Could use some help (writing something of an op-ed at the moment):
What are some modern examples of failed appeasement? Examples already covered and oft-mentioned are:
Hitler, Munich, and the Sudetenland;
Italy and Ethiopia,
Japan and Manchuria,
Saddam invading Kuwait.
Not that I am particularly enthused to put this forward, but… You could almost argue that the US invasion of Iraq was an example of failed appeasement. On Saddam’s part. That is, he really did dispose of or make inaccessible his chemical weapons, it’s just that the US intelligence apparatus didn’t believe him, thanks in part due to his own paranoia and self-doubt as to whether he really HAD gotten rid of them. Iraq’s military did a lousy job of inventory control, and there was always a risk of either hardliners or opposition spiriting away some chemicals for themselves even as they were ordered destroyed.
ETA: I don’t think Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was an example of failed appeasement, but rather a failure to convey, in language the potential adversary could understand rather than in the usual “hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge language” of western diplomacy, what the US would stand for and what it wouldn’t.
The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact
Is it appeasement if it’s mutual? Collusion would be the word I’d use.
One could only assume when this “piece” gets published you won’t claim this as is your own work…
No appeasement there. Saddam invaded on Aug 2. The UN condemned it on the 3rd. Even Iraq’s major power friends condemned it. Bush I announced what was to become Operation Desert Shield on the 7th.
There were negotiations but nothing was agreed upon. The assault to free it occurred on Jan 17. It took awhile to get 35 nations to agree to support the war and get everything in position.
(A US diplomat said something stupid shortly before the invasion, but that wasn’t US policy in any official way.)
Maybe the Ukraine?
They has nuclear weapons after the ussr fell. They gave them up because they got assurances that if Russia invaded that the west would protect them.
Now Russia has invaded and they’re on their own more or less.
Not sure that I’m even convincing myself its within the OP’s question, but would Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election count?
Russia was called out and admonished by western democracies, but pretty much at the ‘and don’t do it again or no TV’ level of threat. It appears to have had negligible effect on Putin. Having voluble ambivalence as to whether it did or didn’t happen from one of the key players probably also doesn’t help to send a consistent message of a line being drawn that Putin should not cross.
Appeasement in an international context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict.[1] but this Wikipedia piece only covers a few 1930s episodes. I think “appeasement” is mostly criticized when it doesn’t work; the OP isn’t looking for successful bribes. Thus any attack whose victim didn’t submit ahead of time is a “failed appeasement”.
Getting very close to current politics here: [Close? I’m mucking about in it!]
Trump’s statements on his good friend Kim in North Korea, love letters, and handshake agreement regarding the North’s ambitious nuclear/missile programs.
NK has apparently not stopped for a moment working on advanced weapons.
It’s not politics because MANY presidents have appeased NK and China.
And it’s not just the U.S. Making deals with (aka “appeasing”) North Korea is an international effort.
Israel unilaterally pulling out of the Gaza Strip.
That was more of a dare. “You want us gone? Fine - we’ll go. Your move.”
I mean, creating near genocidal conditions in a big open air prison is of course hard to call “appeasements”.
“Genocidal”? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
As for “prison” - first of all, a blockade is a perfectly legitimate tool of war, as an amateur historian such as yourself should know; and second, the Gazans are free to go to any country that will take them. Egypt, for instance.
Anyway, I don’t think the OP would want this thread to turn into yet another Israel thread, so let’s drop this particular issue, shall we?
According to a former UN weapons inspector I know who was in Iraq, they did find chemical weapons there. But more along the lines of “hey we [Iraqis] found this single mustard shell; how about y’all deal with it with your fancy PPE and procedures so we don’t have to touch it.”
It can be argued that the Munich accords didn’t fail. Britain wasn’t ready to go to war and wouldn’t have been able to stand up to Germany if the issue were forced. The goal was to buy time. Even Churchill supported it at the time so the UK could strengthen their military. I doubt he thought it would ensure peace.
The big mistake was Chamberlain calling it “peace in our time.” I doubt even he believed that, but saying, “six months of peace so we can rearm” wouldn’t have played well with the public and would have encouraged Hitler to move faster.
As I understand it, the concession was - you can have the Sudetenland to leave the rest of the country alone (The areas around the border with a high proportion of ethnic Germans). Having accepted that bribe, Hitler proceeded to take the whole country. Then moved on to Poland, precipitating total war when the Allies would not make concessions.
[Moderating]
I don’t think factual answers can be found as to which acts count as appeasement, for the OP’s purposes. So let’s move this to IMHO.