[Spin]

Everyone seem to blame appeasement for the war. I just want to know what you think.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Appeasement is the best policy ever. It was not 'to blame' for the war.

Appeasement is the policy that has stopped more wars than any other. It is the policy that says - "let's look for a diplomatic solution, here" and "let's look to see what are the legitimate concerns of all parties to see if we can sort this out *before* killing millions of people".

Nowadays, people like to attack appeasement because it is a fun target. What they don't consider is how arbitrary their definition of appeasement is. Appeasement is not all the times that people have successfully *avoided* mass slaughter by taking the proper diplomatic routes. It is not SALT and China's most-favoured nation status. It is not major international treaties. It is not the crisis talks that have stopped many an uprising, and it is not the opposite of policies like 'containment', which sparked off the Vietnam war. According to them. But we know that it actually is all of these things. Appeasement is not simply WWII.

But, why was it not to *blame* for the war? Well, appeasement was the one policy that wanted to avoid war. If it weren't for appeasement, then the UK and French governments might have been committing their troops to war in 1936 upon the remilitarisation of the Rhineland or the Anschluss. At which point, you need to think pragmatically. If you were the British PM in 1936, would this have been the right option? To go to war over the Anschluss? My answer - it would have been one of the worst foreign policy decisions ever. Britons did not want war - it would have been undemocratic and unpopular, Germany had a legitimate case behind Anschluss - it would have been unnecessary and probably immoral: starting a huge war on the basis of it would have simply been murder for murder's sake.

But yet, the anti-appeasers would say this is what should have been done. Germany should have been blocked every step of the way - even if it just wanted what was perfectly reasonable: like sovereign control over its own territory. Legitimate concerns should have been pooh-poohed, according to the anti-appeasers. The Allies, knowing what they knew in 1936, should have been ready to invade Germany just for reestablishing a military presence *within its own borders*. For me, this is ludicrous.

Now, of course there were policy failures. One of the failures was a lack of new treaties confirming the sovereignty of the states that surrounded Germany. Any sort of positive 'message' that the Allies were only going to negotiate too far. And the ultimate own goal in the pre-war policy was a failure for the Entente to negotiate a pact with the USSR. For me, this is unforgivable. But such points are about the policy being badly employed, and not to do with the lack of merit in policies of appeasement at all.

For me, appeasement is still the best policy option available, because it is the only one that is truly conscious of the need to *stop* wars, the only one that truly values human life.

here's a nice article on the subject if you're interested: http://www.kentuckypress.com/0813121604excerpt.cfm

[Groovesmith]

Appeasement is the best policy ever. It was not 'to blame' for the war.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.
- Winston Churchill

Ity might have been the best way in terms of the governments that supported it... I mean when you look at the domestic problems that UK and France had.... at the fact that most of the world agreed that germany had been unharshly treated and was only going back into her "backyard."

I still think a little display of force say in March 1935 could have changed a lot things.... but nah the western democracies had no 'cojones' to put the act together. Although a very humane policy it has done quite a lot of damage -- moreover the loss of credibilty as most new govs -- bush per se -- take preemptiv strikes before appeaseing...

Il have to go with Maciaveli on this one....
"there is no avoiding war. It can only be postponed to the others advantage"

[glinert]

I understand why they appeased hitler, if you can not trust crazy racist spitting evil satan dictator who can you trust in this world?

[Spin]

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.
- Winston Churchill

bah, churchill was always war mongering. If things had gone Churchills way we would have gone to war with the USSR before the war, when they invaded Finland and after the war. Anyway was the percentages deal with Stalin not a form of appeasement?

[liberalist]

Anyway was the percentages deal with Stalin not a form of appeasement?

It wasnt just a form of appeasment, it was appeasment. It was exactly the same kind of appeasment that Chamberlain had given to Hitler before the war. They agreed to divide up land for the sake of peace. Its just that whenever people quote Chuchill they forget what a hypocrit he was. I think appeasment is nessesary in some circumstances to prevent total destruction - for example during the Cold War.

[Spin]

It wasnt just a form of appeasment, it was appeasment. It was exactly the same kind of appeasment that Chamberlain had given to Hitler before the war. They agreed to divide up land for the sake of peace. Its just that whenever people quote Chuchill they forget what a hypocrit he was. I think appeasment is nessesary in some circumstances to prevent total destruction - for example during the Cold War

Yes. Churchill deserves some kind of medal for all the quality war mongering he did. Possibly an arm chair warrior medal.

Anyway Churchill was also going on about communists at the time so Chamberlain had a choice, take Hitler and use him as a buffer against communism (the feared bug from the east) or make war on germany and risk the spread of Communism in the west.

[Phoenix]

Actually appeasement is not really that great.
We cannot keep on appeasing dictators, or other countries all the time. Because if you give a small piece of sweet chocolate to a child, the child would ask for more, and more etc.

Imagine us appeasing USA all the time. *Shudders* I think Mark Latham put it to right content: "An arse-licker"

Looking at the era of 1930s, I could say that appleasement was justified to an extend since the British and the French army are not ready for a full scale war. But however it should be noted that if France and Britian have not appleased Hitler in the Rhineland, Austria, Czechslovakia, Hitler and Nazi Germany wouldn't have been that strong.
Note that Hitler wrote in a private memo that if France have send in meek army to the Rhineland to oppose Germany re-oppucation or liberation (take your pick), "Germany would have to withdraw like dogs with tails between their legs" after all the French and British army were much stronger than the Germans that time (it was slowly reversed during the annextion of Austria and Sudenland.)

We can keep on going saying if, and ifs, that if we didn't appease hitler, World War II would have been less devasting and probably on later era (which could be a good thing that war was in teh 1940s instead of 1950s or 60s with better advancements in technology, including possible nuclear armaments)

Appeasement should be only taken when the consequences favour the nation, such as need more time to re-arm, or organise yourself. And to an extend that you will not bring yourself to worse consequences.

But frankly in nowadays situations I would totally be opposed to appeasement to nations like USA. Don't let them get away or even allow them to do whatever they like! Surely you don't want to appease USA by giving Ireland to USA, then North Ireland, then Scotland, then Wales, then Yorkshire, Finally whole of England except for London and in the end, have fun on Isle of Man.

[Spin]

So would you quite happily go to nuclear war when a man was promising this would be the last time he attacked somewhere. Many in the world viewed Guernica as we now view Nagasaki or Hiroshima. WW2 claimed the lives of 45million would you have tried to prevent it?

[Spin]

Note that Hitler wrote in a private memo that if France have send in meek army to the Rhineland to oppose Germany re-oppucation or liberation (take your pick), "Germany would have to withdraw like dogs with tails between their legs" after all the French and British army were much stronger than the Germans that time (it was slowly reversed during the annextion of Austria and Sudenland.)

So you would stop a nation returning to its own back yard. Remember france had invaded the Rheinland before so it maywell have seemed that Hitler was seeking to prevent this