Appeasement

Teela Brown
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: TeelaLand

Re: Appeasement

Post by Teela Brown »

Guest-Host wrote:
Appeasement is an unequal trade of favors for security between a belligerent and a non-belligerent state. In other words, a bribe, ransom, Danegeld.

Giving North Korea fuel oil and a nuclear reactor in return for a promise not to enrich uranium was an act of appeasement; they threatened to develop a nuclear arsenal unless we satisfied their demands, so we opened our wallet and gave them what they wanted, without getting anything in return. North Korea simply took a break from committing aggressive acts; they didn't give the U.S. anything of value in return for our goods.

On the other hand, China is neither threatening us nor making demands. However, they have failed to meet WTO standards for human rights. The US is guilty of looking the other way.

If we threatened North Korea and Iran with war unless they dismantled their nuclear programs, we would not be attempting to extort anything from them except a stance of non-belligerence. That would be surrender on their part. If we asked them to cede territory, or resources, or good favor, we would be asking them to appease us.
Nice distinctions. Thank you, Mr. Guest-Host.
----> XØX

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
--Thessalonians
SteveAx
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:08 pm
Location: Portland
Contact:

Absurd

Post by SteveAx »

This parallels the mistake made by France and Britain at Munich in 1938; at the time, Germany was not ready to stand up to either nation. But within a year, they were strong enough to make their move.

So North Korea is now strong enough to "make its move" against the US and NATO. Please.
-S

---
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose."
--Frederick Douglass
M A V I C
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:24 pm

Post by M A V I C »

This all assumes you understand the terms of ending the Gulf War and the US media reports on the weapons inspectors.

Knowing the US public never heard at least some of what went on there, it's strange people would be passing judgment on how Iraq handled appeasement.
Teela Brown
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: TeelaLand

Post by Teela Brown »

M A V I C wrote: Knowing the US public never heard at least some of what went on there, it's strange people would be passing judgment on how Iraq handled appeasement.
Can you be more specific?
hal

Post by hal »

I find the whole phrasing of the question to be out of line. Appeasers = whimps. Ok... I'll accept that for the moment, but how can anyone say that the western world's handling of Iraq appeasment? They were 100% contained. They could not put a plane in the air without it being shot down. Every ship that docked had to go through a full blockade. All of the world's intel agencies watched their every move like a hawk. They had no weapons that could harm any of their neighbors. How on earth does this compare with 30's-40's Europe?

What about this?: ".... Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt thought they could appease Josef Stalin by giving away Eastern Europe and making other concessions that ultimately marked the beginning of the nearly half-century Cold War and Soviet/China expansionism."

Fifity years of cold war is another way of saying 50 years of uneasy peace, but at least it's not war (unless you want to complicate things by including Vietnam and Korea.) Does this guy really think that going to war with russia in europe in the late 40s would have ended with a better result? In the end 'appeasment' worked in this case.

If you want to call the western world's handling of iraq pre-war appeasement, then yes, I'm here to say that it was the better route to follow. This war has killed 1000s - maimed 1000s more, created far more hate toward the US and wetsern Europe then had ever existed before. Look up the Iraqi Olympic soccer team's commets regarding the US in Iraq. They all have been touched by the war or know some who has been. They are PISSED! The end game hasn't even started yet. Who knows where this quagmire is going to end.
Guest-Host relationship

Re: Absurd

Post by Guest-Host relationship »

SteveAx wrote:This parallels the mistake made by France and Britain at Munich in 1938; at the time, Germany was not ready to stand up to either nation. But within a year, they were strong enough to make their move.
So North Korea is now strong enough to "make its move" against the US and NATO. Please.
Cute response, but you definitely haven't thought this one through.

The CIA Believes the DPRK already has one or more nuclear weapons, and therefore cannot now be disarmed. The opportunity to do so has been lost.

Back in 1996, Presidents Clinton and Carter took it upon themselves to give the DPRK everything they wanted -- a reactor, a ready supply of ransom in the form of fuel oil, the freedom to continue running it's economy into the ground to feed a massive military, and most importantly, the time to turn it's "peaceful" nuclear program into a budding arsenal, in return for ... words on a piece of paper.

To return to the earlier example: Britain and France very possibly could have beaten Hitler in 1938. They could have stood up to him and refused his demands. They did neither.

The United States possibly could have stopped the DPRK from building nukes. At the least, they didn't have to enable it's proliferative aims. But they did.

The question now is not whether we can stop the DPRK from building nukes, it's whether we can stop them from selling them.

So yes, North Korea is strong enough to stand up to the rest of the world, thanks entirely to a baffling act of appeasement on the part of Clinton and Carter.

What are North Korea's aims? I suppose we'll find out soon, now that their arsenal trumps, in spades, that of every other nations' in the region.

The repercussions of this development are staggering. Japan will most likely tool up as well, with the capability of turning 40 years worth of spent fuel into the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal.

And North Korea could take it upon themselves to outfit other nations -- Iran or Cuba, for example, with nuclear weapons. And why not --who will be able to stop them now? Jimmy Carter?

So why don't you tell me why you don't think this is worth worrying about? Do you know something about the North Koreans, or nuclear proliferation, or the squandering of opportunity, that I don't know?
SteveAx
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:08 pm
Location: Portland
Contact:

Concern? Yes

Post by SteveAx »

I never said that NK becoming a nuclear power wasn't a problem or a cause for concern, but comparing NK to 1930's Germany is absurd.

Nuclear proliferation is clearly one of the greatest threats the world faces, but NK isn't the first player I'd worry about. That spot would be reserved for our current buddies the Pakistanis.

The other elephant in the nuclear room that no one talks about is Israel. Heck, they joined the nuke club in part through stealing our nuclear secrets and we just look the other way.

Frankly, I think the lesson that BushCo's respective treatment of NK and Iraq teaches the rest of the world is "Join the nuke club as quickly as you can"
-S

---
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose."
--Frederick Douglass
M A V I C
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:24 pm

Post by M A V I C »

Teela Brown wrote:
M A V I C wrote: Knowing the US public never heard at least some of what went on there, it's strange people would be passing judgment on how Iraq handled appeasement.
Can you be more specific?
What was it, 200 pages of the weapon inspectors' report that the US removed?
Guest-Host relationship

Re: Concern? Yes

Post by Guest-Host relationship »

SteveAx wrote:I never said that NK becoming a nuclear power wasn't a problem or a cause for concern, but comparing NK to 1930's Germany is absurd.
Comparing the DPRK to the Nazis would be a stretch, but that wasn't my point. We're still talking about appeasement here, and the parallel holds if you consider that in both cases, the strength was on the other side of the table. Britain and France were stronger than Germany in 1938. They chose to give in to Hitler's demands, hoping they could win the peace.

I will say, however, that even a single nuclear weapon could turn any third-rate dictator into a Hitler, able to bully his neighbors without fear of intervention by greater powers. See: Pakistan.
Nuclear proliferation is clearly one of the greatest threats the world faces, but NK isn't the first player I'd worry about. That spot would be reserved for our current buddies the Pakistanis.
Who became nuclear-capable during the Clinton era. Again, the opportunity for control has been lost. Pakistan is now the world's radioactive Johnny Appleseed, proliferating fission technology to all comers.

The Pakistani relationship is a matter of bad choices and worse ones. Better an "ally" than an enemy.
The other elephant in the nuclear room that no one talks about is Israel. Heck, they joined the nuke club in part through stealing our nuclear secrets and we just look the other way.
Strangely, I don't think of Israel as a threat to world peace. It's true that they helped S. Africa develop their bomb, so I can't hold them blameless, but I don't worry at all about Israel using their weapons aggressively. After six invasions and 50 years of Arab-funded terrorism, they have a perfectly good reason for a nuclear defense.

Remember, we gave nukes to Britain and France as well. No one should worry about that, either.

Compare that to Pakistan's conduct after joining the nuclear club. After losing three wars to India's superior military, the Pakistanis have accelerated their terrorist campaign in the Kashmir, and even launched a commando attack against the Indian parliament. When India sent troops to Kashmir, Pakistan threatened to use their nukes.

Back in the 1980s, Iraq made it's nuclear aims clear: They threatened to destroy Israel. Iran doesn't even have it's bomb yet, and they're saying the same thing.
Frankly, I think the lesson that BushCo's respective treatment of NK and Iraq teaches the rest of the world is "Join the nuke club as quickly as you can"
You can't blame NoKo's conduct on Bush. How is he mistreating the DPRK? Yes, he refuses to negotiate with Kim, because the benefits all go one way. Kim will give up nothing, and asks for more Danegeld. Appeasement got us into this mess, and paying ransom will only buy Kim more technology and time.

I wish the lessons learned were "attempt to gain WMD and you will lose your sovereign state," and I wish the world's democracies could agree on that. Diplomacy can't be all carrots and no sticks. We tried that in North Korea, and eight years later, we've learned that Kim turned our carrots into sticks.
Teela Brown
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: TeelaLand

Re: Concern? Yes

Post by Teela Brown »

Guest-Host relationship wrote:... but that wasn't my point. We're still talking about appeasement here. ...

... I wish the lessons learned were "attempt to gain WMD and you will lose your sovereign state," and I wish the world's democracies could agree on that. Diplomacy can't be all carrots and no sticks. We tried that in North Korea, and eight years later, we've learned that Kim turned our carrots into sticks.
Please consider this a virtual shake-of-the-hand. Thank you.
----> XØX

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
--Thessalonians
Guest-Host relationship

Re: Concern? Yes

Post by Guest-Host relationship »

Please consider this a virtual shake-of-the-hand. Thank you.
Pleased to "meet" you as well, Brown.
User avatar
Matt
Site Admin
Posts: 25095
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 11:26 pm
Location: Orbit
Contact:

Post by Matt »

Britain and France were stronger than Germany in 1938. They chose to give in to Hitler's demands, hoping they could win the peace.
Can you provide a source for this claim?
I'm abrasive.

>>> Amazon Link <<<
tighelander
Posts: 2436
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:59 pm
Location: San Diego

Post by tighelander »

Weren't the Nazi U-boats and air force taken out pretty early after the war started? The French put all of their eggs into a marginal defense, and got caught with their pants down when germany went around it, right?
User avatar
Matt
Site Admin
Posts: 25095
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 11:26 pm
Location: Orbit
Contact:

Post by Matt »

The German u-boats wreaked absolute havoc until about 1943-4. The rest of their navy wasn't much of a factor except for the Bismark, which caused quite a stir with the British and diverted much of the Royal Navy's attention for a time.

The Luftwaffe was wasted on bombing civilian targets (that actually ended up having the opposite of its intended effect). In addition, it was marginalized primarily by advances in US-pioneered airplane assembly line manufacture. We were pumping out planes faster than they could replace their planes, not to mention replacing their pilots. For the most part their planes were very high quality, having been almost hand-built.

The French had an alarmingly poor army. From officers to strategy, they were stuck in Mindset WWI. England -- I can't say I know much about their prewar situation except to say they got whooped bad on the land in the initial stage of their war against Germany (Dunkirk).

The German armed forces peaked at about 1942, as they were designed to. German war planners knew that if the war dragged on, the favor would tilt heavily in their enemies' favor (read: Soviet Union).
I'm abrasive.

>>> Amazon Link <<<
Guest-host relationship

Post by Guest-host relationship »

matt wrote:
Britain and France were stronger than Germany in 1938. They chose to give in to Hitler's demands, hoping they could win the peace.
Can you provide a source for this claim?
Other than a wild-ass guess, no. I assume that France, Britain and Czechoslovakia would have had enough might to defend the Sudetenland, if that had been their will and their design.

But did Chamberlain and Hitler believe that? The sources I've read hint that both parties overestimated German might in 1938. It may have come to an early war, if Hitler had pressed his demands.

Still, I think Britain and France were in a better position to stop Hitler in 1938 than afterwards. But I doubt they felt secure about their chances.
User avatar
max
Posts: 28492
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 11:21 pm

Re: Appeasement

Post by max »

...and then we have the economic appeasement....


Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
-- H.L. Mencken
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic