Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Read this and thought it was interesting.

quote:

---

Reconsidering Appeasement

By Lee Harris

Appeasement is a dirty word, but is it really such a bad thing?

Yes, we now agree that appeasing Hitler was a foolish mistake. Who could not see this with hindsight?

But, in looking at the past, it is also possible to put ourselves in the places of those who pursued such a policy, and to see that at the time it was made, such a policy may not have been quite as irrational as it looks to us now—an alternative approach to the ever popular Monday morning quarterback view of history.

First of all, let us note that appeasement in the sense of paying money and tribute to those who threaten our collective security is a policy that has been prudently adopted by any number of different societies in the past. The Byzantine emperors successfully relied on such a policy for over a millennium, and saw no problem in paying loot to ward off this or that threatening horde of barbarians, paying good money to keep them at the gate, instead of inside it.

Though, to be sure, there was not any notion of relying on such a policy to the exclusion of military force. Rather, it was a question of pure pragmatics—what worked best in what particular case. If this horde wanted gold, give them gold. If the next wanted territory, then crush them.

Secondly, appeasement makes sense when there is a good chance that the evil to be appeased may collapse of its own accord, either through a lack of internal stability or through its own inherently aggressive nature.

In the case of Hitler, there was the very real hope that he would aim his aggression at Stalin's Russia, with the result that the two evil systems would end by weakening and even perhaps destroying each other. In which case, why do anything to divert his attention from the East?

Furthermore, there was also the hope that Hitler might be toppled as a result of Party bickering, or through a military coup, or by the bullet of an assassin. The Weimar Republic, after all, had been in constant turmoil—perhaps Hitler was only a passing phase of political stability against a backdrop of anarchy.

And leave us with the third and final rational basis for appeasement, and that is military weakness—or, more precisely, a fear that any threat made to deter aggression will be in vain, in which case it is deemed far better to appease and hope for the best, than to bluff and be certain of the worst.

Which was precisely the position that Neville Chamberlain was in.

He was in charge of a country that wanted to avoid another World War at the cost of almost anything short of outright capitulation. He was terrified of what the Luftwaffe could do to London and other English cities; he knew, too, that the English army was absolutely no match for what the Germans would be able to field. Yes, England had a far superior navy—but what good is a Navy in defending Czechoslovakia?

It is easy for us to imagine what we would have done if we had had the present American military force at our disposal at Munich, but Chamberlain did not have this, and he knew just how weak the position was that he had to play from.

And yet there came a point where even Chamberlain knew that he had no choice but to play the cards in his hand, and this came when Hitler refused to meet the English ultimatum to pull out of Poland, at which point Chamberlain declared that a state of war existed between England and Germany.

I offer these reflections not to justify those who are asking us to appease Saddam Hussein, but to condemn them. Had Chamberlain possessed the might of the U.S., and the collective will of its people, Hitler would have been obliterated long before Munich. To make excuses for tolerating an evil on the order of Saddam Hussein when you possess the military might to crush him is not appeasement, but blind folly. The more clearly we understand Chamberlain's position, the more clearly we can see what men like Jimmy Carter are asking of us.

So the next time you hear someone compare the two men, speak up for Neville Chamberlain.

He deserves better.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1...ID=1051-030603A

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

The current wave of revulsion attached to the word 'appeasement' is stupid. Chamberlain couldn't go to war with Germany at the time (and in fact we weren't up to it even when we did go to war). If appeasement were to be used as a parallel today, it would be towards the US (ie, countries are appeasing the US by letting it do what it wants because the US is strong and can do it anyway), not Iraq, because as the article points out the comparison between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq is pretty weak.

Sadly, a Hitler reference seems to remain the mainstay of internet debate, as well as hysterical debate in the media.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

I garee Smug. I do find it amusing that people invoke Chamberlain alot and seem to forget that he was the one who declared war on Germany, and he was the one that gave Hitler a final chance and it really meant final chance if you get what I mean. Chamberlain is prolly one of the most frequently misrepresented British politicians of the 20th Century next to Churchill.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2803

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil
one of the most frequently misrepresented British politicians of the 20th Century next to Churchill.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

yeah I was thinking that Chruchill managed to get five good years and every one forgot his diabolical other years. His stark political opportuinism when he corssed the floor and somehow managed to remain credible, his cock up with pegging sterling to the gold standrad, and of course his utter ruthlessness in being the first one to think of bombing the kurds in Mesapotania...... oh the irony

quote:

---

Never has a man owed so much to a national crisis fought for by so many and benefitted from by so few.

---

I like that

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2803

The most annoying thing about Churchill was his fucking military strategy. The man was a moron.

The soft underbelly of Europe (thousands of ANZACS and the 8th Army in Italy won't forgive him for that pile of crap) and his solution to defeat Germany (cover Germany in poison gas) were kicking.

The man was a moron. But he was photogenic as the British bulldog which was all that mattered even then.

The hysterical thing was of course, his one great assett was his speechmaking which we all discover was voiced by an actor from mid 1940 on after he had a stroke.

I hate Churchill. I would rather Diana had won the Greatest Britons poll. It would have been just as ludicrous IMO.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I dare not enter this forum discussion. Y'all have fun with your revisionist history. I remember when it happened.

quote:

---

The most annoying thing about Churchill was his fucking military strategy.

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
I dare not enter this forum discussion. Y'all have fun with your revisionist history.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I don't know for sure Smug. I was 11 at the time and have not made a careful analysis of the history of the moment but my main impression was then and now that readiness on Britain's part was not the primary consideration at the Munich conference. I remember Chamberlain's speech when he flew back from Munich and I don't remember any urge on his part that Britain get ready for war. Quite the contrary he hailed his trip as a triumph of peace over war if memory serves.I remember his characterization of Hitler as a gentleman and his statement that he trusted Hitler to do the right thing. UK was not ready for war when they went to war at the invasion of Poland---nor was France. I think that Dunkirk would probably have happened in about the same length of time and in the same manner had the showdown been over Czechoslovakia instead of Poland. That is however impression not research. Over hear the name Chamberlain was roughjly equivalent to coward---rightly or wrongly perceived.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

There has been quite a lot on TV relating to war (the Great War and also the Second World War) and one strong message coming through was that Britain was too poor and too weak to attack Germany. Chamberlain certainly made an error in proclaiming 'Peace in our time' but I heard somewhere that he didn't really believe it himself anyway.

Additionally, in the UK and France, of course, the effects of the horror of the Great War hadn't been forgotten; the US wouldn't have felt the same about that, I guess, because they were far more insulated from its awful effects (much smaller casualties from a larger nation, I mean), but the UK remembered very well and wasn't going to join a war as casually as they had before. France took a heavier battering than the UK by 50% or so, too.

But my main point, which I have been getting mostly from these documentaries, was that the UK had no hope of defending Czechoslovakia; indeed, it turns out that they had no hope of saving Poland in the event that we did actually declare war, but perhaps not everyone realised that. I don't think of Chamberlain as a coward, anyway, although his 'peace in our time' statement was stupid.

The important thing is that even if you think that appeasement was a mistake (which I think is debatable), that it isn't the same thing as would be going on with Iraq today if the UN followed the French plan.

And I didn't know that Churchill's speeches were given by an actor. Listening to the '...We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills;we shall never surrender...' speech always makes me want to kill a few foreigners.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2803

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
I
I can agree with that before I go.

---

Bloody hell. I am definitely going to the pub now.

The mighty Oxsan agreed with me... I feel faint!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

A few pints of arf n arf and you'll be right again Spoor.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

Oh I see. I fuck off for the week and straight away weasel is off down the pub trying to pull some unsuspecting Australian barmaid for a night of high octane scrabble. Ha. Well, I have news for you wacky weasel. When you rang me on Wednesday night from Hamburg to get the security ID for your computer, I was bucking away balls deep in a young lady who was bent over the couch, simultaneously watching the AC/DC DVD in the reflection of the mirror.

Stick that in yer carrot and smoke it

(holiday reference)

Don't kick until yer spoored

Last edited by funkyrooster on 03-09-2003 at 09:45 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10150

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
The current wave of revulsion attached to the word 'appeasement' is stupid.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

I think that it is only used because it was used before. And in any case, I don't think that anyone is proposing to 'appease' Saddam even in the everyday sense of the word. As that former UK ambassador to the UN points out, everyone in the UN wants the same thing but the disagreement relates to timetable, and that disagreement is over a matter of months. The US and the UK obviously do want regime change, I would say, but what we are calling for is disarmament; the French and the Russians and the Germans want disarmament, too and haven't ruled war out either (well, the french at least haven't).

Last edited by Smug Git on 03-10-2003 at 06:54 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

This is the meaning that I think that it is being used with (from our low-rent friends at m-w.com):

quote:

---

to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

---

Last edited by Smug Git on 03-10-2003 at 07:28 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

quote:

---

Both camps...are prepared to allow him to remain in power if he were to disarm"

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
does anyone really believe that Saddam will actually disarm as long as he is head of state in Iraq? mI don't? The man is twelve years of deceit and contravention of resolutions. Surely we would not leave him in power. The only hope that the Irtaqi people have is a complete change of regime, I would not advocate invasion to affect regime change alone but if we are goinjg in to disarm then lets do the whole job and allow Iraq to breathe again.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I heard him say that too Smug. Whether it was a lie or just diplomatic speech to avoid the "regime change" label I don't know. I do think that the interests of the US (and UK) will best be served by the death or removal from power of Saddam Hussein
and most members of his regime. I think that Bush thinks and Blair thinks that it is best not to talk about regime change but rather about disarmament which sounds more noble.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged