Appeasement is the practice of giving in to the demands of an aggressor in order to avoid conflict. It is often seen as a weak or cowardly policy, but it can also be seen as a way to buy time or to avoid a larger conflict.
Intervention, on the other hand, is the practice of using military or other force to stop an aggressor or to protect a country that is being attacked. It is often seen as a more aggressive or risky policy, but it can also be seen as a way to protect innocent lives or to prevent a humanitarian crisis.
The decision of whether to pursue appeasement or intervention is a complex one that must be made on a case-by-case basis. There are no easy answers, and the best course of action may not always be clear.
Here are some factors to consider when making a decision about whether to pursue appeasement or intervention:
* The nature of the threat: Is the aggressor a real threat to the country or its allies? Is the threat imminent?
* The likelihood of success: Is it likely that appeasement will succeed in preventing conflict? Is it likely that intervention will succeed in stopping the aggressor?
* The potential costs: What are the potential costs of appeasement? Of intervention? These costs could include loss of life, damage to property, and damage to the country's reputation.
* The public opinion: What is the public opinion in the country about appeasement and intervention? Is the public willing to support a policy of appeasement or intervention?
There is no easy answer to the question of whether appeasement or intervention is the best policy. The best course of action may vary depending on the specific situation.