[Ombrageux]

It also would have been utterly unjustifiable and would have been condemned by history as such.

Well it would have very likely been like the French occupation of Ruhr, which historians are usually rather negative on primarily because Germany at that time was a largely peaceful democracy with one of the most care-free capitals of Europe. Replace gay-Berliner democracy with ultra-nationalist dictatorship who spends it's free time burning Synagogues and whose bible happens to demand the German acquisition of Lebensraum and the slavery of slavic peoples, and maybe then history would have looked on a bit more positively.

That said, any French action would probably have been extremely controversial even generations later. But hindsight tells us, and this should be a guide to future action, that it would have been the right thing to do. It would have humiliated Hitler, damaged his economy and perhaps even embarassed his army into doing something about their insane dictator. It tells us the beneficial thing to do would have been painful, controversial, but it would have been just.

Quote:
the Germans had had their Western border guaranteed by France, why therefore should they feel the need to break the treaty regarding the militarization of that border?

Isn't the answer to this question obvious? Apart from the 'French guarantee of Germany's border' hardly being reassuring

Well to be frank, France was the one who needed reassuring. France had a military edge that could only be maintained for so long, without Britain's help, France would be sure to be squashed by Germany in the long run (as it turned out, she was squashed even with British help) and Britain was very serious about it's treaty obligations to Germany and guarantees.

the notion that a country didn't have full sovereignty over its *own land* was humiliating. The German people felt humiliated that 20 years on they were still forced to pay obeisance to the loser's agreement at Versailles, and this is one reason why there was a lot of sympathy even outside Germany for German troops taking control of the Rhineland again.

So because a nation has been unfairly treated we should give their fascist dictator so much prestige so that they become unassailable? No. If there was a time to return German land, it was when they were a democratic and liberal Republic, not a country run by racist thugs.

I also notice how you ignore both the Anschluss and Munich. The first was blatantly illegal as Germany (Hitler) had recently and specifically promised to not annex them if Austria declared itself a German state, which she did (although I don't think military intervention was very realistic anyway).

While Munich was 'appeasement' in it's most negative sense. It was giving dictator something for free. Contrary to what you asserted, there was nothing peaceful about. The Czechs and the Soviets were ready to protect Czechoslovakia, it's only because of French and especially British cowardice that the Czechs were arm-twisted into giving up their industrial heartland and fortresses making them hugely vulnerable to the Germans (who already surrounded them on 3 sides). It set the stage for the later coup that would make Bohemia and Moravia part of the Reich. Though concern of the German government for foreign Germans is legitimate, it's totally unfair to expect to have perfectly matching (always impractical) borders and the fact is the Czechs were treating their Germans, one of many minorities, rather well. A hundred times better than, say, Germany was treating her minorities.

[redstarline]

I was discussing appeasement with some friends, one friend of a friend from North America said that Chamberlain was wrong to apease Hitler and Churchill was right to declare war. I pointed out that it was Chamberlain who declared war not Churchill, which he wasnt sure was right. He also couldnt list any other events or issues which may have been important to the UK Government in the 1930s. Lets face it germany just wasnt that important for a long time, Britain didnt officially or actively take part in the Spansih civil War so why would it bother too much about germany. And as the UK Government backed and aided Franco and feared Communism, whose to say that the UK Government would have wanted to stop Hitler?
It always amuses me that Britain is balmed for not stopping Hitler despite the fact that it did. I have never seen such criticism aimed at Spain or Ireland or Swizerland.

[Spin]

Maixm, couldn't it be argued that lack of action lead to half of those things you mentioned happening?

Had the allies sent more troops etc to Russia, the Communist government might well have been ousted in 1919.

Had the US put more resources and and assisted China more, then Mao might never have got to power.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Spin - the issue to me is how it was done, not that it was done. All of the appeasement opposers here seem to be counting on the Allies before WWII to declare war out of the blue - whether it was with Germany remilitarising her own land, or with Germany wanting to annex German-speaking territory or with Germany 'uniting itself' as had historically always been on the cards with Austria, which seemed happy enough about the move. That is, with the benefit of hindsight, they would have plunged all of Europe into war on the basis of a minor tactical move on the part of Germany. And History would have judged them poorly for it - more poorly than invading Vietnam over Tonkin or producing a bloody and unnecessary conflict after the Black Hand did their work in Serbia.

We're told, for instance, that Britain and France should have declared war over the Anschluss because it was 'blatantly illegal'. So, this is to presume that every time an aggressive power annexes a 3rd state - whether with the blessing of its occupants or not - we should declare war? These non-appeasers have a lot of wars on their plate - they would already be invading Italy for her forays into Abyssinia and Albania, for starters - who knows, perhaps that would have brought on WWII about ten years earlier? In fact, Germany was breaking the military sanctions of Versailles through Rapallo by about 1922 - so I guess this should have meant that the Allies should have declared war on her then?

The major problem with the 1930s, as people have alluded to, is that the appeasers did not seem to care about working hard at diplomacy either. Appeasement works brilliantly when you are negotiating within a clear framework with other countries that support you and clear objectives. When the Allies let things like the crippling of Germany through Versailles continue, when they weren't serious about forming an alliance with Russia, when they let the League of Nations collapse... these were major problems. An approach to Hitler which was - let's not rush into killing 30 million people in a huge war - was only prudent.

[Fernando]

So, this is to presume that every time an aggressive power annexes a 3rd state - whether with the blessing of its occupants or not - we should declare war?

Though it is difficult to set general rules in international relationship, I would not have problem to sign this law.

they would already be invading Italy for her forays into Abyssinia and Albania, for starters

And fascism would have died before being born. Fascism based his success in its success.

According to Ian Kershaw's thesis (not original) Hitler needed a continous spiral of agression and spectacular fireworks to stay in power. His economics were erratic and stupid. Anyone who had abandonned appeasement and had took a stand would have succeeded.

Was it logic to admit Rhineland occupation? Maybe yes. It was an humiliation to German people, but suzerainity is not an absolut thing. Iran has the right to develop a nuclear weapon? Yes. Should it be admitted? No, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, the next steps should have been stopped in one point. Which one? My favourite ones: Either in Munich or, at last, in March 1939 (occupation of Czech)

[Maxim Litvinov]

So to get this straight - mobilising the army and declaring war over the Sudetenland, but leaving Hitler with a united Austria and remilitarised Rhineland?

[Fernando]

Yes, Sudetenland was not a German internal affair, while Rhineland remilitarisation and (to a point) Anschluss were.

Retrospectively, I should have stopped Hitler much before (1933), but Russia seemed more dangerous to W Europe (and the opposite) at the moment. Of course, he should have been stopped after Kristallnacht, but it is a nosense to expect the politicians to act otherwise (protecting the Jews and minorities in Germany). The policy of non-intervention in internal affairs was too strong at the moment.

[Ombrageux]

We're told, for instance, that Britain and France should have declared war over the Anschluss because it was 'blatantly illegal'. So, this is to presume that every time an aggressive power annexes a 3rd state - whether with the blessing of its occupants or not - we should declare war? These non-appeasers have a lot of wars on their plate - they would already be invading Italy for her forays into Abyssinia and Albania, for starters -

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am arguing. I don't think we should mindlessly attack any evil regime regardless of the consequences. I think we should not peacefully surrender power to aggressive or erratic regimes who are capable of overwhelming the balance of power.

That means, we should not peacefully increase the power of any country that might be capable of beating a coalition of all other countries. Germany was capable of this, the Soviet Union was capable of this, that's why peacefully giving them land or territory that increases their power is, not only immoral as in the case of Italy invading Abyssinia, but also dangerous. Italy was not capable overwhelming anyone, that's why it would be silly to fight them over Abyssinia. Abyssinia and Albania proved the fiercely hostile nature of the Fascist regime in Italy, but because Italy was not an overwhelming threat (compared to say, Germany or the USSR) there was no need to fight. On the contrary, the Allies (rightly) tried to enlist Italy's aid regardless of Abyssinia to counter the German menace and hoping to have Italy guarantee Austria.

Today, I dare say no country, not even the United States, is this powerful so it's a none-issue so a "Munich" can't really happen anymore (unless, which I doubt, a trully globalist power can emerge).

[Smilin' Dave]

Though it is difficult to set general rules in international relationship, I would not have problem to sign this law.

Such a law or policy would be difficult to enforce in the case of a war of liberation, especially if it suddenly turned into something else. By then, the act has already been done and most likely too late.

According to Ian Kershaw's thesis (not original) Hitler needed a continous spiral of agression and spectacular fireworks to stay in power. His economics were erratic and stupid. Anyone who had abandonned appeasement and had took a stand would have succeeded.

Assuming they succeed, which is questionable. War seems to be out of the question (not ready, general population unwilling, strategically difficult) and any other agressive measure is unlikely to get German troops out of the Sudetenland.

If they fail, Hitler gets even more fireworks and an even bigger propaganda victory.

Yes, Sudetenland was not a German internal affair, while Rhineland remilitarisation and (to a point) Anschluss were.

Didn't the Sudetenland have a German population? If so, I fail to see why it is somehow less legitimate than the Anschluss.

Of course, he should have been stopped after Kristallnacht, but it is a nosense to expect the politicians to act otherwise (protecting the Jews and minorities in Germany). The policy of non-intervention in internal affairs was too strong at the moment.

If something like Kristalnacht happened again, I'm not sure any government would act even today. Consider for example how people reacted to Rwanda, they agreed it was bad and should be stopped... but they were not sure they wanted to drop troops into the middle of it.

So I'm not sure it was just a climate of non-intervention in internal affairs. While it is more common today, it is still avoided because it is difficult and unrewarding.

[Fernando]

From back to beginning:

You are right. I do not think that nowadays the international community would perform otherwise. New states in Africa and Asia are even more jealous of its internal affairs. Maybe in Europe is different. People (though reluctanty) admits from time to time a European Court or broader schemes than nations.

Jugoeslavia case shows that international community is willing to intervene when serious human rights are jeopardized. Another thing is how long it takes and who assumes the task (US for better or worse).

Hitler was not completely pointless in the Sudetes issues. But it was not German territory (of course it was not when in March 39, he occupied 'Bohemia' and 'Moravia'). It was much clearer than Anschluss or Rhineland.

I very much doubt that Hitler would have invade Czech if France would have movilize, UK would have supported Czech cause and a couple of divisions would have supplied to Czechs (not because of its military value, but because Hitler would have to shoot on French/British citizens.

It is funny that, according many historians, Hitler was not prepared at all even in 1939. His generals did not expect a general war till 1941 or so. Hitler had had so much success that he thought after invading Poland that France and Britain would appease again.

[Mad_Michael]

Appeasement - "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous." (Paul Kennedy, Strategy and Diplomacy)

Appeasement in use -
* Detente with the USSR
* Most favoured nation status with China
* Negotiations with Iran and North Korea
* Talks with Libya
* Negotiations over Northern Ireland
* The Velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe
* Treaty over Aceh
* Peace of Westphalia

Forgive me for being obtuse, but didn't "detente with the USSR", "negotiations with Libya", "negotiations over NI", "velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe" all entail some manner of success?

How does this show that "appeasement doesn't work"? The examples seem to suggest the contrary.

[Fernando]

For some reason, Maxim has named this thread with a title opposite to the thesis he wants to probe (see their post in the thread). I had noticed it yet, but I would not mind, Mad_Michael. If the topic is interesting to you, share your views.

[Mad_Michael]

For some reason, Maxim has named this thread with a title opposite to the thesis he wants to probe (see their post in the thread). I had noticed it yet, but I would not mind, Mad_Michael. If the topic is interesting to you, share your views.

Please forgive my confusion here. I took the thread title as authorative.

As for the topic, I was really only interested to defend against the assertion that 'appeasement' (i.e. negotiations) don't work. I'm certainly no bleeding heart liberal who thinks negotiations and appeasement are the answer to every issue, only that there is a time and place for every strategem.

Speaking of which, North Korea just signed an agreement that potentially reduces that nuclear threat. It is ironic that the agreement follows almost exactly as John Kerry outlined during the campaign - which was duly ridiculed and rejected as "appeasement". It worked - the world is a slightly safer place than it was just a few weeks ago because of it.

[Spin]

Incidently negotiations in NI only really came about because the security forces were getting more succesful at getting the IRA, but knew they they could not destroy the IRA by arresting them all.

It is hardly an example of appeasement.

with Germany remilitarising her own land

The problem is that the remilitarisation of the Rhineland could be viewed as aggressive posturing. Any invasion would have been legal after Versailles.

Had France actually moved troops to the border and/or inavded the Rhineland then without a doubt the Germans would have retreated.

However, the French were in the middle of a political crisis.

That is, with the benefit of hindsight, they would have plunged all of Europe into war on the basis of a minor tactical move on the part of Germany

Not if they had acted in 1936.

When the Allies let things like the crippling of Germany through Versailles continue, when they weren't serious about forming an alliance with Russia

Would you have allied with Russia? Bearing in mind the west hated Russia as much as Hitler. In fact IIRC, British intel wanted to end the war with Germany and fight Russia. The west was allied with Poland. Poland had a rather poor relationship with the USSR (who had invaded them ten years before)

when they let the League of Nations collapse... these were major problems

What could the League have done? The Germans had left it.

[redstarline]

Of course most people forget that Germany had troops fighting in the Spanish Civil War, if France declared war on Germany during that time, they would have had to fight on two fronts and without British help. Britain had told France if it started a European war during the Spanish Civil War it would be on its own.
Would Spain be neutral in a World War if it was still fighting a civil war involving Italian and German forces?

[Mad_Michael]

Incidently negotiations in NI only really came about because the security forces were getting more succesful at getting the IRA, but knew they they could not destroy the IRA by arresting them all.

It is hardly an example of appeasement.

The opening thead identified "appeasement" to include a negotiation approach. NI demonstrates the success of this.

Your assertion is subjective and cannot be proven (or disproven). It can be reasonably argued that the situation in NI has progressively become less violent for a wide variety of reasons - which probably includes the reason you stated, but not exclusively.

[MasterOfPuppets]

A book called "Panzer General" written by General Heinz Guderian clearly shows the level of anxiety the Wehmacht had towards Hitlers moves into Chekoslovakia, Asutria, Alsace and Poland.

The military was deeply worried about the ability of the Wehmacht to defeat the French earlier on. It was only by 1938 that Germany was able to match the French on the ground.

Hitlers greatest ability during this period was to some up the mood of the Allies who he rightly predicted did not have the stomach for another war. Hense he preached his desire for peace while moving in and seizing so much territory peacefully.

When Hitler moved into Poland the French faced off against a phantom army in the west because Hitler knew they still would not move. The French were geared towards defence. So while the bulk of the Germans were conquering Poland, the French failed to take a brilliant opportunity.

Guderians thoughts can hardly be disregarded either as this man more than any other was responsible for the brilliant conduct of the German war machine. He raised Hitlers Panzer legions from nothing, invented the blitzkrieg and personally commanded his famed tank groups in all the successfull campaigns as well as leading the spearhead at Moscow.

The Soviets only gained ground after Guderian was replaced by Hitler. Guderian was summoned back to active duty later on, but by this time the Soviets had already taken the initiative.

[Spin]

The opening thead identified "appeasement" to include a negotiation approach. NI demonstrates the success of this.

Except that in NI force had to be used prior to any other possiblity opened up. It does not show a triumph of negotiation.