Posted on 06/21/2015 6:13:54 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
We now easily damn the idea of appeasement. Since the 1940s it has become a pejorative word for naiveté in foreign relations, if not downright cowardice.
It was no[t] always so. The term gained popular currency in the Western democracies after the catastrophe of World War I as a sober and judicious way of approaching foreign crises. By understanding the viewpoints of an adversary, not obsessing over minor symbolic contentions involving honor and pride, and offering reasonable concessions designed to assuage tempers, sober adults might avoid another global bloodbath.
French and British statesmen certainly thought by allowing Hitler to remilitarize the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty, to absorb Austria in the Anschluss, and to dismantle Czechoslovakia, they would satisfy wounded German pride and end Nazi aggression short of war. The alternative, they feared, was needlessly going to war over “far and distant” small countries just two decades after the end of World War I, in which 15 million soldiers and civilians had perished.
Appeasement was not unique to naïve prewar British and French diplomats. It is innate to the human character and appeals to the better angels of our natures. Many fourth century B.C. Greek orators thought that by granting Philip II of Macedon his demands for control of Northern Greek city-states, a general war would be averted and Philip would interpret such concessions as magnanimity to be appreciated rather than weakness to be manipulated.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Then the GOP is a classic appeaser of the appeaser
You’re talking about (appeaser)**2.
Obama’s not an appeaser when domestic lawfare is involved. But, he’s not brave where real conflict, or a judged possibiity of loss is involved.
Remember when he first came into office? He wasn’t completely sure he had the domestic situation under control. He appointed economists of reputation to advise him domestically (although he didn’t really listen to them), saying “Judge me by my appointments.” But, after a few months, he had enough of a handle to appoint radical-only czars—even trying to give us Van Jones.
Internationally, he doesn’t have that “try anything” nerve. He does sneaky stuff—like pretending to fight Islamists while covertly giving them weapons. But, he’ll only act against someone strong like Putin in the economic arena.
Appeaser or active opponent of the US and striking at her by strengthening her enemies?
Or being an enemy islamist himself.
Why can’t the pontificating class even admit to this very real posibility?
Great article on appeasement, but I think VDH is being too generous to Obama. Obama is using appeasement to weaken the United States, and not for any other reason. He doesn’t care about the bloodshed and turmoil that follows.
He needs to enjoy a party somewhere, or a golfing event somewhere else.
A good article.
However, it ignores a key point.
There are times when reasonable concessions to a reasonable “enemy” have prevented war.
Carry VDH’s argument to its logical conclusion, and any negotiations and compromise are doomed to lead to war. Which just isn’t true.
For instance, we negotiated and compromised with USSR for decades. We can argue about whether those negotiations and compromises were wise, but I don’t think we can reasonably argue that they didn’t help prevent a nuclear war.
What this all boils down to is that negotiations with an unreasonable enemy are appeasement and Bad, leading to war, while negotiations with a reasonable enemy are Good, leading to peace.
But VDH never provides a method to help us determine which opponents are reasonable and which are not.
All this ties into my belief that to conservatives all international conflicts are WWII (or the period leading up to it), while to liberals all internation conflicts are Vietnam.
The truth being, of course, that most such conflicts are neither, and that trying to fit all conflicts into one or the other group causes immense problems for us.
An excellent quote.
However, it’s reasonable to note that what exactly was going on with Cataline was murky at the time and even more so now.
Cicero’s “official government version” is, however, very unlikely to be true.
The French inclination toward appeasement was less noble than Britain's because it was inspired by an entirely different motivation. The French were riven by threats of government from the left and not just the left but the communist left. They had had the experience of the French revolution and the terror. More recently, they witnessed the near communist takeover of Spain and the terrible civil war there that preceded Europe's conflagration. There was a decided element in France which concluded that being conquered by Nazi Germany was preferable to being governed by communists. This attitude, of course, goes way beyond appeasement and borders on treason but it is an attitude which is understandable if not laudable in the context of prewar France.
We have an appeaser in Barack Obama but he is far more akin to the French who would rather be governed by the foreign enemy than by a domestic enemy. Barack Obama does not engage in appeasement because he wants to avoid war, he appeases because he does not care to spare America or even see her prosper. Obama, then, is someone who despises the American system and would welcome foreign influences congruent with his own political philosophy.
We should not regard Obama's appeasement as high-minded if misguided rather we should regarded it as fundamentally treasonous. In this sense Barack Obama is anything but the "classic" appeaser.
It would appear VDH has written an entire book on the subject of appeasement.
HA HA HA That headline made me laugh...the slob in the Oval Office is nothing short of something I can’t say here....
Appeasement never works. But then I repeat my tagline...
BTTT
I think your version is more accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.