Talk:Appeasement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Anti-war (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Appeasement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"Economic appeasement"[edit]

There is an interesting section on business dealings with German firms during the period of appeasement, but is this appeasement as normally understood or is the concept being stretched by the editors who have added this material to the article? The Economist review cited mentions several books about European and American businesses who were indifferent to what the Nazis were doing and who continued to trade with German companies before the war, but the review does not use the term "appeasement". I think this is original research. What do other editors think? Pelarmian (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I would lean toward thinking that business strategies -- such as Hollywood shaping its films in ways that would sell to the German public -- are an entirely different thing from political appeasement, which, at its core, meant giving something to Germany that it didn't really deserve in the hope of avoiding future problems. They simply are not the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree-- normal private business activity is not considered "appeasement" by the RS. Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Under most international law theory, "something" an aggressive state doesn't "really deserve" is favorable trade terms, User:Beyond My Ken. That's the recurring argument for sanctions on Iran, Russia, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, etc. today. And it was an argument made in the 30s against trading with Italy, Japan, and particularly Germany in the face of the Jewish call for boycott.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Not quite. Sanctions are a punishment that can only be approved by an international body after an investigation and a vote. That did indeed happen to Italy re Ethiopia--(and currently to Russia & North Korea) but not to Germany in 1930s.Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. Economic sanctions are imposed unilaterally all the time, particularly by the US. Obama placed sanctions on Russian businesses without any international body's authority:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code
Later some other countries joined in ad hoc. That's not an international body. Even the EU is a single body in regards to external trade.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Appeasement is the issue here. Obama did not sanction Russia--he penalized specific individuals and he did not invoke "international law theory" as you did. No government sanctioned Germany in 1930s nor any German leaders. A lot of countries imposed sanctions against Italy after a League of Nations decision to do so. (The anti-Italy sanctions were a failure, historian agree; they did not hinder appeasement of Germany.) Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
If sanctions are a sideshow, then let's be direct. We're talking about if businesses can be appeasers. Here's Frank McDonough:
"The most active economic appeasers were business and financial groups with interests in Anglo-German trade and finance."Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War (Manchester University Press, 1998) by Frank McDonough, p.134
— Preceding unsigned comment added by GPRamirez5 (talkcontribs) 21:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
GPRamirez5: Please indent your comments properly. Add one more colon then the comment you're responding to to move your comment in one tab. Also, please remember to sign your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Support for economic appeasement does not appear on the U.S. or French side, In UK there was a group of What McDonough calls "Economic appeasers" but they were unable to reverse the main economic downward slope, or come up with economic agreements to accompany the diplomatic appeasement. McDonough says that Britain cut trade balance with Germany from 89% in 1931-35, p 140. "The obstacles to cordial Anglo-German economic relations at the government level were very powerful" p 141 he adds: "The official line of the government after 1933 was to oppose the provision of any new loans to Germany" p 141 There were indeed many discussions about improving economic relations in 1937-39. Chamberlain eagerly pushed them, and they might have succeeded but in March 1939 German tanks invaded what was left of Czechoslovakia. appeasement was over In the race to war had begun . what McDonagh calls economic appeasers in UK did not succeed In reversing the drastic decline in trade balances. Rjensen (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed section[edit]

Moot material; a revised version is subject to an RfC below.

Just so we're clear, here is the content of the last version of the "Economic appeasement" section:

Numerous scholars have explored the trade aspects of appeasement. Britain's commercial relationship with Germany was steady throughout the 1930s, extending even beyond the invasion of Prague. Germany was, after India, Britain’s largest exporter. "In consequence," The Economist notes, "the German war machine continued to be fueled with oil and armed with metals from British sources" up until the declaration of war in September 1939. It has been argued that trade in strategic materials with the Nazis was necessary for Britain's rearmament.[1]

Strangely, when political appeasement seemed to collapse in the aftermath of Kristalnacht, economic appeasement escalated. In January 1939, London and Berlin representatives helped negotiate an Anglo-German coal cartel.[2] A major trade conference commenced in Dusseldorf that March, although government participation was disrupted by the Prague crisis. The Federation of British Industries and other trade groups proceeded with the meetings nonetheless. By the eve of the war, the two countries had 133 trade agreements in effect.[3]

The American policy of neutrality at this time could sometimes lapse into appeasement.[4] This was particularly true economically; with no serious sanctions on the rising Axis powers until 1941, top US firms like IBM and General Motors were extremely active in Nazi Germany for years, and exchange controls ensured that most of their profits were cycled back into the country, thereby strengthening Hitler's regime.[5] This also meant that Nazi-associated businesses like IG Farben and Thyssen industries did extensive dealings with elite US banks like Brown Brothers Harriman and Union Banking Corporation up through the outbreak of the war.[6]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Economic Appeasement[edit]

NOT INCLUDED:
There is no consensus to insert the proposed text in the article, nor any of the subsequent variations of it proposed by User:GPRamirez5 as it is written. However, there was some consensus that a much shorter and factual addition could be made, possibly not as a separate section. I have to say that this RfC has been largely pointless. Firstly, because discussion was still ongoing and it would have been better to try and reach consensus first, only going to an RfC when a clear point of disagreement could be established. Secondly, it is quite clear that the text had support from no other editors. In those circumstances an RfC is only ever going to be closed one way regardless of how persuasive the closer feels the nominators arguments are. Make those arguments first, and if other editors still don't agree then stop beating the dead horse. SpinningSpark 17:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should there be an "Economic appeasement" section with the following statements? GPRamirez5 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Numerous scholars have explored the trade aspects of appeasement. Britain's commercial relationship with Germany was steady throughout the 1930s, extending even beyond the invasion of Prague. Germany was, after India, Britain’s largest exporter. "In consequence," The Economist notes, "the German war machine continued to be fueled with oil and armed with metals from British sources" up until the declaration of war in September 1939. It has been argued that trade in strategic materials with the Nazis was necessary for Britain's rearmament.[1]

Even as appeasement seemed to collapse in the aftermath of Kristalnacht, economic appeasement escalated. In January 1939, London and Berlin representatives helped negotiate an Anglo-German coal cartel.[2] A major trade conference commenced in Dusseldorf that March, although government participation was disrupted by the Prague crisis. The Federation of British Industries and other trade groups proceeded with the meetings nonetheless. By the eve of the war, the two countries had 133 trade agreements in effect.[3]

The American policy of neutrality at this time could sometimes lapse into appeasement.[4] This was particularly true economically; with no serious sanctions on the rising Axis powers until 1941, top US firms like IBM and General Motors were extremely active in Nazi Germany for years, and exchange controls ensured that most of their profits were cycled back into the country, thereby strengthening Hitler's regime.[5] This also meant that Nazi-associated businesses like IG Farben and Thyssen industries did extensive dealings with elite US banks like Brown Brothers Harriman and Union Banking Corporation up through the outbreak of the war.[6] With the knowledge of the US government, the American film industry catered consciously to Germany. Most major Hollywood studios worked directly with the German Consul Georg Gyssling up until 1940 to censor films for anti-Nazi or pro-Jewish sentiment, even for versions distributed outside of Germany.[7][8]

References

  1. ^ Staff (15 March 2001) "Trading with evil" (book reviews) The Economist
  2. ^ C A MacDonald United States Britain And Appeasement 1936–1939 (Springer, 1981), pp, 130–37
  3. ^ Frank McDonough, Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War, pp. 145–48
  4. ^ "And while he often talked a tough game, especially in his famous Chicago speech of 1937 which warned of the need to 'quarantine' aggressors, the President more often than not proved unwilling to buck isolationist sentiment. Unsurprisingly, then, the United States stood idle as Europe moved closer to war...France and Britain, who feared a continent-wide conflict, met with Hitler at Munich and struck what they thought was a peace-saving bargain...The deal was struck without the participation of the Czechs—and with the approval of FDR." William E. Leuchtenburg, "Franklin D. Roosevelt: Foreign Affairs" The Miller Center, University of Virginia
  5. ^ Geoffrey Jones, "Firms and Global Capitalism" in The Cambridge History of Capitalism Volume 2, Larry Neal et al, eds. (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 180–86
  6. ^ Adam LeBor, Tower of Basel: The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank that Runs the World (Public Affairs, 2014), Chapter Nine
  7. ^ "…Hollywood’s reaction to the rise of Fascism was one of economically motivated appeasement…"The Oxford History of World Cinema edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (Oxford University Press, 1997), p.245
  8. ^ "Film's golden era was tarnished by appeasement." Anthony Quinn, "The Collaboration: Hollywood's Pact with Hitler by Ben Urwand – review", The Guardian, October 16, 2013
  • Yes, the "Economic appeasement" section as written is legitimate.
  • No, it should be rejected as it is currently written.

Survey[edit]

  • No GPRamirez5 is engaging in an OR-fest. This should not have become an RfC. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • No - What is it with creating RfCs when a perfectly acceptable consensus discussion is already underway? (Two sections above) RfCs are generally only created when the the result of the discussion is unclear, or when a discussion fails to take hold even when an attempt is made to start one. Opening an unwarranted RfC seems to be a bit too close to WP:Gaming the system, and the originators of unnecessary RfC should be trouted by the community for wasting everyone's time.
    Certainly, in this case, there was absolutely no need for an RfC, as the discussion was ongoing and was already showing a preliminary consensus, which is that the "economic appeasement" section as written, is not appropriate. There may well be a case for such a section, but its focus should be absolutely clear and precise, and it should be about appeasement and not general economic factors unrelated to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's better to just put an RfC tag on the on-going conversation and draw more people into it, rather than post a redundant conversation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No it mostly POV polemics, with such additions as an anonymous book review. The key footnotes to Leuchtenburg and Jones never mention economic appeasement. then there's a conspiracy book by Lebor which has dozens of "atrocities" per chapter. the McDonough, Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War, book is ok but its contents are distorted--he shows that some London businessmen did try to push for economic appeasement but it very largely failed. Result is a very lopsided distorted view that makes little effort to summarize the reliable sources correctly. the main conspirators turn out to be Jews in Hollywood who were doing business as usual. Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, these are things which I think we agree on:
1. Private businesses can and did engage in appeasement with fascist states (as per Frank McDonough)
2. Historians regard this type of trade as "economic appeasement" (again as per McDonough)
I'd like consensus on that, because others in the above mentioned thread seemed to be denying that this was possible.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
By the way, Lebor's Tower of Basel isn't a "conspiracy book." It was featured favorably by The Economist -GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No. There is some WP:SYN in this insertion of an "Economic Appeasement" section. The question is not, "Do we think that business dealings with the dictatorships amounted to economic appeasement?" but "Was there a consensus c.1940, and is there a consensus among historians now, that the concept of appeasement includes business dealing with states ruled by dictators?" From what I can see, there was and is no such consensus, and it appears to me that GPRamirez5 is trying to insert his own interpretation of events and wishes to stretch the concept.
Having said that, McDonough is a reliable source and an authoritative historian, and he uses the phrase "economic appeasement". Therefore we can have a passage saying, "According to historian Frank McDonough ...". But not, I think, an entire section, which combines what McDonough says with passages that do not mention "economic appeasement" and gives the phrase undue weight. However, if more good authorities can be found which use the phrase, I would be willing to change my mind. Pelarmian (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It is incorrect to read McDonough as arguing " Private businesses can and did engage in appeasement with fascist states" -- McDonough does NOT say that. He says some British businessmen wanted the British government to engage in appeasement. He pays most attention to pre-1933 moves. Business organizations in UK did call for improving trade terms with Nazi Germany. They had little success McD says. The government was split on that and in general had imposed hostile terms of trade--see p 141. All historians agree that most Britons of all backgrounds supported Chamberlain's government appeasement policies. The proposed additions seriously distort the RS. Rjensen (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
However, if we have multiple RS to cite on appeasement and economics, we should group that information, just not make claims that misrepresent the sources. E.g., "McDonough's view of British business interests' appeasement of Hitler ..." would be wrong.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Revisted below. Not a section, but a McDonough-attributed mention is appropriate. Pelarmian, above, said everything I was thinking. Actually "Was there a consensus c.1940, and/or is there a consensus among historians now, that the concept of appeasement included ..." would have been more accurate. But we have additional sources now anyway, so the question is already answered.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC); revised: 20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The question is not, "Do we think that business dealings with the dictatorships amounted to economic appeasement?" but "Was there a consensus c.1940, and is there a consensus among historians now, that the concept of appeasement includes business dealing with states ruled by dictators?"
Pelarmian, I don't think the first part is legitimate, re: consensus c.1940, because the contemporaneous historical view is often completely backwards. For example, the view of mainstream historians at the end of the Reconstruction Era was that Reconstruction was ruined by black ignorance and corrupt "carpetbaggers." Today it's generally agreed that Reconstruction was ruined by the Klan and other white supremacist repression.
Regarding the second part, McDonough is not the only historian who believes in economic appeasement. Numerous other scholars discuss it, and none that I can see reject it:
The question of economic appeasement, first broached by Gilbert and Gott, has also re-emerged as a focus for study. Scott Newton attempted “to relate appeasement to the domestic politico-economic background from which it was developed,” to “the socio-economic context in which the politicians operated,” and to show that appeasement was ongoing government policy until the resignation of Chamberlain on 10 May 1940. Newton contended that a “hegemonic group,” based on the Treasury, the Bank of England, the City of London and a growing middle class, was determined to maintain free enterprise and the limited state against totalitarian ambitions and economics. As a result the National Government had little choice but to pursue appeasement if the principles of liberal capitalism were to be preserved among all the powers. Appeasement, therefore, “was a strategy for the survival of a particular type of socio-economic order in Britain and the wider world.” Its eventual wartime demise opened the way for the emergence of the welfare state and decolonization. 74 (74. Scott Newton, Profits of Peace: The Political Economy of Anglo-German Appeasement (Oxford, 1996), pp. 3–6.)
In a somewhat similar vein, Neil Forbes explored Anglo–German economic and financial relations in the 1930s. The morality of conducting peacetime trade with dictatorships was set aside as was the argument that British business abetted, or was sympathetic to, Nazism. Instead, Forbes contended that economic appeasement essentially led to paralysis: “no move could be made either to promote or stifle German economic recovery.” However, he remained unconvinced that there was any “fusion of interests” between the City of London and government. 75 (75. Neil Forbes, Doing Business with Nazi Germany: Britain's Economic and Financial Relations with Germany, 1931–1939 (London, 2000), pp. 225–226.) Economic appeasement on a broader canvas but with similar conclusions is examined in Paul N. Hehn, A Low Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe, and the Economic Origins of World War II, 1930–1941 (London, 2002).
- "Appeasement: Before and After Revisionism" Sidney Aster," Diplomacy & Statecraft Vol. 19, Iss. 3, 2008
— Preceding unsigned comment added by GPRamirez5 (talkcontribs) 18:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • But re:contemporary coverage, Pelarmian— I did an n-gram, and 1940 was one of the high-points of discussing economic appeasement. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • To address what Rjensen wrote, I don't see anything in WP:RS that says why something from The Economist that's unsigned wouldn't be admissable. Almost everything in The Economist is unsigned.
    Correct. The Economist is an RS because the world treats it as reputably edited, the same reason The Wall Street Journal is an RS. Whether the article has a particular journalist's name on it is irrelevant; most newswires do not, yet we still cite Associated Press and UPI and Reuters.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Re: conspiracy theories. You implied that Hollywood's appeasement of the Nazis was just an anti-Semitic theory. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency disagrees with you.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish, Pelarmian, and the rest of you: What are your thoughts on the section at this time? I would be willing to remove the passages on Wall Street as a compromise.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Will have to think on it more; dead-tired right now.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A re-!vote: Yes, at least briefly, since we have the sources for it. It may end up being a paragraph on current scholarly and organizational views on the question ("teach the controversy"), with claims attributed – in prose – to their sources, rather than WP asserting in it's own voice what the sources are saying and silently attributing in footnotes (we do the latter when the sources are generally in agreement, not when they conflict or when a view is in a minority of sources). To [jk!] appease GPRamirez, said editor it correct in the assessment that what people were thinking in 1940 is often unreliable; there's a general rule (across much more writing than Wikipedia) that the closer a source is, temporally, to the events about which it is writing the more we have to treat it as primary source material. However, Pelarmian is correct that a belief ca. 1940 in econ. appeas. is sufficiently noteworthy for us to address is as such. Meanwhile, we now have multiple contemporary RS (not all of them free from potential bias, but that's okay if attribute and balance) making claims that relate to the question. That's enough for us to cover the question more broadly, whether or not it was raised ca. 1940. Whether to make this a section heading or simply a paragraph is up to editorial discretion, and will probably be determined by how it's written. I think we all understand that we don't need "micro-sections" for one sentence or for two short sentences that together are about the length of one typical sentence, unless we expect that material to immediately expand (e.g. because we're already researching and drafting the expansion). Otherwise it gets slapped with {{Expand section}} or just de-sectionalized.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response SMcCandlish. That sounds reasonable, although I think there's less controversy than you imply. For instance, I just found a university source which characterizes GM's policies directly as economic appeasement.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi all--I've been summoned for RfC. There is a great deal of relevant commentary, thoughtfulness, and good faith. By the time I read through the section, I forgot what the question was; such is the nature of this discussion. As such, I believe you are heading in the right direction with the suggestion to re-examine the matter. Consider that you might re-state or re-frame the question as the discussion has altered the matter somewhat by bringing in some new information. Thanks for all the work.Horst59 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Horst59, I had been thinking of a new draft and survey, but it seems like most of the new information is just better sourcing of the same claims. Like the Diplomacy & Statecraft article supports the first sentence of the draft ("Numerous scholars..."), and the General Motors and Nazi Germany book simply supports the third paragraph.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
GPRamirez5, I understand. This RfC is one framed within a good deal of cooperation among the editors. That is why I used suggestive words: consider, might. I've confidence that the editors active on this RfC will continue taking this article in a good direction. Happy editing to all.Horst59 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • New draft @SMcCandlish, Pelarmian, Horst59, and you all, I've done a new draft. The references to Wall Street and German industry are omitted. Most everything retained has explicit use of the phrase "economic appeasement" in its source material.

According to historian Frank McDonough, “No understanding of appeasement can ignore the importance of economic factors. The British desire for peace was quite clearly linked to its role as a major trading nation with world-wide economic and imperial interests,” The British were concerned with the vast commercial losses that could be incurred in fighting the Germans.[1] In 1944, Karl Polanyi wrote that, “England’s military unpreparedness was mainly a result of adherence to gold standard economics,” and the accompanying aversion to deficit spending. Britain would have to make every effort to avoid armed confrontation in order to satisfy this monetary policy. Economic appeasement—the term used by Paul Einzig,[2] Frank McDonough, Paul N. Hehn, [3]and many other scholars— meant steady trade with the Nazis, as Germany emerged as Britain’s largest exporter in the 1930s after India.[4] This ran counter to the Jewish community’s call for a boycott of Germany.[5]

In January 1939, London and Berlin representatives helped negotiate an Anglo-German coal cartel. A major trade conference commenced in Dusseldorf that March, although government participation was disrupted by the Prague crisis. The Federation of British Industries and other trade groups proceeded with the meetings nonetheless. By the eve of the war, the two countries had 133 trade agreements in effect. The governments discreetly continued negotiations in the summer, most famously with a series of meetings between Overseas Trade Secretary Robert Hudson and Helmuth Wohlthat, Hermann Goring's assistant. The Hudson-Wohlthat meetings contemplated granting African colonies to Germany, among other concessions. [6] Overall analysis of economic appeasement faces challenges owing to the lack of linearity and transparency in the states' activity—For example, it was official policy that Germany not be granted any loans, but the Bank of England, with the government's knowledge, secretly extended a £750,000 credit to Berlin in July 1934.[7]

In the United States, economic appeasement was an openly stated policy. Franklin Roosevelt believed that Hitler's aggression was motivated by Germany's economic woes and the US president sought to mitigate them.[8] He was supported in this by businessmen like James D. Mooney of General Motors, whose company collaborated with Germany through the Opel subsidiary. During the early months of the war, Roosevelt, Mooney, and Joseph Kenney briefly worked together exploring the possibility of a large loan to Germany in exchange for Hitler ceasing his attacks, but the Nazi leader had little interest.[9]

With the knowledge of the US government, the American film industry catered consciously to Germany. While some film moguls, notably Jack Warner, were consistently anti-Nazi, most major Hollywood studios worked directly with the German Consul Georg Gyssling up until 1940. Under Gyssling's guidance, they censored films for anti-fascist or pro-Jewish sentiment, even for the versions distributed outside of Germany.[10][11] [12]

-GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Frank McDonough, Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War, pp. 133-136
  2. ^ Kirshner, Jonathan (2007-10-28). Appeasing Bankers: Financial Caution on the Road to War. Princeton University Press. pp. 27–28. ISBN 0691134618. 
  3. ^ Hehn, Paul N. (2005-09-26). A Low, Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe and the Economic Origins of World War II. A&C Black. ISBN 9780826417619. 
  4. ^ Steiner, Zara (2011-03-31). The Triumph of the Dark: European International History 1933-1939. Oxford University Press. p. 701. ISBN 9780199212002. 
  5. ^ Alderman, Geoffrey (1998). Modern British Jewry. Clarendon Press. p. 274. ISBN 9780198207597. 
  6. ^ Shore, Zachary (2005-02-24). What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199924073. 
  7. ^ McDonough, Frank (1998). Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War. Manchester University Press. p. 141. ISBN 9780719048326. 
  8. ^ Schmitz, David F. (2009-09-15). Thank God They're on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965. Univ of North Carolina Press. pp. 120–122. ISBN 9780807875964. 
  9. ^ Turner, Henry Ashby (2005). General Motors and the Nazis: The Struggle for Control of Opel, Europe's Biggest Carmaker. Yale University Press. pp. 108–126. ISBN 0300106343. 
  10. ^ "…Hollywood’s reaction to the rise of Fascism was one of economically motivated appeasement…"The Oxford History of World Cinema edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (Oxford University Press, 1997), p.245
  11. ^ "Film's golden era was tarnished by appeasement." Anthony Quinn, "The Collaboration: Hollywood's Pact with Hitler by Ben Urwand – review", The Guardian, October 16, 2013
  12. ^ Urwand, Ben (2013-09-10). The Collaboration. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674728356. 
  • In general, this is much, much too WP:OR to be acceptable. The first paragraph might be OK (except that the first use of "Economic appeasement" needs to be in quotes, but for the rest of it, you need sources which specifically say that the events described are examples of economic appeasement, otherwise, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. You write that "In the United States, economic appeasement was an openly stated policy", so you need a cite that say exactly that, and where and in what document or declaration that policy was stated. You can't simply describe FDR's views as to the source of Germany's economic problems, and that he "sought to mitigate them" and allow the reader to believe that a reliable source has described that as "economic appeasement". Also, that the government knew that Hollywood "catered" to the German market is relevant how? The government wasn't making the film studios do that, so it wasn't governmental policy. Again, you need a source that says, explicitly, that such catering was "economic appeasement" and not simply good business practices (i.e. making more money by presenting movies that more Germans would be likely to buy tickets for).
    So, no, this won't do at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I would accept the first paragraph alone if "Economic appeasement" was in quotes; "and many other scholars" was removed, unless cited; and the irrelvant stuff about the gold standard was excised. That is, I would accept:

    According to historian Frank McDonough, “No understanding of appeasement can ignore the importance of economic factors. The British desire for peace was quite clearly linked to its role as a major trading nation with world-wide economic and imperial interests,” The British were concerned with the vast commercial losses that could be incurred in fighting the Germans.[1] "Economic appeasement" – the term used by Paul Einzig,[2] Frank McDonough, and Paul N. Hehn,[3] – meant steady trade with the Nazis, as Germany emerged as Britain’s largest exporter in the 1930s after India.[4] This ran counter to the Jewish community’s call for a boycott of Germany.[5]

References

  1. ^ McDonough, Frank (1998) Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War, Manchester University Press, pp.133-36 ISBN 9780719048326
  2. ^ Kirshner, Jonathan (2007-10-28). Appeasing Bankers: Financial Caution on the Road to War. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 27–28. ISBN 0691134618. 
  3. ^ Hehn, Paul N. (2005). A Low, Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe and the Economic Origins of World War II. A & C Black. ISBN 9780826417619. 
  4. ^ Steiner, Zara (2011). The Triumph of the Dark: European International History 1933-1939. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199212002. 
  5. ^ Alderman, Geoffrey (1998). Modern British Jewry. Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780198207597. 
Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, Beyond My Ken. By that criteria, the fourth paragraph is acceptable because "…Hollywood’s reaction to the rise of Fascism was one of economically motivated appeasement…" The Oxford History of World Cinema edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (Oxford University Press, 1997), p.245 GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
And I think we all need to bear in mind WP:NOTSYNTH :
If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be...Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article.
If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.
-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, please properly indent your responses, it makes it difficult to follow the discussion when you do not. I have once again fixed that.
In regard to WP:NOTSYNTH, the header on it clearly states: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." It is primarily the work of a single author, who is credited with 22.5% of the edits by number and 64% of the article by amount of text, [1] and with only 722 edits to their credit (under two accounts), the author of NOTSYNTH can hardly claim any real expertise on Wikipedia's standards. As such, NOTSYNTH carries little weight. I've been here 12 years, and I don't believe I have ever seen anyone ever cite it before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the quote about Hollywood, the sentence you cited says in full

Hollywood's reaction to the rise of Fascism was one of economically motivated appeasement, aimed at insuring that its films would not attract the attention of foreign censors and so lead to the further closure of the market.

There are several problems with the quote in terms of your thesis. First, the author uses "economically motivated appeasement", which is decidedly not the same thing as the concept of "economic appeasement". "Appeasement" here is used in a completely colloquial sense, not in the historical sense that this article deals with. Second, the quote clear falls on the side of the studios making these moves in order to make more money by being able to present more films, which is, again, a business practice and not "economic appeasement". Third, the section was written by Richard Maltby Jr., who I happen to know, and who is a great guy, a lyricist and librettist, a director, producer and screenwriter, but not an historian. Even if the quote supported your thesis, it would not be usable for that reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken wrote:

In regard to WP:NOTSYNTH, the header on it clearly states: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

Yes, I confess that I was making more of an appeal to reason than an appeal to authority. Hopefully that's not a futile endeavor with you. In any case, WP:NOTSYNTH is of sufficient legitimacy that it's linked from the WP:OR article itself, so I'll ask you to meet its challenge: If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources...The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. You haven't done that. Instead you've rather farcically attempted to discount a first class RS with your own, um, original research that the contributor isn't an historian. Anyone published in an Oxford history book is by definition a historian of the subject at hand. You, however, are 1) not a historian, and 2) publishing from the not-so-commanding heights of a Wiki talk page. Thus you have no expertise in what is or what is not intended to be "colloquial." As if that were a possibility in an Oxford encyclopedia. Next. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

An appeal to reason is always good, but when you present it at "look at this Wikipedia page, it says X", that's an appeal to authority, whether you like it or not.
In any case, it's irrelevant, because everything aside from your first paragraph is clearly, by definition, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH without a citation for each and every fact presented which calls it "economic appeasement".
We aren't here to draw our own conclusions from random pieces of data, or to force our readers into doing so, we're here to cite reliable sources, which you have failed to do, except in the first paragraph.
There is no burden on me to show that your writing is OR or SYNTH, the onus is decidedly on you to provide citations for everything which has been disputed. You have not done so, hence, your last three paragraphs are unacceptable.
Your arguments above are trite and unpersuasive, and vaguely insulting. Please provide citations from actual reliable sources, then we can talk again. Until you do, this is a waste of my time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If you don't enjoy arguing with me, Beyond My Ken, you can argue with yourself:

When guidelines are followed slavishly, with no allowance for deviation or experimentation, they are no longer guidelines, they are absolute rules. Since Wikipedia was made ex nihilo, if what was wanted was absolute rules, that's what would have been created – but, instead, we have guidelines, and the spirit of Wikipedia lies in treating them as such, as guidance and not as dogma...

... tendency towards fetishism applies as well to the proscription against "original research." While a ban on using Wikipedia to put forward novel theories that haven't been tested in the marketplace of ideas makes sense and is practical to enforce, the notion has been extended so far that it is being applied to simple observation and summarization, which are core requirements for any Wikipedia article. Not only is this ridiculous, it is untenable and unenforceable. If applied to the extent that some have attempted to, the entire encyclopedia would be gutted and unusable.

...quality of argumentation is generally overwhelmed by another unstated, but widely held de facto policy: Deletion beats retention. That is, arguments in favor of deleting something are almost always counted, whatever the quality of their presentation, while the most eloquent and logical arguments for keeping material are routinely ignored in favor of closed-minded and dogmatic enforcement of policies and guidelines.

This is from your user page, BMK

GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Those are my words, but they are from my "Thoughts" page [2], not from my user page [3]. Precision is a virtue (especially when writing Wikipedia articles).
In any case, I see nothing there that can be construed as a contradictory to anything I've said here - as always, moderation is important,and knowing when to apply what principle. It's also important to know the difference between policies – such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH – which are mandatory, guidelines – such as WP:MOS – which are advisory, and essays – such as WP:NOTSYNTH which are someone's opinion.
As I've said before, I see no value in continuing a discussion with you, especially when you seem more interested in ad hominems and opposition research then you are in actually following standard Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing. Please pick yourself another target from all the other editors above who also disagreed with you, perhaps one of them will fulfill your apparent desire for a food fight, since you're not going to get one from me. All I'm gong to do is revert anything you add to the article which does not have a consensus behind it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Short version:The rules are for the little people, not the big people like Beyond My Ken.

Well, let's talk OR then. In a December 6, 2004 archived note from Jimmy Wales attached to WP:OR, he and other editors agree that the rule was intended to prevent synthesis from primary sources. There are no primary sources in either one of the drafts above.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, yeah, right, absolutely.... I'm sorry, did you say something? I was distracted by a piece of dust on my glasses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
That's a serious mis-analysis of WP:POLICY anyway; policies are not "mandatory" and guidelines are not to be ignored as optional and vaguely advisory, meanwhile the community treats certain essays (like BRD) as part of policy in the broad sense. What matters is consensus (both explicitly agreed upon and observable in practice). An idea like "this essay wasn't written by an old-timer, so it doesn't matter" is invalid reasoning. The purpose of essays is not to set rules, but to write down reasoning so that one doesn't have to keep typing it out again and again. If you "cite" an essay like it's a rule document, you are making a mistake (conversely, ignoring an essay because it's not a rule is an equal but opposite mistake; it's saying "I have no argument to present against the position you've advanced as reasonable, I'm just refusing to consider it at all because it's not a law"). One refers to essays, as places where a rationale has been articulated.

NOTSYNTH needs some work, but this part of it is clearly completely correct: 'If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. ... [Y]ou should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable.' It's completely correct not because it's in an page with a shortcut, it's completely correct because that's how consensus and policy actually work here: you have to provide a rationale that other editors accept, otherwise you're just pissing in the wind.

Anyway, to return to what I opened with: the actual difference between policies and guidelines is the extent to which they matter; policies codify best practices that, aside from unusual IAR exceptions, are required for the encyclopedia project to function at all, while guidelines encode those that ensure that it runs smoothly. The well-reasoned essays (which usually have multiple editors' input, including to balance what was originally written) help the project run sensibly, efficiently, toward goals we can see clearly, etc.; their functions vary widely. Some of them are just opinions, some of them are processes, some are "how to do it right" checklists (e.g. WP:AADD), some are supplementary material explaining application of a broad principle to a narrow circumstance, and so on. We also have things that bear none of these labels at all, yet are strongly a part of the community consensus; such meta-policy includes WP:Common sense and WP:Five pillars. So, to use someone else's word from above, do not fetishize {{Policy}} and other template headers on pages. The do not mean what you think they do.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Agreed with including the first paragraph and with the suggested tweaks to it. I share concerns about the rest of the material. It's not that it's wrong (it probably is not), it's just not sufficiently sourced, and it seems to be leading the reader. That said, I don't agree with the hair-splitting about economic appeasement in McDonough's sense and "economically-motivated appeasement". They're both appeasement mediated via economics. The problem here is that someone wants to assign, in Wikipedia's own voice, the narrow McDonough sense to the exact string economic appeasement. But he didn't actually use it; he wrote "No understanding of appeasement can ignore the importance of economic factors." So, we are in fact free to use "economic appeasement" in a broader sense, i.e. "simple observation and summarization, which are core requirements for any Wikipedia article".

    Our standard operating procedure is to group together elements of the "story" which have something in common (e.g., economics); these eventually develop into sections. The discrete things in such a section (here, Britain's avoidance of creating a war machine and the UK direct attempts to appease Germany, motivated in part to avoid deficit spending, and Hollywood's avoidance of portraying the Nazis in a cold light and the studios' indirect attempts to appease Germany, motivated in large part to avoid commercial losses from censorship or outright embargoing of their product in particular jurisdictions) should not be directly compared and treated as analogous or the result of the same cause-effect pattern (though a superficially similar one is clearly evident); we should just thematically grouped them for the readers, absent additional sourcing that provides more analysis. WP:OR prevents us leaping to and spelling out conclusions, but it doesn't prevent us subtopically grouping stuff in the article (which necessarily results in juxtaposed summary material in the lead: Some appeasement was economic, e.g. by the UK doing X and Hollywood doing Y.

    I agree that "In the United States, economic appeasement was an openly stated policy" looks like an OR leap. It may well be true, but we have to have a source that indicates this (what is the name of the policy and who stated it?).
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a specific primary source mentioned for US government policy (although its importance is questionable since primary sources are considered inferior for WP's purposes) on page 121 of David Schmitz's book, which I linked the original reference to—

On 19 April [1938], the president released a statement that the US had urged "the promotion of peace through the finding of means for economic appeasement."

Also, look at the McDonough pages and you'll see the entire chapter—Chapter 9— which they come from is entitled "Economic Appeasement"-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

So quote the presidential statement, without the OR leap to it being an official policy of the US government. (And WP:PRIMARY is not kind of issue at all when it comes to the veracity of a quotation). Presidents say things all the time that the government doesn't adopt as operating policy. The statement is significant and should be included, but we're not permitted to do original analysis of its import or real-world impact. It's also good that we have McDonough using the exact phrase "economic appeasement", after all, to mean one particular thing, and an analysis of Hollywood's approach to Nazi Germany using it in another; it further cements that it's entirely permissible, not original research, for us to to use the phrase broadly: we have proof of breadth of usage in RS.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, look on pages 113 and 114 of Schmitz's book. Economic appeasement was "settled on" by the administration. It was "well-developed" in the State Department. No OR there at all.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Change of draft[edit]

  • GPRamirez5: You have been changing your draft after the original draft has been discussed by other editors. This is not allowed, as it makes it appear as if the subsequent discussion was about your altered draft, rather than about the original draft. Because of this, under the authority of WP:TPO, I am returning your draft to its original version, and posting the altered draft below.
    Onlookers: Please note that this is not my work, but the work of GPRamirez5, nor do I agree that his altered draft is acceptable for the article. My position remains the same, that only the first paragraph is acceptable, in the form that I posted above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Correction from GPRamirez5: Outside of some added detail to the endnotes, I have made no unannounced alterations. The new draft was announced as such. Onlookers, please be aware that the rule cited by Beyond My Ken has not been broken as the endnotes are my own contribution, not that of another user.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact is, User:Beyond My Ken, that as a very involved and partisan editor in this discussion, you should not be editing or reframing other people's work here at all. It's fairly transparent that since the specific quotations about economic appeasement—quotations you requested—bolster my case, you would now like to marginalize that and put a prejudicial frame around it. You are the one violating WP:TPO. I am now going to mitigate this violation by giving the draft the appropriate title of "Draft II with Updated Endnotes." -GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No objections from me. Just be certain that if there is discussion about Draft II, you do not change it retroactively, but instead post a new draft, so that it will be clear that the old comments are referring to Draft II, and that any new comments are referring to Draft III. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That would be helpful. "You are violating [foo]" invective is not (even in cases where it can be argued to be true); that just makes things personal and adversarial instead of more like a meeting to work together on the content.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


Draft II with Updated Endnotes

According to historian Frank McDonough, “No understanding of appeasement can ignore the importance of economic factors. The British desire for peace was quite clearly linked to its role as a major trading nation with world-wide economic and imperial interests,” The British were concerned with the vast commercial losses that could be incurred in fighting the Germans.[1] In 1944, Karl Polanyi wrote that, “England’s military unpreparedness was mainly a result of adherence to gold standard economics,” and the accompanying aversion to deficit spending. Britain would have to make every effort to avoid armed confrontation in order to satisfy this monetary policy. Economic appeasement—the term used by Paul Einzig,[2] Frank McDonough, Paul N. Hehn, [3]and many other scholars— meant steady trade with the Nazis, as Germany emerged as Britain’s largest exporter in the 1930s after India.[4] This ran counter to the Jewish community’s call for a boycott of Germany.[5]

In January 1939, London and Berlin representative s helped negotiate an Anglo-German coal cartel. A major trade conference commenced in Dusseldorf that March, although government participation was disrupted by the Prague crisis. The Federation of British Industries and other trade groups proceeded with the meetings nonetheless. By the eve of the war, the two countries had 133 trade agreements in effect. The governments discreetly continued negotiations in the summer, most famously with a series of meetings between Overseas Trade Secretary Robert Hudson and Helmuth Wohlthat, Hermann Goring's assistant. The Hudson-Wohlthat meetings contemplated granting African colonies to Germany, among other concessions. [6] Overall analysis of economic appeasement faces challenges owing to the lack of linearity and transparency in the states' activity—For example, it was official policy that Germany not be granted any loans, but the Bank of England, with the government's knowledge, secretly extended a £750,000 credit to Berlin in July 1934.[7]

In the United States, economic appeasement was an openly stated policy. Franklin Roosevelt believed that Hitler's aggression was motivated by Germany's economic woes and the US president sought to mitigate them.[8] He was supported in this by businessmen like James D. Mooney of General Motors, whose company collaborated with Germany through the Opel subsidiary. During the early months of the war, Roosevelt, Mooney, and Joseph Kenney briefly worked together exploring the possibility of a large loan to Germany in exchange for Hitler ceasing his attacks, but the Nazi leader had little interest.[9]

With the knowledge of the US government, the American film industry catered consciously to Germany. While some film moguls, notably Jack Warner, were consistently anti-Nazi, most major Hollywood studios worked directly with the German Consul Georg Gyssling up until 1940. Under Gyssling's guidance, they censored films for anti-fascist or pro-Jewish sentiment, even for the versions distributed outside of Germany.[10][11] [12]

References

  1. ^ Frank McDonough, Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War, pp. 133-136
  2. ^ "…the bankers directly participated in that aspect of the strategy known as 'economic appeasement'…an effort by the City of London, the Treasury, and the Bank of England to keep Germany integrated with the international financial system by granting one-sided economic concessions." Kirshner, Jonathan (2007-10-28). Appeasing Bankers: Financial Caution on the Road to War. Princeton University Press. pp. 27–28. ISBN 0691134618. 
  3. ^ Hehn, Paul N. (2005-09-26). A Low, Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe and the Economic Origins of World War II. A&C Black. ISBN 9780826417619. 
  4. ^ “The [Anglo-German] Payments Agreement remained in force until after the outbreak of war. Until the very last months of peace, the hope that some form of economic cooperation could lead to political negotiations was never totally disregarded…The Americans dismissed the British government’s claims that these industrial agreements were of a private nature…The government’s unwillingness to denounce the [Dusseldorf] agreement was taken as a sign that the diplomatic protests against the German action in Czechoslovakia were not seriously meant.” Steiner, Zara (2011-03-31). The Triumph of the Dark: European International History 1933-1939. Oxford University Press. pp. 701–707. ISBN 9780199212002. 
  5. ^ "…a boycott ran counter to the policy of ‘economic appeasement’ in which the British Government was engaged in the early years of the Nazi regime. It is worth remembering that in the United States the boycott was officially supported by the American Jewish Congress." Alderman, Geoffrey (1998). Modern British Jewry. Clarendon Press. p. 274. ISBN 9780198207597. 
  6. ^ Shore, Zachary (2005-02-24). What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199924073. 
  7. ^ McDonough, Frank (1998). Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War. Manchester University Press. p. 141. ISBN 9780719048326. 
  8. ^ "On 19 April [1938], the president released a statement that the US had urged 'the promotion of peace through the finding of means for economic appeasement.'"Schmitz, David F. (2009-09-15). Thank God They're on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965. Univ of North Carolina Press. pp. 120–122. ISBN 9780807875964. 
  9. ^ Turner, Henry Ashby (2005). General Motors and the Nazis: The Struggle for Control of Opel, Europe's Biggest Carmaker. Yale University Press. pp. 108–126. ISBN 0300106343. 
  10. ^ "…Hollywood’s reaction to the rise of Fascism was one of economically motivated appeasement…"The Oxford History of World Cinema edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (Oxford University Press, 1997), p.245
  11. ^ "Film's golden era was tarnished by appeasement." Anthony Quinn, "The Collaboration: Hollywood's Pact with Hitler by Ben Urwand – review", The Guardian, October 16, 2013
  12. ^ Urwand, Ben (2013-09-10). The Collaboration. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674728356. 
  • @Chris troutman, as I've pointed out before, OR is intended to prevent synthesis of primary sources. In a December 6, 2004 archived note from Jimmy Wales attached to WP:OR, he and other editors agree on this. There are no primary sources in either one of the drafts above. Also be aware of Draft II above, which processes some criticism and gives quotes from secondary sources in support of its claims. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    Actually read the WP:NOR policy closely; there is no exemption for doing your own WP:AIES original research if you do it only by drawing on secondary sources. Any conclusion you come to or imply to the reader has to also be found in a secondary source. In more specific terms, all analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis of claims must have a secondary source. The fact that NOR policy originated because novel AEIS by editors was mostly being done with primary source material doesn't create a magic loophole for doing it with secondary or tertiary sources. And the community has not cared what Jimbo's opinion about something is since the mid-to-late 2000s, after which he surrendered his role as "mega-admin" and effective benevolent dictator and left the entire project to its own self-governance (he still retains veto power, but hasn't used it in over a decade as far as I know, not even in response to controversial ArbCom or other noticeboard actions). See also WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem.

    I still think there's some OR in this material. As just one example, "was supported in this by businessmen" (a plural and vague statement that implies widespread commercial support) is not demonstrated by a single sourced example of one businessman doing something, nor does that one case actually have any connection to Rooselvelt; it was Mooney protecting his own business interests, not doing something on behalf of the US president.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  • SMcCandlish, Chris troutman, re: "was supported in this by businessmen" and OR claim. Page 108 of the book states: "Like many others in the upper echelons of government and business…he advocated adoption of financial and trade policies that would assure Germany of an abundant supply of food and access to raw materials sufficient to supply its peacetime industries. Once such measures were in effect, he was confident that the Nazi regime would curtail its military preparations." - GPRamirez5 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    Part of the problem here is that there may be sufficient sourcing for some more expansive claims, but you are making the expansive claims without this sourcing, until the claims are under threat, then you're finally producing some corroborating RS. That's not how we operate, and it's making this entire discussion turn into a morass. It should be written and sourced properly the first time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes that could be part of the problem, SMcCandlish, but there is another part. One of the WP:Five Pillars is WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. From day one I cited specific page numbers or linked to specific phrases on Google books. To those who were unable or unwilling to look at those links, I spelled out the relevant quotes when asked, and almost every single one of those quotes explicitly referenced economic appeasement with the fascists.

Whatever healthy skepticism of my competence as a researcher or interpreter was justified initially should've been satisfied with the second or third quotation I provided. Why is it being assumed that my sources are misrepresented? And as per WP:NOTSYNTH, I must ask exactly what false impression are you suggesting my edit gives? - GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

AGF applies to assumptions about editorial intent; I don't think anyone's challenging yours (I'm not; I think what you're trying to write about the topic is historically correct, but we need to get that analysis from secondary sources). AGF doesn't mean "assume truth" or "assume policy compliance". WP:V requires that information we publish be verifiable; it doesn't have to be verified in an RS, unless challenged or of a controversial nature. This has been challeged and anything to do with the Nazis is controversial by its very nature, so verifiable-but-not-yet-verified is out the window twice over. Doesn't have anything to do with your motives, but the nature of the material and how editors and readers approach it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, as I understand it, legitimate challenges occur when another editor presents their own RS which contradicts the contributor's RS. Without that, challenges are liable to be nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Also: I have fulfilled all the requirements in the "Original Research" section of WP:V

1. "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source." Check. Almost every single sentence has its own RS annotation.

2."Sources must support the material clearly and directly" Check.I have provided direct quotations for nearly half the endnotes, and am able to demonstrate relevance from all of them.

3."Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." Check. As I've already pointed out, there are no primary sources among these notes.

-Yours, GPRamirez5 (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Re: Jimmy Wales. It isn't primarily Wales' involvement that leads me to cite that message, it's the fact that it is linked from the WP:OR page itself, much as WP:NOTSYNTH is. It shows agreement among other founding editors besides Wales.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@GPRamirez5: You're still trying to create a narrative that the sources don't explicate. Unless the sources say economic appeasement then you can't contrue them to mean that. I suggest WP:DROPTHESTICK before you end up at WP:AN. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Um yeah, Chris troutman, make sure you have a look at the updated endnotes before reporting me to ANI. WP:BOOMERANG ain't pretty.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
None of this chest-beating is helpful, from either side. The fact is that various claims and implications made in the draft material are not RS-supported or not sufficiently RS-supported. If they can be, then they should be. If they cannot be, then have to come out.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

  • Outside of some added detail to the endnotes, I have made no unannounced alterations. The new draft was announced as such. Onlookers, please be aware that the rule cited by Beyond My Ken has not been broken as the endnotes are my own contribution, not that of another user.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:REDACT:

    So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely.

    But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. (emphasis added)

    Also, please do not insert comments in the middle of others' posts, as you did with "Clarification", since it fouls up the chronology of the discussion. I have moved it to the proper place, after the post it is commenting on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
And I reiterate that I did not alter the original draft. I produced a new and different draft and clearly labeled it as such. Please don't make the mistake of slandering me again. I'm keeping score.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Also for the record, I didn't break up any comment of yours, as my comment appeared after your signature, not above it.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Status of the RfC[edit]

As far as I can tell, no one has yet agreed with GPRamirez5 that (any version) of his draft of a new "Economic Appeasement" section is suitable for the article. There are two people, including myself, who agreed with the edited version of the first paragraph that I made, and no one else has commented on that.

In short, at this moment, only days from the usual 30-day limit for an RfC, there does not seem to be any agreement with GPRamirez's arguments, and very little additional participation, despite GPRamirez5's quasi-canvassing post at WP:NORN. [4] ("Canvassing" because the post was not neutral, as required, since GPR lays out his argument; "quasi-", because there are indeed significant WP:SYNTHESIS issues in GPR's drafts.)

Once the 30-day limit is over, I will be requesting a close from an uninvolved editor, since without one it appears that this discussion could go on forever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The request for closure is already initiated. It is neutrally worded as my requests always are.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken has distorted the situation yet again, so I have to clarify: There is no consensus of refusal. SMcCandlish has said Yes with reservations, Pelarmian has said No with reservations, and Horst59 still needs to commit. I hope all parties will give their final thoughts in the next few days, particularly about Draft II -GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I've added a few more comments, but my overall impression is that this is stymied. We can't add this expansive material, about which too many editors have OR concerns, though we can add some isolated facts from particular sources, and group them together as economic. The desire to paint a sweeping picture of programs of economic appeasement, with various conceptual links between them, isn't sufficiently supported by RS (at this point).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Since reading the comments of editors better acquainted with the sources than me, I now say No unequivocally. Pelarmian (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, none of the editors was previously acquainted with the sources, not even with Frank McDonough's book. To whom are you referring, Pelarmian? -GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead[edit]

Per User:Beyond My Ken's reversion of my edit to the lead, I was following the recommendation in a peer review of the article that leads should summarize the entire article. The lead at present does not. I would welcome discussion on this question. Pelarmian (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the recommendation I refer to: "The lead is inadequate at present. According to WP:LEAD it should be an overview of the whole article, rather thn a brief intro to the subject. There is plenty in the article that is not touched on in the lead." User:Brianboulton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Appeasement/archive1 Pelarmian (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The peer review is from 2010. It isn't referring to this lead, which is only a few months old.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
At the time of the peer review, the lede read:

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." The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany between 1937 and 1939. His policies of avoiding war with Germany have been the subject of intense debate for seventy years among academics, politicians and diplomats. The historian's assessment of Chamberlain has ranged from condemnation for allowing Hitler to grow too strong, to the judgment that he had no alternative and acted in Britain's best interests. At the time, these concessions were widely seen as positive, and the Munich Pact among Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy prompted Chamberlain to announce that he had secured "peace for our time".

The word "appeasement" has been used as a synonym for cowardice since the 1930s and it is still used in that sense today as a justification for firm, often armed, action in international relations.

In comparison, the current lede reads:

Appeasement in an international context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict. The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of the British Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy between 1935 and 1939.

At the beginning of the 1930s, such concessions were widely seen as positive due to the trauma of World War I, second thoughts about the treatment of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, and a perception among the upper-classes that fascism was a healthy form of anti-communism. However, by the time of the Munich Pact—concluded on 30 September 1938 among Germany, Britain, France, and Italy—the policy was opposed by most of the British left and Labour Party; by Conservative dissenters like Winston Churchill and Duff Cooper; and even by Anthony Eden, a former proponent of appeasement. As alarm grew about the rise of fascism in Europe, Chamberlain resorted to news censorship to control public opinion. Nonetheless, Chamberlain confidently announced after Munich that he had secured "peace for our time".

The policies have been the subject of intense debate for more than seventy years among academics, politicians, and diplomats. The historians' assessments have ranged from condemnation for allowing Adolf Hitler's Germany to grow too strong, to the judgment that British leaders had no alternative and acted in their country's best interests.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Go with the revised lead as a new draft; if there's some issue with a bit of it, that can be copyedited (e.g. we can drop an emotive word like "intense", remove the incorrect hyphenation of "upper classes", etc.). The old lead is a train wreck, which is why the PR flagged it for improvement. Any article that begins with 'Topic name is "huge-ass quotation here."' is generally making a mistake, since it's relying on a single off-site editorial voice to frame the subject, and we're skirting our "job" as encyclopedia writers to encapsulate the overall RS view of the subject in new wording. Per WP:LEAD, we're also supposed to a summarize the gist of the entire article in the lead, not just provide a teaser. I do not mean to ignore any concerns BMK my have; rather, I think those will be addressed by massaging the revision a bit. If length is a concern, remove some of the name-dropping.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC) PS: Something about contemporary informal use of appeasement to mean cowardice should probably be kept, and we might further reduce some detail about the ca. 1940s origin of the implications-laden meaning, since the term is used more broadly now, and our article is about the concept, not just about British appeasement of Germany leading up to WWII.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, the scholarship takes precedence over the popular press, and the scholarship tends to emphasize the thirties. But if you're interested in the press uses, you can check out the very last subsection of this article-- "Changing attitudes:Politicians". It's also discussed well in the last few paragraphs of that Diplomacy and Statecraft article. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    Scholarly sources don't determine WP article scope; WP consensus determines that. The scholarly sources determine the scope(s) of the meaning(s) of the term in scholarly sources. E.g., Provenience redirects to Provenance, a general word about which we have an article with encyclopedic information on what it (under both spellings) means in different contexts, including the scholarly sense of provenance in art history, and the scholarly sense of provenience in archaeology, cultural anthropology, paleontology, and related fields, and how that differs from provenance in those fields (which in turn isn't quite the same as in art history, though close). If it turns out that some other topic – forensics, or video gaming, or you name it, also has a specialized, contextually constrained meaning for the term, we'll cover that, too. Frankly, I would be surprised if "appeasement" doesn't already have some additional term-of-art meanings in particular literature that we have not dug up yet due to the current editorial focus on Nazi. (If so, and the additional meaning(s) is/are sharply divergent, e.g. one is a principle in psychology, then they might need to be separate articles, e.g. as we've done with Logorrhea (psychology) and Logorrhea (rhetoric), with really have nothing in common other than the word and both having some connection to words.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    PS: My instinct on that appears to have been correct [5].  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The only problem with the current lead I think is the opening, which is a bit clunky. Better would be something like:
Appeasement is the policy of making concessions to an aggressive nation in order to avoid conflict. The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, although historians agree that it also extends back to previous prime ministers Ramsay MacDonald and Stanley Baldwin in their treatment of both Germany and Fascist Italy.
-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, the current lead is more informative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)