Appeasement: Right or Wrong?

[Sandman]

Sandman, DinoDoc said it all. Britain's I am god and I rule the world attitude caused WWII

Other posters have debunked this better than I could. Suffice to say that there was no way the Allies could have known that France would fall so easily. As far as they were concerned, they were in a position of strength.

the current conflict in the ME

I agree, Israel was a terrible mistake. That is what you meant, right?

the war between Kuwait and Iraq

This is entirely Iraq's fault. They agreed to Kuwait's borders in 1932.

the instability between Pakistan and India over Kashmir

If only Britain had not introduced Islam to India...

and the crazy border between Pakistan and Afghanistan dividing the Pashtoon people that has destabalized both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A mere border adjustment would not make that region stable.

I strongly disagree, Gepap, that the readjustment of Versailles could ONLY have been accomplished by WAR.

You think Hitler would get Alsace and Lorraine back by just asking France? Do you think that the USSR would just 'return' Ukraine?

You simply choose to ignore Roosevelt's offer concerning a European conference. Chamberlain ignored it too and chose instead the path to war. War was England's choice, not Germany's.

A conference would just give Hitler another chance to play the gentleman whilst making yet more 'reasonable' demands.

Also, Hollywood teaches us that British accents are evil.

Meanwhile, Scottish accents are given to eccentric engineers or wealthy waterbirds.

Arrian, What was Chamberlain doing negotiating with Hitler concernng Czechoslovakian territory without the Czechs even being there?

He was appeasing, you know, the 'moral' thing to do.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned,

I recall from my WWII class in college that the Brits did go to the USSR prior to the deal between Hitler & Stalin. Stalin asked "how many combat divisions could you muster tomorrow?" The Brits worked out their answer: 2. Stalin laughed, told them he had 200, and made a deal with Hitler.

It's difficult to negotiation from a position of weakness.

-Arrian

Precisely. The real lesson of WWII is 1) to never abuse the loser of a war; and 2) never give orders to a superpower with only two divisions to back up those orders.

Britain of that time reminds me in a way of the old South. They had a just cause from their point of view. However, they started a war they could not win that simply ended up killing a lot of people and destroying their homeland.

That Britain was not destroyed by Germany was simply a miracle in itself.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
As you said above, Bohemia and Morovia had never been part fo the German reich, and thus, germany could make no claim to them whatsoever under the pretext of undoing Versailles.

That's not true. Bohemia and Moravia had been part of the Kingdom of Germany since the Carolingian Kingdom was split into three, and they were inherited by Lothair the German. Only when Nappy abolished the Holy Roman Empire did they cease to be part of the Kingdom of Germany, although they were part of the Austrian empire at the time (from 1526 to 1918).

Slovakia was never part of Germany.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sandman
This is entirely Iraq's fault. They agreed to Kuwait's borders in 1932.

Republic's are not bound by the agreements of kings. In any event, Iraq was still a protectarate of the British Empire at the time, i.e., a colony. It could not give consent.

[Myrddin]

Sorry, Ned, the British homeland is still here and Stalin did not understand the difference between divisions and naval power

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


As you said above, Bohemia and Morovia had never been part fo the German reich, and thus, germany could make no claim to them whatsoever under the pretext of undoing Versailles. The aquisitions of the sudetenland and Austria by Germany would fall under undoing the limitations on 'German' self-determination as outlined in the treary. Anything beyond the Sudentenland, Austria, Sud tyrol, or the Polish Corredor would be aims by the German government to go beyond anyhting that could be justified with 'versailles'

Overall Ned, you don't give enough attention whatsoever to Nazi aims. The war in the west was not what Hitler wanted, speaiclly a prolonged war with britain, but a huge campaign against all of Poland, and the Soviet union was always in the work. There is nothing anyone could have done, beside overthrowing the Nazi regime, that would have prevented a general war in europe in the 1940's with Hitler and the National Socialist in power.

Gepap, you seem to ignore that Hitler was Austrian and that Czechoslovakia was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

At the end of WWI, Poland, Konisgburg, Byelorussia and the Ukraine were German territory. Undoing Versailles, all of it, would have Germany have these lands restored to the Reich. Again, the fall of Czechoslovakia did alert every independent country to the East of Germany of Hitler's aims. This is why they united against him.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's not true. Bohemia and Moravia had been part of the Kingdom of Germany since the Carolingian Kingdom was split into three, and they were inherited by Lothair the German. Only when Nappy abolished the Holy Roman Empire did they cease to be part of the Kingdom of Germany, although they were part of the Austrian empire at the time (from 1526 to 1918).

Slovakia was never part of Germany.

There never was such a thing as a kingdom of Germany!

The Holy Roman Emperor was not a hereditary king, he was elected by 12 electors. in fact, bohemia was an independent Kingdom under the suzereinity of the Emperor (much like Kings in Bavaria, saxony, hesse, Brandenburg and so forth) until by marriage the habsburgs became Kings of Bohemia and Moravia and then made these imperial lands, and kept them as part fo the Archduchy of Austria once they lost their title of Holy Roman Emperors and then they caled themselves the Emperors of Austria:

I expect better form you Che...making such elemental historical mistakes

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Gepap, you seem to ignore that Hitler was Austrian and that Czechoslovakia was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

At the end of WWI, Poland, Konisgburg, Byelorussia and the Ukraine were German territory. Undoing Versailles, all of it, would have Germany have these lands restored to the Reich. Again, the fall of Czechoslovakia did alert every independent country to the East of Germany of Hitler's aims. This is why they united against him.

Yes, these land were of the Habsburg Empire, not the Hohenzollern one. A different peace treaty was signed by the allies and the habsburg government than signed by the allies and the Hohenzollern one. As I said, the only excuse for demanding Austria and the Sudetenland to become part of Germany was if you claim that the treaties specifically singled out Germans for discrimination in terms of self-determination, since germans were not allowed ot vote to join germany after the war.

The moment germany lost the first world war, it treaties with the Soviet government were no longer valid, and thus Germany had no legal claim to any of those lands, and it surely had little if any actual control of them by late 1918.

[Arrian]

Man, this really gets circular, doesn't it? The Allies dismember Germany and Austria at the end of WWI. But, when their victim wants its land and people back, the victim, not the Allies, is labelled the aggressor.

The fighting broke out because Britain chose the path of armed confrontation by ringing Germany with defensive alliances and encouraing Poland to refuse to negotiate any further.

This bizzaro-history of yours is incredible. Germany was no innocent victim, even if Versailles was unduly harsh. The fighting broke out because Hitler kept invading other countries. Bloody hell.

As for the original topic of the thread: it's not really a stance on the morality of appeasement, but I do think that appeasement is a losing strategy. It's just not very smart.

Appeasement pre-WWII led to a long and bloody world war. Many people believe that had France and the UK come down on Germany hard when Hitler ordered his army into the Rhineland, it all couldhave been avoided. No way to know for sure, though.

What do you think of that famous line often used to describe the Holocaust, DF? You know "first they came for the jews, but I was not a jew, so I did nothing..." etc.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Sandman, Since Chamberlain in his infinite wisdom had concluded that negotiations would have been fruitless, I agree, they never should have been attempted.

Hah!

[Ramo]

Oh God, not another national sovereignty argument.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian

What do you think of that famous line often used to describe the Holocaust, DF? You know "first they came for the jews, but I was not a jew, so I did nothing..." etc.

-Arrian

Minor correction: the actual quote, said by Martin Niemoeller was:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist-so i did nothing. Then they came for the Social democracts, but I was not a SD- so I did nothing. then they came for the trade unionists, but i was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a jew-so i did little. then they came for me, there was no one left who could sdtand up for me."

I always am annoyed when things ae so badly misquoted for political reasons.

[St Leo]

Erm, the World isn't appeasing Iraq. The World is appeasing Bush who wants to turn Iraq into his own personal Czechoslovakia.

[Myrddin]

What is often forgotten in all the talk about appeasement is that the Western allies were rebuilding their military strength in the late 1930's, so that if Hitler went too far, they would have something to back up their words

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Sava
Saddam is stuck in his little sh!t country... the US should lift the sanctions and only attack if Iraq so much as fires a pellet gun at anyone.

So then you are in favor of atacking Iraq since they constantly fire upon US and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone

Originally posted by Sava

An estimated 500,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of sanctions. The US has killed more innocent Iraqi's than Saddam.

Again another argument for regime change. Saddam would prefer to let his citizens starve than abide by the ceasefire agreement he signed. The ceasefire agreement were the precondition for the end of the Gulf War. When he broke them, he basically put his country in a state of war with the US. Therefore, we should win the war he started for the second time.

Sanctions are foolish because they don't work. My quarrel is not with the Iraqi people and they should not be punished. Saddam should be removed with least amount of collateral damge possible