# How many "appeasements" were there? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 1, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069 "2006-09-01T14:19:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/1 "2006-09-01T14:19:49Z")
We’ve been hearing about Neville Chamberlain and the Munich appeasement again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. But if non-appeasement is the Iron Law of International Relations, there must be plenty of other examples in history of disasterous wars that started as a result of appeasement. (After all, WWI started as a result of an overreaction to a terrorist attack.) ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/2 "2006-09-01T14:47:50Z")
The British appeasement at the Munich Treaty was sound tactical advice: Britain wasn’t prepared at that point in time to go to war directly (while Germany was, because Hitler had secretly prepared everything), so Chamberlain went home and in that one year, closed the gap and brought the British army up to strength. Also, a very old tactical axiom is to never let the enemy choose the time and place for a battle; in this case Hitler had chosen the time, so Churchill picked his own. Apparently, Hitler was privately hopping mad after the signing, because he had hoped to start his war right now, everything in place and prepared, and the other leaders hadn’t played along with his plan. That’s what I always heard. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/3 "2006-09-01T14:54:08Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] . . . there must be plenty of other examples in history of disastrous wars that started as a result of appeasement. [/QUOTE] The point isn’t that WWII _started_ as a result of appeasement, it’s that appeasement _failed to prevent it_. The pre-WWII appeasement was especially disastrous because it postponed the inevitable war for twelve months at a time when Germany was gorwing stronger, and it involved a concession (the loss of the most defensible part of Czechoslovakia) which weakend the Allies further. One can find other examples of appeasement which failed to prevent war, but few involve a concession so disastrous as that at Munich. For example, during the 1850’s, the American North appeased the pro-slavery South by a series of concessions vis-a-vis slavery: enactment of a stricter fugitive slave law (1850), legalization of slavery on the Great Plains (1854), and later, legalization of slavery in all federal territories (Dred Scott case, 1857). The concessions failed to appease the South and forestall war. But they weren’t disastrous, because the North was growing stronger, relative to the South, during the 1850’s. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/4 "2006-09-01T15:31:32Z")
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig] The point isn’t that WWII _started_ as a result of appeasement, it’s that appeasement _failed to prevent it_. The pre-WWII appeasement was especially disastrous because it postponed the inevitable war for twelve months at a time when Germany was gorwing stronger, and it involved a concession (the loss of the most defensible part of Czechoslovakia) which weakend the Allies further. [/QUOTE] Actually, as **constanze** noted, the Munich accord actually set off enough alarms within the British government that they finally began to make the preparations that allowed them to defend themselves. (I have never heard that Hitler was upset by the agreement.) The two salient points regarding Munich that make it a case for condemnation are that Britain and France gave away parts of Czechoslovakia–which they clearly had no right to do–and Chamberlain’s unfortunate statement on the tarmac while disboarding his plane that the compronise had secured “peace in our time.” Regarding the latter, Chamberlain realized, immediately, what a foolish statement that had been, but he was not able to unsay the words and he has been incorrectly tarred with the claim that he actually thought that he had secured a lasting peace. What he had done, and what he knew he had done, was buy some time for the preparation of a defense. He was not so stupid as his unfortunate comment has led later critics to contend. The actual lesson should never have been Munich. By the time of that meeting, war was inevitable, but Chamberlain’s remark has given countless ill informed people a soundbite on which to hang bad history. The point at which the allies failed was the re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936 which they permitted based on a lack of foresight and a desire to avoid any nasty confrontations. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/5 "2006-09-01T15:59:02Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] The two salient points regarding Munich that make it a case for condemnation are that Britain and France gave away parts of Czechoslovakia–which they clearly had no right to do–and Chamberlain’s unfortunate statement on the tarmac while disboarding his plane that the compronise had secured “peace in our time.” [/QUOTE] Technically, what Chamberlain said secured “peace for our time” wasn’t the agreement to give the Sudetenland to Germany, but a second, later, agreement between Britain and Germany, saying: > [@](#): > > We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. > > We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe. So, it wasn’t the giving up of the Sudetenland that Chamberlain relied on, but instead, Hitler’s assurances that he would seek a peaceful resolution to future conflicts rather than war. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/6 "2006-09-01T16:21:56Z")
I’d argue that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was a prolonged period of appeasement. Whenever the two powers were in direct conflict and it appeared an actual war might break out, there were instead diplomatic meetings and some agreement was worked out to put off the fighting. And it worked; eventually one side collapsed and the other side won without having to fight a general war. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/7 "2006-09-01T16:31:50Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] I’d argue that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was a prolonged period of appeasement. Whenever the two powers were in direct conflict and it appeared an actual war might break out, there were instead diplomatic meetings and some agreement was worked out to put off the fighting. And it worked; eventually one side collapsed and the other side won without having to fight a general war. [/QUOTE] I don’t think so. There weren’t “appeasements” to the Soviets on the part of the US admin., it was more a case of cooler heads prevailing before the hawks on each side managed to launch WWIII and destroy half the human race. E.g. when during the Cuba crisis, a US battleship captain on the blockade dropped hand grenades onto a Soviet sub - which was already at a heighented state of alert, after all - the Soviet captain would have been entirely in his right, under the cirumstances of imminent war alert, to reciprocate that attack by firing his atomic missiles; but he didn’t. There was no appeasement there. Or when technical glitches (like in War games, but not a hacker, a failure of a 40cent chip in the computer) lead the computer centers - on both sides - to believe that large amounts of nuclear missiles were coming their way - the only reason we didn’t go up in a poof of dust was that some officers kept their cool, and checked the data before going into a panic of “we must defend ourselves”. No appeasement there. I also don’t call the economic collapse of the Soviet Union the “aim” of the Cold War, and most certainly, the US didn’t win it. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/8 "2006-09-01T18:09:37Z")
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig] The point isn’t that WWII _started_ as a result of appeasement, it’s that appeasement _failed to prevent it_. [/quote] Point taken. The basic argument is that muscular confrontation always prevents war and that any other approach inevitably emboldens…someone…to attack. > [@](#): > > For example, during the 1850’s, the American North appeased the pro-slavery South by a series of concessions vis-a-vis slavery: enactment of a stricter fugitive slave law (1850), legalization of slavery on the Great Plains (1854), and later, legalization of slavery in all federal territories (Dred Scott case, 1857). > > The concessions failed to appease the South and forestall war. That’s an interesting example (although I doubt Sen. Allen is going to be among those citing it :dubious: ). But in this case I don’t see how a more confrontational approach would have prevented secession. ---
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/9 "2006-09-01T18:11:06Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] We’ve been hearing about Neville Chamberlain and the Munich appeasement again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. But if non-appeasement is the Iron Law of International Relations, there must be plenty of other examples in history of disasterous wars that started as a result of appeasement. (After all, WWI started as a result of an overreaction to a terrorist attack.) [/QUOTE] The Second World War by Winston S. Churchill and John Keegan is a comprehensive history of the war. See Volume I, “The Gathering Storm.” ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/10 "2006-09-01T19:05:05Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] The basic argument is that muscular confrontation always prevents war and that any other approach inevitably emboldens…someone…to attack. [/quote] I still think you’re mis-characterizing the usual argument against appeasement. (This is difficult because we’re dealing with an abstraction; if we were debating a specific argument that someone was advancing against a specific appeasement, this would be easier.) The idea that the other side _won’t_ attack if we _don’t_ appease is only a small part of the usual argument. It _does_ come into play–I don’t have a cite, but I’m sure there were those in 1938 who argued, “Germany is bluffing, and even if we concede nothing in Czechoslovakia, we won’t have war.” And I **know** that there were Northerners in 1850 and 1860 who said, “The South is bluffing; if we don’t embolden them with concessions, they’ll never secede.” In both cases, persons making those arguments would have been wrong. But that’s only a _part_ of the argument. The follow-up is, even if we _do_ make concessions, we’ll embolden the other side to make further demands. Germany will want the rest of Czechoslovakia and then Poland, the South will demand a Slave Code for the territories. We’ll have to make further concessions, or fight. And in the meantime, we’ll have lost ground and dishonored and demoralized ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/11 "2006-09-01T22:31:59Z")
A classic example was the [Danegeld](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld); essentially, a bribe or tribute from the English to the Vikings to not be invaded and plundered. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/12 "2006-09-02T01:58:01Z")
[QUOTE=constanze] E.g. when during the Cuba crisis, a US battleship captain on the blockade dropped hand grenades onto a Soviet sub - which was already at a heighented state of alert, after all - the Soviet captain would have been entirely in his right, under the cirumstances of imminent war alert, to reciprocate that attack by firing his atomic missiles; but he didn’t. [/QUOTE] Can we have a cite for this story, please? Because I don’t believe the US had any battleships in the fleet during the Cuban Missile crisis. The 4 WWII Iowa-class battleships had all been de-commissioned and placed in reserve between 1955-1958, I believe. Some were later reactivated during the Vietnam war, and the (first) Gulf war. But none were seaworthy during the Cuban Missile crisis. Also, a sub firing its atomic missiles wouldn’t hurt the battleship; those missile are targeted for land bases or cities hundreds of miles away. Torpedos would be the appropriate weapon to use against a battleship (if the sub had any). Also, how did a sub get close enough to a battleship for hand grenades to be dropped onto it? As I recall, it has always been US Navy doctrine to use the fleet of secondary ships & planes to keep **all unfriendly ships** far away from capital ships. For example, in the 1980’s, the boundry for carriers was 100 miles (160 km) – no unidentified vessel was allowed to come closer than that. I believe approach to battleships was similarily restricted. ---
**Author:** ![Operation\_Ripper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@Operation\_Ripper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Operation_Ripper)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/13 "2006-09-02T02:12:28Z")
[QUOTE=constanze] IE.g. when during the Cuba crisis, a US battleship captain on the blockade dropped hand grenades onto a Soviet sub [/QUOTE] So, a captain of a US battleship during the Cuba crisis thought the best way to attack a nuclear sub was to toss hand grenades at it? I call BS. ---
**Author:** ![Hometownboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5e9695/32.png) [@Hometownboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hometownboy)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/14 "2006-09-02T04:54:14Z")
Don’t know about battleships, but the confusion about hand grenades may stem from [the National Security Archive](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB75/) > [@](#): > > During the missile crisis, U.S. naval officers did not know about Soviet plans for a submarine base or that the Foxtrot submarines were nuclear-armed. Nevertheless, the Navy high command worried that the submarines, which had already been detected in the north Atlantic, could endanger enforcement of the blockade. Therefore, under orders from the Pentagon, U.S. Naval forces carried out systematic efforts to track Soviet submarines in tandem with the plans to blockade, and possibly invade, Cuba. While ordered not to attack the submarines, the Navy received instructions on 23 October from Secretary of Defense McNamara to signal Soviet submarines in order to induce them to surface and identify themselves. Soon messages conveying “Submarine Surfacing and Identification Procedures” were transmitted to Moscow and other governments around the world. The next morning, on 24 October, President Kennedy and the National Security Council’s Executive Committee (ExCom) discussed the submarine threat and the dangers of an incident. According to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara reviewed the use of **practice depth charges (PDCs), the size of hand grenades, to signal the submarines,** “those few minutes were the time of greatest worry to the President. His hand went up to his face & he closed his fist” (see document three). Within a few days, U.S. navy task groups in the Caribbean had identified Soviet submarines in the approaches to Cuba and were tracking them with all of the detection technology that they had at their disposal.(6) > > The U.S. effort to surface the Soviet submarines involved considerable risk; exhausted by weeks undersea in difficult circumstances and worried that the U.S. Navy’s practice depth charges were dangerous explosives, senior officers on several of the submarines, notably B-59 and B-130, were rattled enough to talk about firing nuclear torpedoes, whose 15 kiloton explosive yields approximated the bomb that devastated Hiroshima in August 1945. Huchthausen includes a disquieting account of an incident aboard submarine B-130, when U.S. destroyers were pitching PDCs at it. In a move to impress the Communist Party political officer, Captain Nikolai Shumkov ordered the preparations of torpedoes, including the tube holding the nuclear torpedo; the special weapon security officer then warned Shumkov that the torpedo could not be armed without permission from headquarters. After hearing that the security officer had fainted, Shumkov told his subordinates that he had no intention to use the torpedo “because we would go up with it if we did.”(7) > > Possibly even more dangerous was an incident on submarine B-59 recalled by Vadim Orlov, who served as a communications intelligence officer. In an account published by Mozgovoi (see document 16), Orlov recounted the tense and stressful situation on 27 October when U.S. destroyers lobbed PDCs at B-59. According to Orlov, a “totally exhausted” Captain Valentin Savitsky, unable to establish communications with Moscow, “became furious” and ordered the nuclear torpedo to be assembled for battle readiness. Savitsky roared “We’re going to blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all.” Deputy brigade commander Second Captain Vasili Archipov calmed Savitsky down and they made the decision to surface the submarine. Orlov’s description of the order to assemble the nuclear torpedo is controversial and the other submarine commanders do not believe that that Savitsky would have made such a command. ---
**Author:** ![xash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c6cbf5/32.png) [@xash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xash)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/15 "2006-09-02T05:08:57Z")
Moved to GD. - **xash** General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/16 "2006-09-02T05:35:43Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] Technically, what Chamberlain said secured “peace for our time” wasn’t the agreement to give the Sudetenland to Germany, but a second, later, agreement between Britain and Germany, . . . [/QUOTE] How many hours later? The event was the Munich conference in September, 1938, in which the Brits and France decided that Hitler could take the Sudetenland if he wanted it. At some point during the conference, Hitler “agreed” that Germany and Britain would not go to war, again. (Hitler might even have been willing to honor that agreement, given that it was Britain who declared war on Germany following the invasion of Poland.\*) Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” speech was made at his arrival back in Britain. \*I am making no silly claim that Hitler was honorable or “wanted” peace, only noting that Hitler would have probably preferred that Britain remain neutral while Hitler had his way with Europe. Hitler would have been perfectly happy with an industrialized neutral trading partner (similar to Sweden but with more industry) on his Northwest flank rather than an open enemy, but it would have been unrealistic of him to expect Britain to go along with that idea. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/17 "2006-09-02T12:06:49Z")
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net] Can we have a cite for this story, please? Because I don’t believe the US had any battleships in the fleet during the Cuban Missile crisis. [/quote] Sorry, English is not my first language; I didn’t mean battleship as specific class, but as big fighting ship. As to a cite: I read this (IIRC) in an newspaper article (or saw in on a TV report) during the anniversary of the Cuban crises. > [@](#): > > Also, a sub firing its atomic missiles wouldn’t hurt the battleship; those missile are targeted for land bases or cities hundreds of miles away. Torpedos would be the appropriate weapon to use against a battleship (if the sub had any). A soviet sub, whether its atomic missiles would have hurt the US ship, or whether it would have used torps that could have hurt the ship, would very likely have started WWIII, that’s what I meant. ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/18 "2006-09-02T13:26:46Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I am making no silly claim that Hitler was honorable or “wanted” peace, only noting that Hitler would have probably preferred that Britain remain neutral while Hitler had his way with Europe. Hitler would have been perfectly happy with an industrialized neutral trading partner (similar to Sweden but with more industry) on his Northwest flank rather than an open enemy, but it would have been unrealistic of him to expect Britain to go along with that idea. [/QUOTE] I think you are correct, I don’t think that Hitler wanted, or anticipated war with the UK I am very doubtful about Dunkirk. He was not that interested in France. My take is that he was focused on the East, essentially recovering old German stamping grounds. It is ironic that with Ost-Politik and influence, trade, gas and oil have nearly accomplished what Hitler was after. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/19 "2006-09-02T16:13:33Z")
OK, we’ve got 2 suggested examples besides Munich; any others? I can think of one, but I’ll hold off for a bit. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069/20 "2006-09-02T16:27:42Z")
[QUOTE=constanze] The British appeasement at the Munich Treaty was sound tactical advice: Britain wasn’t prepared at that point in time to go to war directly (while Germany was, because Hitler had secretly prepared everything), so Chamberlain went home and in that one year, closed the gap and brought the British army up to strength. Also, a very old tactical axiom is to never let the enemy choose the time and place for a battle; in this case Hitler had chosen the time, so Churchill picked his own. Apparently, Hitler was privately hopping mad after the signing, because he had hoped to start his war right now, everything in place and prepared, and the other leaders hadn’t played along with his plan. [/QUOTE] Precisely. And Chamberlain could hardly have said that he’d secured “war for our time, but delayed it by a year or so.” The quote that gets cited so often is not actually proof of a mutton-headed leader who couldn’t see what Hitler was up to. Chamberlain knew that war was coming; that line was one of the lies that world leaders have to tell from time to time. > [@](#): > > OK, we’ve got 2 suggested examples besides Munich; any others? While few would say so directly, I imagine that in 2001 many in the international community agreed to tacitly support American action in Afghanistan for appeasement purposes. The idea being that once the Taliban had been kicked and punched a bit, the desire for revenge would be slaked and America wouldn’t want to start any more wars in the Middle East. If anyone did view it that way, subsequent events proved them to be very wrong. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-appeasements-were-there/371069.md?page=2)