How many "appeasements" were there?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=sqweels]
OK, we’ve got 2 suggested examples besides Munich; any others? I can think of one, but I’ll hold off for a bit.
[/QUOTE]

  1. In 1519, Hernando Cortes landed on the coast of Mexico with the intention of marching inland and conquering the Aztec Empire. The Aztec emperor Montezuma could have sent armies to resist the Spaniards on the march, and some of his ministers advised doing so. Instead, he determined on a policy of appeasement, sending gifts to the Spaniards (which whetted their appetite for gold) and inviting them into the capital. It didn’t work; the Spaniards took Montezuma prisoner, and a year later, occupied the entire Empire.

  2. In September 1939, after the Nazi-Soviet pact, the Soviet Union presented Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia with ultimatums demanding that they allow Soviet military bases on their soil. With no help to be expected from any outside power, resistance may have been futile, but Finland did resist similar demands and preserved its independence, although it lost part of its territory. The three Baltic nations chose to submit, with disastrous results; the Soviet Union escalated its demands, occupied and annexed the three countries the next year, and held them for 50 years.

  3. In 1915, Japan presented a humiliating series of “Twenty-One Demands” to China, which if accepted in their entirety, would have entailed Japanese domination of the Chinese government and economy. The weak Chinese President, Yuan Shi-Kai, hoped to win Japanese support for his coronation as Emperor and acceded to most of the demands. It was pointless; the Japanese opposed him anyway knowing that the alternative was a weak, warlord-ridden China. Outside pressure forced Japan to temporarily back off from several of their demands, but they returned in force in the 1930’s and invaded and occupied most of China.

22

[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
3. In 1915, Japan presented a humiliating series of “Twenty-One Demands” to China, which if accepted in their entirety, would have entailed Japanese domination of the Chinese government and economy. The weak Chinese President, Yuan Shi-Kai, hoped to win Japanese support for his coronation as Emperor and acceded to most of the demands. It was pointless; the Japanese opposed him anyway knowing that the alternative was a weak, warlord-ridden China. Outside pressure forced Japan to temporarily back off from several of their demands, but they returned in force in the 1930’s and invaded and occupied most of China.
[/QUOTE]
A slight nitpick: “most” of China" included only the major cities and railways. While they controlled the most important parts of the country, the majority of the land remained unoccupied.

23

[QUOTE=sqweels]
OK, we’ve got 2 suggested examples besides Munich; any others? I can think of one, but I’ll hold off for a bit.
[/QUOTE]

Off the top of my head, you had the early US with the Barbary Pirates, who we paid off (appeased). Then you had the increasingly outrageous actions of the Brits toward the US and its shipping leading up to 1812. I can think of a few examples in early Britian as well, but how about the Romanized Brits attempting to buy off the Saxons by allowing them to settle the coast, and giving them money not to further invade…how’d that work out for them in the long run? :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m at work and can’t think of any other examples (well, a vague one about Egyptians and maybe Hittites) off the top of my head…but I think that in general appeasement only works well if those you are appeasing are honorable and not particularly blood thirsty. If this is not the case then its like dumping blood in the water and then being surprised when the sharks come up for snacks…

-XT

24

[QUOTE=xtisme]
…but I think that in general appeasement only works well if those you are appeasing are honorable and not particularly blood thirsty. If this is not the case then its like dumping blood in the water and then being surprised when the sharks come up for snacks…XT
[/QUOTE]

Well, if you keep looking for honorable politicans, you won’t find many. But an appeasement would also work with a dishonest, but pragmatic leader/politican. As for blood-thirsty: not many politicans, either, I’d say either crazy/maniac, or overconfident/with a grudge to settle.

As for appeasement working/not working, I’d like to know: for how long? 1 year? 10 years? One generation? Lots of things can change in either of the countries that tried for appeasement in one decade - different leaders getting elected, change in economy, loosing/winning a war on another front changes the population’s attitude towards war… And suddenly, a war breaks or doesn’t break out. Is this because appeasement worked/didn’t work, or because the future and societies are complex and never mono-causal?

25

OK, here’s my example: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea.

Does this amount to a classic example of a failed policy of appeasement? Should Clinton have done something else instead? Or would it have held had it not been for Bush?

26

[QUOTE=sqweels]
OK, here’s my example: Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea
[/QUOTE]

Well, IMHO you can’t put this one completley on Clinton. The Euro’s and even China and Russia had a stake in it too. Certainly it was an attempt at appeasing the North Korean’s…goes without saying since they were planning on paying them off in the same way the Euro’s et al attempted to pay off Iran about THEIR nuclear program. How’d it work out btw?

:eek:

[QUOTE=sqweels]
Does this amount to a classic example of a failed policy of appeasement? Should Clinton have done something else instead? Or would it have held had it not been for Bush?
[/QUOTE]

Taken individually:

“Does this amount to a classic example of a failed policy of appeasement?”

Certainly.

“Should Clinton have done something else instead?”

Silly question IMHO as you are again putting too much on Clinton. To answer it though, I doubt Clinton by him self COULD have done too much more. Clinton, with the Euro’s firmly behind him, and China and Russia on board…yeah, they could probably have done appeasement as the velvet glove with an iron fist inside if (when as it turned out) the North Korean’s decided that they wanted another go at the food trough.

[QUOTE=sqweels]
Or would it have held had it not been for Bush?
[/QUOTE]

Only if they had a time machine and knew in advance that that Bush would be president and say what he said. They started playing fast and loose before Bush was elected after all…late 90’s IIRC.

-XT

27

I can think of a couple of acts of ‘appeasement’ that worked

  • France gave Normandy to the Norsemen to act as a buffer

The English came to terms with settled Danes in the Danelaw

We don’t (well I don’t) know exactly what went on between the Romanized British and the Saxons, but in the 1930’s a survey showed that brown eyes were more common in towns and blue eyes more common in the countryside. I’ve heard that the Saxons were not really town dwellers. (I’ve had a hunt for a cite - no joy)

28

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Right, but it was the agreement, and the understanding that I quoted and that the PM read, that would bring “peace for our time”, I mean.

29

To take the discussion of appeasement in a different direction, has it occured to anyone that appeasement cuts both ways? Should the Iranians try to appease Bush? Should the Palestinians try to appease the Israelis?

30

[QUOTE=sqweels]
Should the Iranians try to appease Bush?
[/QUOTE]

No…they should honor the NNPT that they signed. They should also respect the fact that its not just Bush who doesn’t want them to build a nuclear weapon. I don’t consider this appeasement. YMMV.

[QUOTE=sqweels]
Should the Palestinians try to appease the Israelis?
[/QUOTE]

They should come to terms with the FACT that Israel is there to stay and seek a solution through non-violent means. This, again, is not IMHO appeasement but common sense. Again, YMMV, but I think both of your examples show more about you than they throw light on the question the OP was asking.

-XT

31

[QUOTE=sqweels]
To take the discussion of appeasement in a different direction, has it occured to anyone that appeasement cuts both ways? Should the Iranians try to appease Bush?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that would work - they saw that Saddam’s last-minute appeasements (standing down of the Army, opening every palace to the UN) didn’t stop Bush, so why should they weaken their position?

32

[QUOTE=constanze]
I don’t think that would work - they saw that Saddam’s last-minute appeasements (standing down of the Army, opening every palace to the UN) didn’t stop Bush, so why should they weaken their position?
[/QUOTE]

Bush called for Saddam to abdicate power and leave Iraq. Did I miss him trying to do that?

-XT

33

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Bush called for Saddam to abdicate power and leave Iraq. Did I miss him trying to do that?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Bush called for several things:

-First, for access for the UN. When Saddam granted that (only denying the CIA spies entrance),

-Bush mentioned the WMD, although Hans Blix from the UN was satisfied with access, and the reports about WMD were known before the attack to be falsified or invented.

  • Bush then said the conventinal weapons posed a danger, so Saddam disarmed.

  • Then, (I think) 48 hrs. before the attack, Bush made a speech before his podium that, even if Saddam would step down and leave the country, he would still attack Iraq, no matter what conditions were met.

So why should Saddam have given in, if he had nothing to win anymore at this point?

34

[QUOTE=constanze]
Then, (I think) 48 hrs. before the attack, Bush made a speech before his podium that, even if Saddam would step down and leave the country, he would still attack Iraq, no matter what conditions were met.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=constanze]
So why should Saddam have given in, if he had nothing to win anymore at this point?
[/QUOTE]

Since your conclusion stems from the above assertion you’ll need to dig up a cite to back it up. My own recollections (which are also most likely imperfect) are that Bush began calling for Saddam to abdicated much earlier than 48 hours prior to the invasion. In addition, I don’t recall Bush saying we would invade reguardless…though I don’t know if any serious effort was made to attempt to find a place for Saddam to abdicated TOO (i.e. some country willing to offer him refuge).

Still, I think if Saddam HAD made an effort to step down and leave the country, provision would have been made. The US may have ALSO insisted that either a US or UN force temporarily occupy Iraq to ensure WMD were found (not that it turns out there were any), and a new government formed…but its a moot point since things never even got off the ground wrt an Iraqi surrender before hostilities. Saddam was defiant until the end, his only attempt at ‘appeasement’ were too little, too late…especially given his previous track record. That he was in fact telling the truth about Iraq’s lack of WMD is one of the great ironies of this century. 'Course, the century is young. :slight_smile:

-XT

35

Xtisme:

And Israel will remove all it’s settlements on the West Bank in response?

Besides, if Americans are hostile to the idea of seeking a solution through non-violent means, why should the Palestinians be any different? They’re “standing up”.

There’s a lot of things that shouldn’t be considered appeasement. But given the Bush Administration’s definition of appeasement, what should Iran have done to not-appease Bush in response to his threat when he called them “axis of evil”?

36

[QUOTE=sqweels]
And Israel will remove all it’s settlements on the West Bank in response?
[/QUOTE]

Well, I don’t really know. Its a moot point since the Palestinians aren’t likely to stop strapping explosives to themselves and blowing up buses or shopping malls. To stop that? Yeah, maybe the Israeli’s would do so if the Palestinians could be trusted further than you could throw a horse one handed. The DID remove their settlements from Gaza after all…for all the good it did them.

Personally I think as far as the West Bank goes, the Israeli’s should tell the Palestinians to go pound sand. That ground is strategically necessary to Israel, and would be a fairly substantial security risk for Israel to turn it back over to Jordan (who originally owned it btw), let alone a people seemingly hell bent on causing as much havoc as they can.

Since it was Jordanian land originally, captured by Israel in a war of aggression, I’m not seeing exactly why it should be turned over to the Palestinians…not when there are security risks to doing so. Perhaps Jordan, who was instrumental in why the Palestinians are as fucked up as they are, can be prevailed upon to give up some of their remaining territory for their loved cousins, ehe? :dubious:

[QUOTE=sqweels]
Besides, if Americans are hostile to the idea of seeking a solution through non-violent means, why should the Palestinians be any different? They’re “standing up”.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Then don’t whine when Israel drops the hammer on them, ehe? I have just about no symphathy for a people who COULD have had their own country, by UN mandate, but pissed it away because they thought their friendly neighbors would come in and wipe out the opposition and give them the whole pie (as if they would have gotten it…not only blood thirsty but stupid too)…and then when that failed were basically outcast by those same friendly neighbors, while the original victim is blamed for the whole mess. Maybe they should go back to their Arab cousins and have THEM make good on their promisses from THEIR land, ehe?

[QUOTE=sqweels]
There’s a lot of things that shouldn’t be considered appeasement. But given the Bush Administration’s definition of appeasement, what should Iran have done to not-appease Bush in response to his threat when he called them “axis of evil”?
[/QUOTE]

Horse shit. Let me spell that out for you…its H O R S E S H I T. Iran would be about the last country on earth to no understand what rhetoric is…and flaming rhetoric at that. They have been calling for death to the US (no an ‘axis of evil’, but DEATH TO AMERICA! Blah blah blah) for decades now. You telling me they saw a threat to something that mild, when they have been going over the top since '79??

What should Iran have done? They should have fucking straightened up and flown right. They should have joined the international community and not supported terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. Hell, when the Euro’s were practically pissing each other in an effort to APPEASE IRAN, they should have taken the goodies and run! They were offering them nuclear power (which is supposedly what they want after all :dubious: ), and staggering economic incentives…including a seat at the next G8 conference (IIRC…one of those economic groups anyway). And they turned it down.

I’m sorry but bullshit…they aren’t doing this because they feel threatened. Unless they are stupid AND crazy. Because, if they REALLY think the west (and the US more importantly) is a threat, then why are they courting a confrontation? They are deliberately provoking the very thing (if they believe we are a threat, which I kind of doubt) that you say they are afraid of! Either they are very stupid, quite insane and out of touch with reality…or they don’t REALLY believe that the Euro’s will do shit. And they don’t REALLY believe that the US will either. And they are probably right too.

-XT

37

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I’m sorry but bullshit…they aren’t doing this because they feel threatened. Unless they are stupid AND crazy. Because, if they REALLY think the west (and the US more importantly) is a threat, then why are they courting a confrontation? They are deliberately provoking the very thing (if they believe we are a threat, which I kind of doubt) that you say they are afraid of! Either they are very stupid, quite insane and out of touch with reality…or they don’t REALLY believe that the Euro’s will do shit. And they don’t REALLY believe that the US will either. And they are probably right too.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

I reckon that since Iraq, they have started considering that the USA could do something nasty to them, and Lebanon made them sit up and think.

In some ways I’m wondering whether it would be possible to provoke them into doing something stupid - so that they can get a very surgical response.

As for the West Bank, my understanding is that Israel was reluctantly gearing itself up to retreat behind the Wall, but since Lebanon, they are so enraged that that it is off the cards.

If as is possible, the ‘palestinians’ get rid of Hamas, things could revert back to the hopeful days when Abbas was making the right noises.

While Israel would love the West Bank, they really don’t want the population, something they have in common with all their neighbours.

38

[QUOTE=FRDE]
I reckon that since Iraq, they have started considering that the USA could do something nasty to them, and Lebanon made them sit up and think.
[/QUOTE]

They began to covertly resume their nuclear program before Bush was even elected. Did they have a time machine so they could peer into the future to see Bush, Iraq and the confrontation between Lebanon (THEIR proxies, Hezbollah) and Israel?

[QUOTE=FRDE]
While Israel would love the West Bank, they really don’t want the population, something they have in common with all their neighbours.
[/QUOTE]

Its more a strategic military consideration than anything else which has kept Israel in possession of that land. Like the Golan Heights.

-XT

39

xtsme:

No shit. That’s my whole point. Nations should straighten up, fly right, and join the international community. The more powerful the nation, the more important it is that they do so.

Making “always do the opposite of what a potential adversary would like” into the sole universal value will lead to…well, let’s just sit back and watch it happen.