appeasement
简明释义
n. 平息，安抚，姑息
英英释义
单词用法
绥靖政策 | |
绥靖战略 | |
对...的绥靖 | |
满足要求的绥靖 | |
绥靖战术 | |
历史上的绥靖 |
同义词
反义词
例句
1.To the Aztecs, human sacrifice was a necessary appeasement to the gods.
对阿芝科特来说，供奉上帝是必须用活人献祭的。
2.It would allow the sharp-witted time to choose appeasement, defence or possibly even preemptive attack.
这给了我们足够的时间去选择是缓和局势，或是防卫，甚至是可能的先下手为强。
3.A slightly downcast expression of shame is an appeasement gesture that hints at a need for sympathy.
略带羞愧的悲哀表情是一种暗示着自己需要同情的安抚姿势。
4.This produced predictable cries of "appeasement".
这导致了可预料的缓和。
5.We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the "ism" of appeasement.
我们必须警惕那些敲着锣打着鼓宣传缓和主义的分子。
6.Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G. O. P. will elicit a good-faith response?
他们真的认为对共和党人实行姑息政策会得到善意的回应？
7.There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness.
对残暴行为是不能姑息的。
8.The CFS scheduler USES an appeasement policy that guarantees fairness.
CFS调度程序使用安抚(appeasement)策略确保公平性。
9.Some historians argue that the appeasement of aggressive nations led to World War II.
一些历史学家认为，对侵略国家的绥靖导致了第二次世界大战。
10.The manager's appeasement of the unhappy employees helped restore morale in the office.
经理对不满员工的安抚帮助恢复了办公室的士气。
11.The peace talks were seen as an appeasement strategy by some critics.
和平谈判被一些批评者视为一种绥靖策略。
12.His constant appeasement of his partner's demands ultimately led to an unhealthy relationship.
他对伴侣要求的不断迎合最终导致了一段不健康的关系。
13.The government's policy of appeasement towards the protesters aimed to reduce tensions.
政府对抗议者的安抚政策旨在减少紧张局势。
作文
The concept of appeasement has been a significant topic in both historical and political discussions. It refers to the policy of making concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict. This approach is often criticized for encouraging further aggression rather than maintaining peace. One of the most notable examples of appeasement occurred in the lead-up to World War II, when European powers, particularly Britain and France, allowed Adolf Hitler to annex territories without facing any serious consequences. The hope was that by satisfying his demands, they could prevent a larger war. However, this strategy ultimately failed, as it only emboldened Hitler to pursue more aggressive actions, leading to the outbreak of the war in 1939.Historically, appeasement has been viewed with skepticism. Many argue that it sends a message of weakness to aggressors, suggesting that they can achieve their goals through intimidation and threats. Critics of appeasement believe that standing firm against such behavior is essential to deter future aggression. This perspective gained traction after the devastating consequences of World War II, leading to a more confrontational stance during the Cold War.In contemporary politics, the term appeasement is still relevant. For instance, debates surrounding diplomatic relations with North Korea often invoke this term. Some policymakers advocate for engagement and negotiation, hoping to curtail North Korea's nuclear ambitions through dialogue. Others argue that such an approach is a form of appeasement, suggesting that it rewards bad behavior and undermines international norms.Furthermore, appeasement can be seen in domestic contexts as well. Politicians may choose to appease certain voter bases or interest groups by compromising on key issues, believing that this will secure their support. While this can sometimes lead to short-term stability, it may also result in long-term consequences if those compromises undermine core values or principles.In conclusion, the idea of appeasement remains a contentious issue in both historical and modern contexts. It illustrates the delicate balance between diplomacy and the need to stand firm against aggression. Understanding the implications of appeasement requires a nuanced perspective, recognizing that while the desire for peace is commendable, yielding to threats can lead to far greater conflicts down the line. As we navigate complex global challenges today, the lessons learned from past instances of appeasement should guide our decisions, ensuring that we prioritize long-term stability and security over temporary relief from conflict.
“安抚”这一概念在历史和政治讨论中一直是一个重要的话题。它指的是为了避免冲突而对侵略势力做出让步的政策。这种方法常常受到批评，因为它鼓励进一步的侵略，而不是维持和平。最著名的“安抚”例子发生在第二次世界大战前夕，当时欧洲大国，特别是英国和法国，允许阿道夫·希特勒在没有面临任何严重后果的情况下吞并领土。人们希望通过满足他的要求，可以防止更大的战争。然而，这一策略最终失败，因为它只使希特勒更加肆无忌惮，导致了1939年战争的爆发。从历史上看，“安抚”一直受到怀疑。许多人认为这向侵略者传达了软弱的信息，表明他们可以通过恐吓和威胁实现自己的目标。“安抚”的批评者认为，坚定地反对这种行为对遏制未来的侵略至关重要。这一观点在第二次世界大战的毁灭性后果之后得到了更多的支持，导致冷战期间采取了更具对抗性的立场。在当代政治中，“安抚”一词仍然相关。例如，围绕与朝鲜的外交关系的辩论经常提到这个术语。一些政策制定者主张通过接触和谈判来参与，希望通过对话遏制朝鲜的核野心。其他人则认为这种做法是一种“安抚”，暗示这奖励了不良行为，削弱了国际规范。此外，“安抚”在国内背景中也可以看到。政治家可能选择安抚某些选民基础或利益集团，通过在关键问题上妥协，认为这将确保他们的支持。虽然这有时可以导致短期稳定，但如果这些妥协破坏了核心价值观或原则，可能会导致长期后果。总之，“安抚”的理念在历史和现代背景中仍然是一个有争议的问题。它揭示了外交与坚决抵制侵略之间微妙的平衡。理解“安抚”的影响需要一种细致入微的视角，认识到虽然追求和平是值得赞赏的，但屈服于威胁可能导致更大的冲突。在我们今天应对复杂的全球挑战时，从过去“安抚”实例中吸取的教训应指导我们的决策，确保我们优先考虑长期的稳定和安全，而不是暂时的冲突缓解。
