Appeasement: Right or Wrong?

[David Floyd]

Unlike in Civ 2, cease-fires don't expire after 15 turns in the real world.

The cease fire came about as a result of a war fought unconstitutionally by the United States, and was ultimately the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do. I don't consider it to be legit, in those circumstances.

If someone puts a gun to your head and makes you sign over all your possessions to that person, it's not legally binding, after all. Or, if you kill someone, and the police coerce testimony out of you, the testimony is inadmissible, right?

Point being, you can't use your position of strength to make others bend to your will in civil society, so why should you be able to do it in international relations?

[Felch]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So, then, if Canada had enough strength, they should be able to enforce no-fly zones over, say, Minnesota?

If only this strawman had a brain.

[David Floyd]

If only this strawman had a brain.

The point is, does might make right or doesn't it? I see no reason why you can't apply the reasoning the US uses against other nations to the US itself. Call it a hypothetical exercise.

[Felch]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The cease fire came about as a result of a war fought unconstitutionally by the United States, and was ultimately the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do. I don't consider it to be legit, in those circumstances.

If someone puts a gun to your head and makes you sign over all your possessions to that person, it's not legally binding, after all. Or, if you kill someone, and the police coerce testimony out of you, the testimony is inadmissible, right?

Point being, you can't use your position of strength to make others bend to your will in civil society, so why should you be able to do it in international relations?

Blah blah blah . . .

I've heard it before. Seriously, you need a reality check. Congress authorized President Bush to use force. Thus it was constitutional. Declarations of war don't need to be labled as such.

If the coercion that we used on the Iraqis is unlawful and not binding, then how was the coercion used by Hitler on the Czechs lawful and legally binding? It was the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do.

Do try to be consistent. You seem so eager to bash America and applaud Nazism that you choke on your own foot.

[David Floyd]

I've heard it before. Seriously, you need a reality check. Congress authorized President Bush to use force. Thus it was constitutional. Declarations of war don't need to be labled as such.

Congress can issue a declaration of war in any way it wants to. Obviously, though, it must be recognized by Congress as a declaration of war in order to be one. We can't just assume that Congress means a declaration of war unless they say it is one - that would make no sense.

So, Congress can declare war by farting in the general direction of a country, as long as Congress makes it known that the fart equates to a DoW.

In the case of the Gulf War, they did not do that. Hence, they attempted to illegally transfer an exclusive power of Congress to the Executive Branch, without a Constitutional Amendment. The President, acting on authority he never had because Congress was never able to give it, created a war with Iraq - in effect, declaring war himself by virtue of attacking bombing and invading Iraq. This violated the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to make war.

Since only Congress has the power to declare (and thus make and initiate) war, and since Congress has no Constitutional authority to transfer their exclusive powers to another branch, the Persian Gulf War must have been unconstitutional.

If the coercion that we used on the Iraqis is unlawful and not binding, then how was the coercion used by Hitler on the Czechs lawful and legally binding? It was the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do.

Certainly, and Hitler was just as wrong in seizing Sudetenland as Hussein was in seizing Kuwait. But just as France and Britain had no business intervening militarily, the US had no business intervening militarily either.

My point is not that Hitler had some legal authority to seize Sudetenland, or anywhere else (except for the remilitarization of the Rhineland, I fail to see how that was anyone's territory but Germany's, especially given the huge degree of German popular support there), but that Britain and France had no right to go kill Germans (and allow Britons and Frenchmen to be killed as well) over the matter.

Do try to be consistent.

I don't think you'll find consistency is one of my problems.

[Capt Dizle]

David, at what point do you believe France and/or Britain would have been justified to declare war on Germany?

[David Floyd]

The point when Germany attacked them, of course. That is, France and only France would have been justified if Germany attacked France, and Britain and only Britain would have been justified if Germany attacked Britain.

That means I don't believe they should have gone to war over Poland (and they were also inconsistent to NOT declare war on the Soviets over Poland, not that they should of, of course).

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by David Floyd
JT,

You won't like any answer I give, so I'm not going down that road with you

Well, its kind of hard to respond to your assertions that this entity has no moral right to do this, or that the other entity had no moral right to such and such when we don't know what morality means to you.

Its like you are saying "America had no red right to do that", or "America has no green right to do this".

[David Floyd]

Fine, then - as a Christian, I believe that morality ultimately comes from God.

[orange]

You have to take into account percieved threat. Iraq, IMO, is not a threat to the United States or our allies, certainly not more than it was in 1991. That which it violates is a Versailles treaty of sorts...completely unfair and not of any real value to the United States or Great Britain...it's just a show of dominance and a way to keep Iraq down.

My stance is against the war, so I would much rather see the UN take an active role in helping Iraq out, rather than keeping it down through this anti-Saddam crap.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The point when Germany attacked them, of course. That is, France and only France would have been justified if Germany attacked France, and Britain and only Britain would have been justified if Germany attacked Britain.

That means I don't believe they should have gone to war over Poland (and they were also inconsistent to NOT declare war on the Soviets over Poland, not that they should of, of course).

So in your world view you create a situation where one agressor nation can pick off one country at a time until they conquer the entire world? That at no point other nations have the right to ally for survival?

That would have been ducky for Hitler.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Fine, then - as a Christian, I believe that morality ultimately comes from God.

Thanks for the response. I don't know why you thought I wouldn't like that answer though.

[GePap]

The great myth

The myth of 'appeasement' is a terrible one, since it greatly devalues the abilities of diplomacy to solve problems and inverably calls for military actions. It is also batlantly flase, if one starts to look at the logic behind the myth of appeasement.

So, lets begin by indentifying the myth:

In the mid 1930's the Western powers appeased Hitler, letting him make further and further gains, believing that thorugh this course, they would give Hitler enough so that he no longer would want war. they were wrong, and thus precipitated World war 2, the Holocaust, and so forth. The lesson we must learn is never to negotiate with dictators, and that only a strong hand will serve us.

Now, there are arguments to be made both against the 'factual side' of the argument, and specialy against the 'lesson'

1. France and britain were both democracies. the people did not want war. In the end, governments of democracies are beholden to the wishes of the people. they may take actions to alliviate or try to steer a course, but still, Chamberlain was no dictator. He was hailed by the people when he returned. It is higly disingeneous to fault men who had grown with WW1, who's horrors in many ways equalled those of WW2, for not wanting war. Also ignored is the fact that it was chamerlain who started to increased appropriations for war that enabled britian to catch up to germany in terms of armaments by 1940. Britain and france were in some ways less prepared for war in 1938 than late 1939. And also always forgotten is that the appeasement ended. France and Britiain did not have to declare war on Germany once it invaded Poland, anymore than they had to declare war when the germans occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia in march '39.

2. The defeat of the allies and german gains should be attributed not to pre-war allied diplomacy but to failures by allied general staffs during the war. Had France and Britian stopped germany in 1940, we would not all know about the great 'appeasement' myth.

The first test of non-appeasement was actually japan. US action towards japan can in no way be seen as appeasing Japan'. Once japan occupied French indochina tha US stood firm and begun an oil and steel embargo that could have brought down the Japanese economy to force Japan to leave. Did this firm hand, lack of appeasement, lead to peace? NO. War came anyway.
If one decided to view Yalta as appeasing Stalin, as many commentators say, then it must be seen as successful appeasement. stalin got what he was given (eastern europe) and stopped there, and there was never a war between the US and the USSR over europe.

makign dilomacy based on cliche catchphrases is highly dangerous. The key to good diplomacy is ignoring history and looking at motives, ours and theirs.

war with hitler came not because of appeasement- had the allies taken a firm hand, war still would have come. we don't know the possbile outcome- perhaps the allies do better, perhaps worse, who knows, but it was not apeasment that led to war, it was the fundamental difference in security aims: Hitler wanted to create a grand german empire- this view could simply never be reconcilled wth the security aims of any other state in the region. the appeasement myth makes every dictator out to be Hitler-with an insatiable thirst for empire. This is an overly simplistic view: not every dictator wants a thousan year reich.

The Point of diplomacy is this: discover what his security aims are; compare them to yours; seek cosible compromise. if compromise is possible, then diplomacy can work. If no compormise exist, then diplomacy will fail.
How does this work with US and Iraq? well, if the basic US security aim is an iraq without weapons of mass destruction, and we assume the basic security concern of the iraqi regime is survival, then a diplomatic solution is possible, as long as some sort of deal is struck that gets iraq to disarm while giving it security assurances (this is what PRNK wants). Now, if US security concerns call for a democratic Iraq, then compormise is not possible.

So: damn the 'appeasement myth'. What do you think the US basic security concerns are? what do you think the Iraqi regime's basic security concerns are? Then look for possible compromise. If you see one, then a diplomatic solution possible. if not, then war is coming. The false lessons of history are no loner necessary.

[David Floyd]

So in your world view you create a situation where one agressor nation can pick off one country at a time until they conquer the entire world? That at no point other nations have the right to ally for survival?

No, any nation can ally with any other nation. They just have no right to force individuals to fight. If they want to raised a volunteer army paid, equipped, and supplied using private or voluntary funds, that's another thing, but people shouldn't be forced to participate in a war with which they disagree.

And further, I don't see how this would have helped Hitler that much. Hitler was doomed by trying to take on the US and the Soviet Union at once. Once nations are at war, they can cooperate however much they want to defeat a common enemy (they still can't institute conscription, though, and they must have a way to allow individuals to opt out of paying for the war - although in WW2, this would not have been a big problem). The Franco-British alliance and going to war over Poland didn't do jack **** to stop Hitler.

[David Floyd]

One could also argue that using WW2 as an example is ridiculous to begin with, because the problem itself was created by the Treaty of Versailles, which was unfair, and the ultimate problem, one could say, was the result of empire-building, colonialism, and nationalism. If individual rights had been protected from the start, things would have turned out much differently.