerer can give a truthful, real answer, the asker must learn to be tolerant and understanding. Flexible and willing to truly consider the opinions of others.
Now, about the Appeasement of Hitler--history proves that it was the incorrect decision, but it must be taken into consideration what exactly Neville Chamberlain's aims were in choosing appeasement, everyone thought Hitler was reasonable at the time. Additionally, the country had just been through a big bloody war--he did not want the country to suffer. And, it was considered not incorrect to bear anti-semitic beliefs back then--it is probable that many might have agreed with Hitler regarding Jews before he embarked on his campaign. It would be a historical fallacy to blame Chamberlain so completely for his actions. He did not have the benefit of hindsight as we do.
Appeasement and political correctness, ideally, would not have to exist--but they do. There is a time and place for their usage. They are not all bad--it's just a requirement for we who live in a society like this.
2006-11-10 07:54:44 · answer #2 · answered by Vernita G 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I believe what is happening today with our politicians is worse than "appeasement " it is in fact "acquiescence" turning a blind eye so as not to get into any controversy, whilst the majority of the population lose their culture slowly but surely.
2006-11-10 10:41:23 · answer #3 · answered by ian d 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Agree
2006-11-10 07:24:25 · answer #4 · answered by A True Gentleman 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
... I don't think so... PC isn't targeted toward any one group... it's just being nice or polite and saying things in a way that won't offend... it's like saying someone that has manners is weak...
a rose by any other name is still a rose... if I call it a red flower, am I appeasing it?
you talk a lot about chamberlain and not much about how it relates to PC...
2006-11-10 18:36:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
What a very profound statement. I only hope you understand what you you are talking about. And not just copied it out of a book or down loaded it from the net!
No offence intended and I hope none is taken. It's just that it is a very complex subject.
2006-11-10 07:29:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yahoo Answers is riddled with Political Correctness, if you give a funny answer to a serious question now, they dock you ten points. That's bloody ridiculous.
2006-11-10 07:28:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's a good one. I suppose it is. That is an intelligent question. It certainly gets to the heart of the problem that is PCness.
2006-11-10 08:01:55 · answer #8 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Political correctness is really a form of censorship practiced by liberals.
2006-11-10 08:11:18 · answer #9 · answered by Captleemo 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes. The saying "reap what you sow" I fear, will, eventually come about. "Appeasement" is a temporary solution.
2006-11-10 07:43:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋