Talk:Appeasement

Hi, what about the UK gov't freeing prisoners from N. Ireland? would that be considered appeasement? thx 68.77.116.14 04:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Could you provide a source which says that Chamberlain was prepared to go to war over Czechoslovakia? I have here a quote from his private diary, dated 20th March 1938: "You only have to look at the map to see that nothing that France or we could possibly save Czechoslovakia from being overrun by the Germans..." Hardly the words of a war monger. It also should be noted that as late as October 1938, generals Beck and Brauchitsch feared that Germany was not ready to fight Britain and France. This fear was so profound, that Beck wrote a detailed analysis of the pending military disaster if Germany attacked Czechoslovakia. Germany was not fully ready for a war in 1938; nor was Britain.

Too Many Quotes?

I think there are too many quotes in the "Different views on Appeasement" section. There should be a couple of carefully chosen quotes, to illustrate the points we are trying to make. The others all belong in wikiquote. This would have to be the most unencyclopedic article ever!!James5555 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs a *LOT* of Improving

1) First of all, it ignores the fact that Chamberlain ordered the massive rearmament of the UK, and backed down in Czechoslovakia because his Generals said that he did not have the armed strength to fight Hitler.

2) Second, its far from clear that a strong stand against Czechoslovakia would have done anything other than cause ageneral war earlier. Hitler was rearming for a war in the late-1940's late 1930s and I doubt that he would have viewed a stand against Czechoslovakia nothing other than a tactical setback.

Number 1 in as part of a rewrite. It is part of a page in progress; a lot more has been added and more analysis filled in. . PS - you should just look at the earlier version. AAAAGH! It was a candidate for the worst and most POV article on wiki. ÉÍREman 03:36 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Terms like appeasement and appeaser were used against anti-war campaigners, so it highlights how the word still has a resonance and is now a term of abuse. ÉÍREman 03:55 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Now the article has gone far too much the other way.220.245.180.130 08:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

---

This article is essentially an non-NPOV essay advocating a more hawkish posture for the US. The entire content of the article should be removed, with only the introductory stump remaining. The rest of the text is salvageable, however, and can be placed in other articles, such as those pertaining to the war in Iraq, the Munich Pact, or the Cold War.

Would else would be open to dismantling the article and recycling the bulk of its content (after NPOVing) elsewhere?

172

---

Actually, much of the content is quite good. The section on the Iraq War needs a lot of work, but the section on Chamberlain is good. The problem is that this article, though containing a lot of good content, still has the structure of the POV rant posted by the first contributor. 172

Very interesting and thought provoking analysis, 172. Between John, you and I (and others; I can't check the names because wiki is going v e r y v e r y s l o w r i g h t n o w) this article is dramatically different and much better to the drivel that was here at the start. ÉÍREman 14:27 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

---

I have added more content to show that simple cowardice was by no means the only reason why the UK appeased Hitler (examples of successful appeasement, the Hitler vs. Stalin dilemma, US isolationism). Any thoughts? GCarty 14:16 Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

The "current foreign policy" section is strongly POV, lauding the views of one political party as "muscular" and "uncompromising". If you remove the POV stuff, there's no content left.

"1) First of all, it ignores the fact that Chamberlain ordered the massive rearmament of the UK, and backed down in Czechoslovakia because his Generals said that he did not have the armed strength to fight Hitler."

Appeasement in this case could be argued to have been a means of "buying time". Also, rearmament took place at a fairly sedate pace until the late 1930s (when it became increasingly obvious appeasement wasn't working), so a fairly true policy of appeasement was followed up until that point. What's your evidence that he backed down because of the generals? As far as I've read, it seems at least partially due to Chamberlain's own strong belief that discussion and compromise could solve Europe's problems, along with popular opinion being against going to war over a far away country with few real links with Britain...and many other reasons.

---

Since appeasement is generally associated with British foreign policy towards Germany in the 1930s, I would have expected far more about that period in this article. The aftermath of appeasement should also be reported. It was hard for anyone tainted with appeasement of Hitler to get a senior position in government after the war and there was a generation of post-war politicians who strove to avoid anything like appeasement. Sir Anthony Eden's mistakes over Suez have often been attributed to his straining not to appease Nasser. All this should be included. Its omission is serious. Marshall46 20:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

what drives us to war

I keep wondering, "what drives us to war". Hitler, i've heard, wanted pay back, no?

But, didnt alexander the great just want to conquer - like, he wanted to exert himself in war, no? I know that we all can be selfish, but well, like, without punishment, would we all go towards being mean and selfish - -- like , dont we need to be shown examples of certain behaviors, in order to know they are options ... like, if we didnt see other people be sucessflu at being mean, could we find it in ourselves to create meaness?

Oh, and has "blessing those who curse you" ever worked? -rich-- Jec7309 [at] yahoo.com ---

[ i used at, instead of [@] so i dont get spam mail

To Repeat, needs LOTS of NPOVing

Since 2003, looks like not much has been done in that department. Lots of weasel words, lots of "sources" that are themselves opinions. Looks like marshalling the facts to advance arguments. I've only scratched the surface with my little edit. I'm in the middle of two other edits, and followed a link I made of appeasement. Instead of a proper history of the word and how its meaning has evolved, I come upon this mess.

Maybe I can come back and help to fix it, but someone who really knows what NPOV is should help out. Remember, NPOV does not mean balance. Balance can consist of just rebutting an opinion with another opinion. A fact isn't balanced — a fact is what it is. Try to think as an historian and let the facts lead you rather than the other way around. It's not easy, but it's the right thing to do. A good staring point is Historiography.

— J M Rice 23:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV-ing is good. Just do it!

--Johan Magnus 00:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree this article is heavily POV; the entire "... contemporary U.S. foreign policy" section simply advocates the notion that "pacificism and isolationism" are appeasment without giving any evidence at all. Moreover, the majority of this section describes policy doctrine which has nothing to do with appeasment. There is already a sizeable article on the Bush doctrine, and this section is totally irrelevant. My inclination is to delete the whole thing.

I would like the article to describe other examples of appeasment. Are there any examples of appeasment which worked, or had public support? Corvus 30 June 2005 16:42 (UTC)

I agree with Corvus, the entire "... contemporary U.S. foreign policy" section should just be deleted. It seems people here agree on that, but it hasn't been done yet. I'll check back in a week or so. If no one has objected then, I'll do it. - Kars, 28 July 2005

Was Hitler ready for war?

"...and that in the Sudeten crisis, Hitler was fully intent on going to war with Britain and France and seizing control of Czechoslovakia"

Is this true? I read somewhere that Hitler was certainly planning his European war, but he did not plan to start until around 43 when the German economy was strong enough and that the Polish invasion was not meant to escelate into WW2. So was he really intent on war in 38?

--

Hitler was planning a European war in the early forties. 1943 was the final year in which he could act before his armaments became obsolete.

He was looking for a small war with Czechoslovakia in 1938 to give him the strategic strength to take Poland as part of lebensraum, his policy to achieve self-sufficiency of his Greater Germany. Chamberlain destroyed his plan as he could no longer maintain that he was peaceful and merely ending grievances. Hitler was furious at Chamberlain for denying him the rest of Czechoslovakia, blaming the "silly old fool" for ruining his plan.

Further evidence that Hitler was intent on war was the initiation of Operation Green after the May Crisis of Chzechoslovakia, which set a firm date when Hitler was prepared to attack Czechoslovakia and assume control of the country. The Operation outlined an invasion plan and was reliant on British and French unwillingness to stand up to him. The three weeks prior to the Munich Agreement was an elaborate sham to Hitler, who conceded that he would 'delay' any invasion to October 1st and would carry out his annexation over a ten day period.

Hitler, however, was not ready for a full war and his generals had plans to initiate a coup d'etat on him on the 29th September. It only required the French and British to reaffirm their protection of Czechoslovakia to have made the coup a reality. However, when it became clear that neither country would do so, the plans were abandoned.

88.109.244.69 18:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC) John Anon Smith 7th March 2006

I once read that of the German tanks used during the invasion of Poland and later France, a singificant amount were Pz 38(t), Czech designs manufactured by Skoda, particulary if one discounts the Germans Pzs I and II whichw ere seriosuly outdated. Makes me wonder in how far thr annexation of the Czechs aided Germany, and how the outlooks would have been for her in a war in 1938. It would be useful to have the nubmers of German war material production for late 1938 and 1939 and compare it with overall stocks of military equipment. thestor 16:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 17.13 (German winetr time) on 20th of January 2007

Needs a rewrite

Reads like a bad A-Level or high school exam answer. The section "Origins of the concept of the Western Betrayal" is particularly juvenile in its treatment of Chamberlain's sppech to the nation (I don't mean to be overly critical, I respect that Wiki is a collaborative medium and I applaud the author for putting the effort in). Needs a fairly comprehensive rewrite however. It also in its current form seems to be VERY biased towards discussing the British role, and needs to discuss in more detail; a) the attitude of other countries, particularly France and the US; b) Mussolini, Italian appeasement, and the Abyssinian crisis etc. I am also surprised to see that the otherwise seemingly comprehensive reference list omits A.J.P Taylor, who I thought was THE definitive work in the area.

--

As far as the Czecho-Slovakia/Czechoslovakia dispute going on in the article, I felt that the one instance of "Czechoslovakia" be replaced with "Czecho-Slovakia" and the sentence in parentheses after one of the instances of Czecho-Slovakia, "(Did you mean Czechoslovakia?)," very stupid, and thus

Please keep this page relevant to appeasement in the WWII period and not tainted by current events. Appeasement as a policy phenomenon arises from interwar European diplomacy.

Acceptance of Appeasement

While I can't speak for the horrors the Allied european powers went through during WWI, this article seems to defend the use of appeasement, which brought us into another world war. Direct and indirect engagement with the enemy during the Cold War brought about a much lower casualty rate.

74.136.204.103 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Lanceor

--

that's a very black and white way to look at it. appeasment didn't bring about world war two. it merely delayed it a year or so. the european conflict would've occurred either way, as hitler was intent on conquering france and russia...read mein kampf. japanese aggression in the pacific was totally separate from germany. if anything, british and american confrontation with japan forced japan into attacking the Allied countries. i would say that the massive nuclear arms race and MAD was more important in forestalling a war between NATO and the warsaw pact than NATO involvement in Korea or american involvement in vietnam. if little else, the western policies during the cold war are largely responsible for the problems the world faces today, such as, militant islam. Parsecboy 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To place blame for "the problems the world faces today" solely at the feet of "western policies" is a very black and white way to look at it. Physician, heal thyself. Loundry 22:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You also seem to forget that 'direct engagement' with enemies during the Cold War was with minor powers. War between Major Powers is a completely different matter. If the USA and USSR had gone to war both would have been destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Appeasement in the 21st Century

There is now a section discussing whether the United States' continued bombing and invading of countries without being checked by some world power amounts to an appeasement of the US President by the rest of the world. The analogy comparing what the US is doing in the Global War On Terror to what Hitler did at the beginning of WWII is very clear: Hitler sold the invasion of Poland to the German people as a conflict with terrorists. You can look it up. Yes, Hitler ideologically was tied to Lebensraum, but the propaganda to the German people in the run up to and invasion of Poland was sold as a conflict with terrorist acts upon German citizens in Poland and at the border.

There is some US Army Intelligence officer who continually deletes this addition on the main page, although it is unclear why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slapdotcom (talk • contribs).

The section was repeatedly removed by myself and other editors because it is highly biased and unsourced. Hitler didn't have to "sell the war to the German people", he just did it. There was no talk of "terrorism" at the time, the pretext used was a faked border attack and territorial disputes over the free city of Danzig/Gdansk. The current situation isn't so much appeasement as apathy by other countries or their being essentially powerless to interfere. The French and Germans disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, but it wasn't like they were going to deploy troops to Iraq to fight the Americans and British. It's a completely different situation, geopolitically. Aside form it being blatant POV, no one is appeasing the United States, therefore, it does not belong in the article. Parsecboy 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why "citation needed"?

After the entry "Poland [...] suffered afterwards from a lengthened border with Germany", there is the "citation needed" tag. May I inquire why? That the border between Germany and Poland was lengthened after the annextaion quite somewhat should be clear from a look at any map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestor (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording

Is it correct to say that Chamberlain was 'castrated' for championing the policy of appeasement? Some readers new to the subject may find this to be misleading. Ryannus (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone meant "castigated", not having his ability to reproduce removed. I'll go ahead and fix it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have copied the article and made editing changes for logic, language and grammar only. I believe that there have been many changes already to content, which I am not qualified to comment on. This, then, is a pedant's version of the article:

Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation in the British government, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.

[Suggested improvements: Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually the concept means giving in to the demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception, in the British governmentand in political discourse, generally.]

A famous example is Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy during the period 1937-1939, when he pursued a policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler's expansionist ambitions.

Different views on Appeasement

The meaning of the term "appeasement" has changed throughout the years. According to Paul Kennedy in his Strategy and Diplomacy, 1983, appeasement is "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be, expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous." It gained its negative reputation for its use in the build up to World War II. It had previously been employed by the British government successfully, see The Treaty with Ireland 1921.

[Suggested improvements: ...The meaning of the term "appeasement" has changed over the years. According to Paul Kennedy in his Strategy and Diplomacy, 1983, appeasement is "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous." It gained its negative reputation for its use in the build up to the Second World War. ...

Further quotations:

"At bottom, the old appeasement was a mood of hope, Victorian in its optimism, Burkean in its belief that societies evolved from bad to good and that progress could only be for the better. The new appeasement was a mood of fear, Hobbesian in its insistence upon swallowing the bad in order to preserve some remnant of the good, pessimistic in its belief that Nazism was there to stay and, however horrible it might be, should be accepted as a way of life with which Britain ought to deal." Martin Gilbert, The Roots of Appeasement, 1968.

"Each course brought its share of disadvantages: there was only a choice of evils. The crisis in the British global position by this time was such that it was, in the last resort, insoluble, in the sense that there was no good or proper solution." Paul Kennedy, Strategy and Diplomacy, 1983.

"The word in its normal meaning connotes the Pacific [drop capital "p", as it is not a "proper noun", or just change the word to "peaceful".] settlement of disputes; in the meaning usually applied to the period of Chamberlain's premiership, it has come to indicate something sinister, the granting from fear or cowardice of unwarranted concessions in order to buy temporary peace at someone else's expense." D.N. DIlks, Appeasement Revisited, Journal of Contemporary History, 1972.

The majority of the Conservative party in Britain in the late thirties were in favour of appeasement. This was mainly [remove space] because they considered that Hitler would be satisfied with gaining control of parts of Central Europe. Churchill was relatively isolated in believing that Germany could be a threat for ["to"] the British Empire.

However, [add: 'the policy of'] appeasement has also been deemed successful by many historians, as with the 'bought' year of 1938-39, [change comma to semi-colon, colon or start a new sentence] Britain rapidly increased military production and with the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia allowed the protection of the British Isles [change to "afforded protection to the British Isles for a while longer"]. It must, however, also be pointed out,[move comma from here to after "that"] that in turn, Nazi Germany was able to significantly boost its military power in the time thus granted, and quite possibly to a greater extent than the Allies, particularly since the annexation of Czechoslovakia gave the Third Reich access to well-developed Czech industrial resources and significantly improved its strategic standing, avoiding a conflict through the unfavorable terrain of the Czech-German border (even where this was unfortified) in comparison to Poland, which also suffered afterwards from a lengthened border with Germany. [this sentence may be too long for ease of comprehension. One suggestion for change is set out below]

[Change to: It must, however, also be pointed out that, in turn, Nazi Germany was able to significantly boost its military power in the time thus granted. It is possible that this boost was greater than that afforded the Allies, particularly since the annexation of Czechoslovakia gave the Third Reich access to well-developed Czech industrial resources and significantly improved its strategic standing. The annexation of the Sudetenland without interference by the Allies avoided an armed conflict through the unfavorable terrain on the Czech-German border (even unfortified areas) compared to the invasion of Poland, a country which also shared a lengthy border with Germany, and which had a much flatter terrain than that of Czechoslovakia. ]

As said by Winston Churchill:

“ An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. ”

Differing Perceptions of Appeasement In World War Two

Appeasement in modern day western society is often linked with Chamberlain and World War Two. This multifaceted debate over the relationship of appeasement in causing World War Two and Chamberlain’s use of appeasement is continually on going. Chamberlain did not architect appeasement until the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939, and before this appeasement had been a popular policy.

[Suggestions for above paragraph: The concept of 'Appeasement' in modern western society is often linked to Chamberlain and World War Two. This multifaceted debate over the relationship of appeasement in causing World War Two and Chamberlain’s use of appeasement is on-going.]

[The last sentence in the above paragraph needs clarification: First "architect" is not a verb. Secondly, the reader cannot tell if the author meant that Chamberlain had another policy 'until the invasion' or if he meant that appeasement was a widely-held view and not that of Chamberlain alone. Suggestion: "Appeasement was not something Chamberlain created in 1939 but had been a popular policy among policy makers prior to the invasion of Czechoslovakia"]

Orthodox ‘The Guilty Men’ written by Cato offered the British public an explanation towards the catastrophes of Dunkirk and why Britain again was forced into war. Cato defined appeasement as ‘the deliberate surrender of small nations in the face of Hitler's blatant bullying’. Cato was deliberately and unapologetically anti- appeasement, thus the negative association of appeasement with cowardice originates, by doing so they were able to condemn the policy makers after the treaty of Versailles for the predicament they were facing in the 1930’s, 1940s. Despite the fact a war weary Britain was faced with an anti war population, Cato suggests that appeasement was as much of a failure as the Treaty of Versailles in attempting to keep the peace. The book ‘enshrined the disillusion of a generation …. And set the tone of debate for the study of appeasement for twenty years after the war.’ Chamberlain was castigated for championing the policy of appeasement during a period when it appeared to have little chance of success. Appeasement to Cato was a policy of weakness, retreat and poor military planning.

[The above paragraph requires sources, citations and references: The work, 'The Guilty Men' is not given a source reference or link and the author, 'Cato', is not referred to, linked, cited or referenced. Who is Cato? When was 'The Guilty Men" published, where and by whom?

[Also, I suggest the following changes: ‘The Guilty Men’ {citation required} written by Cato {link, reference, required} explained the reasons for the catastrophes of Dunkirk to the British public and why Britain was forced into war again. Cato defined appeasement as ‘the deliberate surrender of small nations in the face of Hitler's blatant bullying’{citation required}. Cato was deliberately and unapologetically anti-appeasement. It is this work and this author which originated the association of appeasement with cowardice. By doing so they {who are "they"?} were able to blame the policy makers after the Treaty of Versailles for the predicament they {same "they"?} were facing in the 1930’s, 1940s. Despite the fact a war-weary Britain was faced with an anti-war population, Cato suggests that appeasement was equally flawed as the Treaty of Versailles was as a policy to keep the peace. The book ‘enshrined the disillusion of a generation …. And set the tone of debate for the study of appeasement for twenty years after the war.’ {citation required} Chamberlain was castigated {by whom? citation required} for championing the policy of appeasement during a period when it appeared to have little chance of success {among the public? or to prevent war?}. Appeasement to Cato was a policy of weakness, retreat and poor military planning. {citation required}]

Churchill used the policy of appeasement in his memories {change to "memoirs"} the ‘Gathering [S]torm’ to heighten his heroic status in rescuing a country under political corruption and deceit. He appeared presumptuous that appeasement was chosen willingly and wrongly which would later be contradicted by revisionists. Churchill essentially damned appeasement due to its origins. His particular dislike for Chamberlain and his stubbornness deemed that appeasement itself was not the issue but the person whom was implementing it. For Churchill[,] the origins of [problems with] appeasement lay in [with] the appeasers and their own individual choices rather than the structural constrain[t]s of Britain.

Revisionist This revisionism {delete "This" and start the sentence with "Revisionism"} of orthodox views emerged in the 1950’s through {change to "by"} historians no longer contextualised {what does this word mean? "lived through the period; "imperialistic historians"; "warmongers"?} by war. Revisionist perspectives evaluated the role of appeasement considering the intentions of Hitler. Where orthodox historians had previously made the presumption {"assumption"? or is this judgmental?} that appeasement was inefficient due to a predictable {should this be "unpredictable"?} mad man {change to "madman"}, historians such as AJP Taylor determined {really: should it not be "argued" or "theorized" or "opined" or something less definite?} that appeasement could not be whole heartily {change to "whole-heartedly"} blamed for WW2 as it was impossible to predict the nature of {strike "the nature of"} Hitler’s intentions. Through works such as ‘the Origins of World War Two’ {capital "T" and citation required} in 1961 {add comma} AJP Taylor debated whether the policy of appeasement was justified {add comma} considering the possibility that Hitler may not have had a ‘blueprint’ for war.{this sentence appears self-contradictory: if Hitler did not have a blueprint for war, then why not appeasement, as their would be less danger that it would fail, in the sense that war would come eventually"} His perspective on appeasement allowed him to conclude that appeasement was an active policy and not a passive one. Rather than attempting to purely allow Hitler to consolidate himself {add comma} the policy was implemented by ‘men confronted with real problems, doing their best in the circumstances of their time’{citation required}. This area [change 'area' to 'argument'} allowed the previous negative perspectives of {add "the policy of"} appeasement to develop {change "develop into" to "be perceived as"} a rational response to an unpredictable man (Hitler) that was diplomatically and politically suitable at the time.

{Add "In"} 1967 {insert comma} the legal {should this be "policy" or "political" or even "secret government"?} documents were released about appeasement following the Thirty Year Rule {add "for the release of government documents"}. This allowed a mirand {change to "myriad"} of people to pour {change to "pore"} over uncensored limitless {exaggeration?} sources. From here on revisionism develops {needs comma} essentially saving Chamberlain's reputation as a man whom {change 'whom' to 'who'} did the best {add "he could"} at the time {delete: possible}. This historical rehabilitation of Chamberlain saved the reputation of {add: the policy of} appeasement.

Counter Revisionist The final stage {add: "of the changes to our perception of the policy"} seems to appear from 1990’s to the current day, where {change "where" as current day is not a place, to "as", for example} historians are evaluating the specific {"various"?} aspects of appeasement, its origins and how [it: change to "the policy"} was implemented. The views seem to be {rationalised: change to "rational"} and balanced. It has been concluded that appeasement was {change "in no fault" to "not"} a bad policy to adhere to {insert comma} in light of WW2; however, it was poorly implemented, it was implemented too late, and it was implemented under not enough control to constrain an opportunistic Hitler. Appeasement is seen as a viable policy, considering the constraints of the once great empire recuperating after WW1 {no such event: change to "The Great War" which it was called by the people of the time and afterward}, and that {insert commas around "ideally"} appeasement had offered all the solutions. {This sentence is a bit fuzzy} It is from here that many argue that a decline in British national identity lead {change to "led"} Chamberlain and others to adopt a policy suitable to Britain's cultural and political needs {add "for the time"}. McDonough is an important counter revisionist who describes appeasement as a crisis management strategy that tried to encourage Hitler to solve his grievances peacefully and that in fact “Chamberlain's worst error was to believe that he could march Hitler on the yellow brick road to peace when in reality Hitler was marching very firmly on the road to war”. {citation required} Pedantisto (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Pedantisto

I went and made some major changes to this section; whoever wrote the old version needs to seriously brush up on their English. It was way too long and made sweeping statements and unsourced claims. Hope this one is better :) James5555 (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, the counter-revisionist view on appeasment still seems too positive about it. Again, it only says that the British were not ready for war in the early 1930ies, but completely ignores the fact that the German military also needed time to develop, and it ignores the state of the French military. Personally, I believe that any statement of the "not yet ready for war" like must take the state of preparedness of the opposing force into account. Furthermore, the notion that appeasment was successful in order to better prepare for war must take the NET result of preparations into account, that is appeasing nation's preparations minus appeased nation's, plus of course what the later got from appeasment. This will of course greatly reduce the value of appeasment. thestor (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

American view of appeasement

This article seems to be written from an American point of view and neglects how mighty Nazi Germany was. Of course Britain and France didn't want war - who did want to go to war against such a powerful enemy. It should be noted that the USA didn't even come into the war until attacked by Japan. Maybe this article should actually give credit where credit is due - the UK declared war on Germany before being attacked. Where was the USA?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Germany actually wasn't that strong until after Munich, and even at the start of the war, France had a large advantage in both numbers and quality of equipment (a significant proportion of German armor were Panzer Is and Panzer IIs, which are wholly unsuitable for offensive warfare). Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree Germany was weaker before Munich, but she had a much larger population than the UK or France, and had stronger industries. You have to ask yourself this simple question - would you have wanted to go to war with her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What you or I would do is irrelevant (though had I been a French field commander, I would've been chomping at the bit to drive into Germany while the bulk of their army was occupied in Poland.) The point remains that the Western Allies of 1939 outclassed Germany in nearly every aspect of warfare (with the exception of maybe tactical air power), so your point is moot. You must remember you're looking at Germany's power through hindsight; blitzkrieg tactics were still untested against a powerful opponent like France. Especially on paper, France particularly had no real reason to fear Germany. Regardless, this discussion is theoretical at best, so it shouldn't be taking place on the article talk page. If you wish to continue the discussion, I suggest we move it to one of our talk pages. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've only read the first paragraph, but I've already found a grammatical and factual error... Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy commonly known as Munich Agreement.... First of all, it is 'The Munich Agreement,' and secondly Chamberlain's policy is never called the Munich Agreement. That was an agreement that occured as a result of his policy of Appeasement, not the policy itself.... Also, the words used to describe Appeasement are anything but balanced... Cowardice, Weakness and Self Deception... Nor is it, n theory, a complete concession to an aggressors demands without anything going the other way. For example, at Munich Hitler Agreed to leave the rest of Europe alone. Yes, he broke the promise completely, but the point stands that appeasement isn't a complete caving in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.164.187 (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Britain's strategy of turning Germany eastwards to destroy USSR

Hey, I want to add in the view that Chamberlain wanted to turn Germany eastwards to destroy USSR. That view seems to be missing here. 218.186.67.4 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some sources for it? If you can provide a couple reliable sources, it would be a great addition to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this source:

...However, influential leaders of the capitalist powers believed that German fascism was the only bulwark against Bolshevism. They confidently expected that a re-armed Germany would sweep to the East and destroy the centre of the Red contagion — the USSR...

http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve05/1226ww2.html 218.186.67.4 (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little suspicious of this website. It purports to be from The Guardian, but looking through their archives, there isn't any such article. Indeed, searching for the title of the article turns up 2 articles, but not the one supposedly from the Guardian. This seems to be either a case of misattribution, or worse, a case of deliberate misinformation on the part of CPA.org. I'd look for a better source than that. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian is the official propaganda mouthpiece of the Coummunist party of Australia.

http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/guardian.html

http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve05/g1226.html

Ah, I thought we were discussing the British newspaper. In this case, it probably fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources, in the "Fringe sources" clause. This certainly qualifies as "revisionist history", so it needs to have some stronger sources than this one. Parsecboy (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it "revisionist history"?

It it one of the first explanations put out to explain british appeasement policy.

For example this article in TIME 1939:

...No sooner had the German-Russian pact been hailed as thwarting the foul design of British Tories to direct German expansion to the East than the German Army did what (in the Russian view) Tories had failed to accomplish—i.e., directed German expansion to the East...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,761966-1,00.html

Also this article in Nov 1937:

...The Yorkshire Post, owned by Mrs. Eden's family, did its best to sabotage Lord Halifax's visit. It was rebuked by the London Daily Telegraph (which is close to Mr. Chamberlain) for printing rumors that "There exist and are known to Germany to exist in this country [Britain] a "certain number of people—not all of them obscure [Halifax & friends]— who would be prepared to welcome a German campaign of territorial expansion in the East [Austria, Czechoslovakia, Russia]...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,758455,00.html

We can say that the view is the first view put out to explain british appeasement policy.

218.186.67.86 (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's revisionist because it contradicts the standard mainstream historians. I'm sure there were plenty of Holocaust deniers in 1945 (hence the reason Eisenhower ordered the German populace to be forcibly sent to the camps to witness the horrors committed there, to silence the nay-sayers), and it too is classified as revisionist. The sources you just provided qualify as reliable, so I would have no issue with adding them to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it only contradicts the standard mainstream [propagandist] british historians.

Anyway, here is another source:

`(England) kept hoping against hope that she could embroil Russia and Germany with each other and thus escape scot-free herself.'

Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), p. 705.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131.html 218.186.67.86 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the same tosh that the very same user tried to add to Appeasement of Hitler before the article was deleted, mostly because of his shenanigans. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131.html

Why above source tosh?

Can you show me?

Thanks. 218.186.67.194 (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before (quite recently if I recall). The policies on WP:V, WP:RS are quite clear. The Progressive Labour Party and the Communist Party of Australia are absolutely unacceptable as sources for an academic topic such as this. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What about below source:

http://perso.orange.fr/heller/Martens/Martens.html

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131.html

Cheers. 218.186.65.52 (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, both websites you list wont pass muster with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding sources. The 1st is just some guy's homemade website and the 2nd is the Progressive Labour Party of Australia, also not a valid source for this article. Please thoroughly read WP:SOURCES and WP:RS to get a handle on what the problems are. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What about a source from historian Ludo Martens?

Is that okay?

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Cheers. 218.186.65.52 (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

NO, as I just said, please read WP:V and WP:RS. The progressive Labour Party of Australia is not a valid source. L0b0t (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you confused the issue. I am talking about historian Ludo Martens, not Labour Party of Australia.

So is his source okay?

Cheers.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131.html 218.186.12.10 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You could consider posting these sources at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and see what the sourcing experts have to say about them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be a problem with posting the view of Britain turning Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union.

It is a factual and truthful view.

218.186.12.10 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That it is factual or truthful is open to debate; hence the disagreement that documents from the Labour Party of Australia and Communist Party of Australia not being reliable sources. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is 100% completely factual.

See:

...And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.

In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine.

It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism...

In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:

(1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;

(2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and

(3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.

The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse it...

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html