求一篇200字的作文 速度 在线等!

Yes,I completely agree with the statement that it is better to be a member of a group than to be the leader of a group.Realistically,mentally,and physically,being just a member is much easier.Realistically,the fault of the group will be blamed onto the leader,not the members.Mentally,most things happening in a group have to be planned by the leader and dealt with by the leader.Physically,leaders have to be at every important event and on the contrary,members don't.
The above differences between a leader and a common member in a group are clearly shown in the German government during World War II.Hitler,as the leader of Germany,had to take all the blame for the many immoral things the German army did during the war.We know that even though he deserved his fate,the whole catastrophe wasn’t caused by him alone.Mentally,Hitler had to plan the industrial recovery of German alone,although it wasn’t for a good purpose,as a leader,he struggled for many years trying to get Germany’s economy to what it once was.Lastly,physically Hitler had to attend all the event held in Germany during the war time and could not had been able to run away when the Germany defenses fell apart later in the war.As a leader,he physically gave away his life for the failure of the group.However,in contrast to the leader mentioned above,members of the German army weren’t all punished after the war and did not all take responsibilities during the war.As the subordinates of the “evil government” many of them were let off easy.
In conclusion,being a mere member is way better than being a leader of a group.