Comments on: Appeasement does not work

By: Bazman

Bazman — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:21:13 +0000

The War On Democracy by John Pilger
This is well worth a look as it is an excellent primer on US destabilisation and anti-democracy measures in Latin America.
Basically a film showing that America will stop at nothing to protect her interests and in reality does not believe in democracy.
Appeasement certainly does not work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-37395005…

By: Stuart Fairney

Stuart Fairney — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:52:42 +0000

If you want to look at a country with a fine tradition of self defence, might I recommend "Target Switzerland" available from Amazon, which details Swiss armed neutrality in WW2, this is not the story I thought it was at all.

Truly admirable people.

By: Chuck Unsworth

Chuck Unsworth — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:56:53 +0000

The Oxford Union continues these fine traditions today. It remains entirely and obdurately unrepresentative of the majority – hardly surprising, really. In the 1930s the members of the OU must have been but a tiny proportion of those who were ultimately conscripted. And the backbone of the Armed Forces is not – never has been – those who have had a relatively privileged upbringing, quite the contrary.

Indeed the same could certainly be said of those who went to The Great War and all subsequent actions – including Afghanistan and Iraq today.

If one examines the academic background of those who are in action right now I doubt that there are more than a handful of members of OU. Whether this by choice or by chance is open to conjecture. Equally, it is debatable as to whether the composition of the Armed Forces is representative of society as a whole.

As to our enemies' (in)abilities to assess our intentions prior to the start of conflicts, well that is a given. From recent examples we can recall the lead up to Kosovo, The Falklands, Iraq, etc etc. Sadly far too many in recent years.

By: APL

APL — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:24:30 +0000

We know from bitter experience that appeasment does not work, yet we still continue to appease the European Union. Paying it

By: Tony Makara

Tony Makara — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:30:07 +0000

I think it is sad that Neville Chamberlain is portrayed so negatively in history as an appeaser. I agree that appeasement does not work when dealing with an ideologically driven foe, but the art of diplomacy can still reap dividends as the talks with Mikhail Gorbachev shows. The detente that followed was a factor in the end of communism as the Soviets let down their guard and opened up to western ideas of democratic reform. In retrospect Chamberlain may seem naive, but we have the luxury of viewing history with hindsight, at the time Chamberlain was trying to avert a confrontation that Britain was ill prepared for and one that he knew would cost many lives and would eventually lead to an even greater theatre of war. I believe Chamberlain did what he could to avoid war, his efforts failed, but were not a sign of failure as such.

Reply:Chamberlain was buying time – the appeasement had taken place earlier when less force applied for less time would have stopped the dictators.

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 13:41:09 +0000

I have just had the pleasure of reading Richard J Evans' "The Coming of the Third Reich". In it, to my surprise, he details the anti Semitism, the sheer love of Empire, the victory aims and the lack of political accountability of Wilhelmine Germany.
When they beat the Russians, they took, at Brest Litovsk, the Ukraine, the Baltic and all states in between – just like Hitler.
They were appallingly anti Semitic in a way that other nations weren't. On the other hand, as Niall Ferguson has shown, Jews were an integral part of German Society at the time too.
(sentence left out)
The First World was not in vain.
But my father was quite surprised when the school sergeant told him that for nearly all the time he had enjoyed the First World war and that it had, for the most part been "Fun".
Thank you for making me think!

By: Neil Craig

Neil Craig — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 13:23:36 +0000

I have seen this argument used before. My reading is different. The motion does not say that they will not fight but merely that it will not be for "king & country" & indeed when war broke out it wasn't – it was, at least in the view of ordinary people, to stop Hitler destroying other countries & peoples.

The same argument was used about the Peace Pledge but again the majority of signatories were willing to fight, under a League of Nations mandate.

I grant the Labour opposition to rearmament was dubious.

However the Tories were no better. It was them who refused to impose oil sanctions on Mussolini over Etheopia & by produced the Hoare-Laval offer which was essentially Britain & France pulling out from the collective security of the League. This destroyed the League as a useful defence. Later it was the Tories who, on idealogical grounds, ensured the USSR was excluded from Munich & then tuirned down their offer of alliance against Hitler.

The end result was that by spurning all alliances, not considered in the primary interest of "king & country", to stop aggression we ended up facing it almost alone.

This is often known as realpolitick & is an example of why having an ethical dimension to your activities is often more realistic.

By: Brian Tomkinson

Brian Tomkinson — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:29:55 +0000

No doubt the Archbishop of Canterbury would fail to recognise any parallels with his recent utterings. Fortunately, on this occasion, the public mood has been clearly shown to be in opposition to his appeasement.