Skip to content

Appeasement

Appeasement

A World News Article

So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another. EPHESIANS 4 -25

“The one sure way to conciliate a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured.” Konrad Adenauer – German statesman and the first post-war Chancellor of Germany (West Germany)

A definition from Dictionary.com

  1. To bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry King
  2. To satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger
  3. To yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.From Wikipedia:

Appeasement in a political context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an enemy power in order to avoid conflict.[1]

The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of the 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 historians’ assessments have ranged from condemnation for allowing Adolf Hitler‘s Germany 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 concluded on 30 September 1938 among Germany, Britain, France, and Italy prompted Chamberlain to announce that he had secured “peace for our time.”[2]

How did that work for Great Brittan?

In the late 1950’s, we had a civics teacher (you all remember civics, don’t you?) that told us, “All Hitler wanted was peace……….a piece of Poland, a Piece of Czechoslovakia, a piece of Hungary……”

World War II is not that long ago, only 70 years to be exact. Surely we haven’t forgotten! Appeasement of someone that intends us harm and does not have the same goals, aspirations and value systems that we do, only works for the aggressor!! Appeasement to the aggressor is a sign of weakness! Surly this isn’t a new or unique concept! I don’t believe it’s an original thought with me.

More from Wikipedia:

As the policy of appeasement failed to prevent war, those who advocated it were quickly criticized. Appeasement came to be seen as something to be avoided by those with responsibility for the diplomacy of Britain or any other democratic country. By contrast, the few who stood out against appeasement were seen as “voices in the wilderness whose wise counsels were largely ignored, with almost catastrophic consequences for the nation in 1939–40”.[15] More recently, however, historians have questioned the accuracy of this simple distinction between appeasers and anti-appeasers. “Few appeasers were really prepared to seek peace at any price; few, if any, anti-appeasers were prepared for Britain to make a stand against aggression whatever the circumstances and wherever the location in which it occurred.”[15]

“Not being prepared to make a stand against aggression, whatever the circumstances and wherever the location” may be the world’s epitaph when Iran and their ilk have access to nuclear weapons.

One of the first lessons of warfare is Know Your Enemy! Surely, by now even the most naive among us must realize we’re not fighting a state, but an evil ideology. These perpetrators view benevolence and kindnesses as weakness.

“A certain degree of preparation for war is not only indispensable to avert disasters in the onset, but affords also the best security for the continuance of peace.” James Madison, 4th US President, Democratic-Republican

Sadly, there are a number of parallels in our country now, to those present in Great Brittan back then.

1) They were not militarily ready (we continue to defund, underfund and reduce our standing army and drastically reduce military budgets and preparedness)

2) Widespread pacifisms & war-weariness

3) Recent economic down-turns not conducive to re-armament

4) Germany and Italy (now Iran) realized the democracies (USA today – the sole superpower) were/are seeking to avoid confrontation.

I suppose, from time to time, in dire circumstances, appeasement may serve a purpose. In the case of a crying baby at a public performance, a bottle may appease. In the case of an unruly six-year-old, and ice cream cone may appease. In the case of a surly adolescent, a shopping trip to the mall may appease. But we all know, these appeasements serve only as a brief respite and will never suffice in the long run. The same is true in appeasing an entity avowed to destroy us.

Radical Islam is teaching hate and killing. We’re being served benevolence and appeasement.

Are we being “Sensitivity Trained” into submission?

We remain in the age-old battle between good and evil and the battle continues and is on-going!

Appeasement is fine as long as both parties are of like mind and inclination (this is generally considered compromise). But when one party clearly isn’t, the appeaser will lose.

“Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either.” C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity

“Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice.” G.K. Chesterton – ILN, 9/11/09

Not wanting a war, not being prepared for war, being kind and conciliatory toward the aggressor, does not dissuade them from aggressive tactics When an enemy displays, time, after time they lie and are untrustworthy – no agreement, no treaty, no sanctions will dissuade them from their intended goal!!

Iran is not to be trusted………..particularly in any kind of agreement or treaty where nuclear weapons are concerned…….period!!

To have politicians tell us the current agreement regarding Iran is the best way to insure against their obtaining a nuclear weapon is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. Just because they are naive and/or stupid (politicians advocating this agreement) doesn’t mean the American people should suffer the consequence of their decisions!

      • “When people talk as if the Crusades were nothing more than an aggressive raid against Islam, (a sentiment recently expressed by Barack Obama) they seem to forget in the strangest way that Islam itself was only an aggressive raid against the old and ordered civilization in these parts. I do not say it in mere hostility to the religion of Mahomet; I am fully conscious of many values and virtues in it; but certainly it was Islam that was the invasion and Christendom that was the thing invaded.” G.K. Chesterton, The Way of the Desert, The New Jerusalem
      • “The effort of the Crusades was sufficient to stop the advance of Islam, but not sufficient to exhaust it. A few centuries after, the Moslem attacked once more, with modern weapons and in a more indifferent age; and, amid the disputes of diplomatists and the dying debates of the Reformation, he succeeded in sailing up the Danube and nearly becoming a central European Power like Poland or Austria. From this position, after prodigious efforts, he was slowly and painfully dislodged. But Austria, though rescued, was exhausted and reluctant to pursue, and the Turk was left in possession of the countries he had devoured in his advance.” G.K. Chesterton – ILN, Oct. 10, 1914

“More men are guilty of treason through weakness than any studied design to betray.” Francois De La Rochefoucauld – A noted French author of maxims and memoirs

With this most recent attack in Paris, it is evident that jihadist are being concealed in and among Syrian refugees, to gain entrance into benevolent and vulnerable countries. In response, France shut down all their borders, disallowing admission to anyone.

Our President has allowed 1,000 Syrian refugees into the United States and wants to allow entrance to 10,000 more.

How do we think Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower or John F. Kennedy would deal with our current geopolitical situation? I doubt appeasement would be a consideration.

Appeasement

“The one sure way to conciliate a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured.” Konrad Adenauer – German statesman and the first post-war Chancellor of Germany (West Germany)

A definition from Dictionary.com

  1. To bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry King
  2. To satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger
  3. To yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.From Wikipedia:

Appeasement in a political context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an enemy power in order to avoid conflict.[1]

The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of the 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 historians’ assessments have ranged from condemnation for allowing Adolf Hitler‘s Germany 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 concluded on 30 September 1938 among Germany, Britain, France, and Italy prompted Chamberlain to announce that he had secured “peace for our time.”[2]

How did that work for Great Brittan?

In the late 1950’s, we had a civics teacher (you all remember civics, don’t you?) that told us, “All Hitler wanted was peace……….a piece of Poland, a Piece of Czechoslovakia, a piece of Hungary……”

World War II is not that long ago, only 70 years to be exact. Surely we haven’t forgotten! Appeasement of someone that intends us harm and does not have the same goals, aspirations and value systems that we do, only works for the aggressor!! Appeasement to the aggressor is a sign of weakness! Surly this isn’t a new or unique concept! I don’t believe it’s an original thought with me.

More from Wikipedia:

As the policy of appeasement failed to prevent war, those who advocated it were quickly criticized. Appeasement came to be seen as something to be avoided by those with responsibility for the diplomacy of Britain or any other democratic country. By contrast, the few who stood out against appeasement were seen as “voices in the wilderness whose wise counsels were largely ignored, with almost catastrophic consequences for the nation in 1939–40”.[15] More recently, however, historians have questioned the accuracy of this simple distinction between appeasers and anti-appeasers. “Few appeasers were really prepared to seek peace at any price; few, if any, anti-appeasers were prepared for Britain to make a stand against aggression whatever the circumstances and wherever the location in which it occurred.”[15]

“Not being prepared to make a stand against aggression, whatever the circumstances and wherever the location” may be the world’s epitaph when Iran and their ilk have access to nuclear weapons.

One of the first lessons of warfare is Know Your Enemy! Surely, by now even the most naive among us must realize we’re not fighting a state, but an evil ideology. These perpetrators view benevolence and kindnesses as weakness.

“A certain degree of preparation for war is not only indispensable to avert disasters in the onset, but affords also the best security for the continuance of peace.” James Madison, 4th US President, Democratic-Republican

Sadly, there are a number of parallels in our country now, to those present in Great Brittan back then.

!) They were not militarily ready (we continue to defund, underfund and reduce our standing army and drastically reduce military budgets and preparedness)

2) Widespread pacifisms & war-weariness

3) Recent economic down-turns not conducive to re-armament

4) Germany and Italy (now Iran) realized the democracies (USA today – the sole superpower) were/are seeking to avoid confrontation.

I suppose, from time to time, in dire circumstances, appeasement may serve a purpose. In the case of a crying baby at a public performance, a bottle may appease. In the case of an unruly six-year-old, and ice cream cone may appease. In the case of a surly adolescent, a shopping trip to the mall may appease. But we all know, these appeasements serve only as a brief respite and will never suffice in the long run. The same is true in appeasing an entity avowed to destroy us.

Radical Islam is teaching hate and killing. We’re being served benevolence and appeasement.

Are we being “Sensitivity Trained” into submission?

We remain in the age-old battle between good and evil and the battle continues and is on-going!

Appeasement is fine as long as both parties are of like mind and inclination (this is generally considered compromise). But when one party clearly isn’t, the appeaser will lose.

“Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either.” C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity

“Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice.” G.K. Chesterton – ILN, 9/11/09

Not wanting a war, not being prepared for war, being kind and conciliatory toward the aggressor, does not dissuade them from aggressive tactics When an enemy displays, time, after time they lie and are untrustworthy – no agreement, no treaty, no sanctions will dissuade them from their intended goal!!

Iran is not to be trusted………..particularly in any kind of agreement or treaty where nuclear weapons are concerned…….period!!

To have politicians tell us the current agreement regarding Iran is the best way to insure against their obtaining a nuclear weapon is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. Just because they are naive and/or stupid (politicians advocating this agreement) doesn’t mean the American people should suffer the consequence of their decisions!

      • “When people talk as if the Crusades were nothing more than an aggressive raid against Islam, (a sentiment recently expressed by Barack Obama) they seem to forget in the strangest way that Islam itself was only an aggressive raid against the old and ordered civilization in these parts. I do not say it in mere hostility to the religion of Mahomet; I am fully conscious of many values and virtues in it; but certainly it was Islam that was the invasion and Christendom that was the thing invaded.” G.K. Chesterton, The Way of the Desert, The New Jerusalem
      • “The effort of the Crusades was sufficient to stop the advance of Islam, but not sufficient to exhaust it. A few centuries after, the Moslem attacked once more, with modern weapons and in a more indifferent age; and, amid the disputes of diplomatists and the dying debates of the Reformation, he succeeded in sailing up the Danube and nearly becoming a central European Power like Poland or Austria. From this position, after prodigious efforts, he was slowly and painfully dislodged. But Austria, though rescued, was exhausted and reluctant to pursue, and the Turk was left in possession of the countries he had devoured in his advance.” G.K. Chesterton – ILN, Oct. 10, 1914

“More men are guilty of treason through weakness than any studied design to betray.” Francois De La Rochefoucauld – A noted French author of maxims and memoirs

With this most recent attack in Paris, it is evident that jihadist are being concealed in and among Syrian refugees, to gain entrance into benevolent and vulnerable countries. In response, France shut down all their borders, disallowing admission to anyone.

Our President has allowed 1,000 Syrian refugees into the United States and wants to allow entrance to 10,000 more.

How do we think Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower or John F. Kennedy would deal with our current geopolitical situation? I doubt appeasement would be a consideration.

7 Comments

  1. Brooke Brooke

    Billy I have a friend that is retired from NASA and he assures me this will be the bloodiest war in history, men women children pets all will be destroyed, they finally pissed France off after 100 years and now the “sleeping giant is awake” God have mercy on their souls. It saddens me that children will be involved in this total massacre but they are being trained to fight just like their fathers. So France will have no mercy! I dread to hear the number count but if you read the news the strikes have begun and they wont end until they are all dead.

    My friend warned me this was coming and said to prepare myself for the death count!

    Wish you well my friend,
    just felt compelled to share these thoughts

  2. M Burton M Burton

    Very well said Dad, enjoy as always your thought on these matters. Nice insight.

  3. John John

    Another well researched report. Much support is offered to the reader as well as a sincere attempt to understand initial feelings that seem well intended but history showes time after time don’t hold up or accomish a desired result.

    • BurtonB BurtonB

      Thanks, John! Always appreciate your insight.

  4. Bobbi Townsrnd Bobbi Townsrnd

    Billy, your writing is very interesting and reflective.
    I am happy that you are using your blog to express your thoughts
    and beliefs.
    I do feel concern that all persons of the Islam religion are being
    blamed for the possible actions of radicals.
    Five months ago , nine innocent blacks were killed in their church in Charleston by a young white man who had sat ,for an hour,with this prayer group before the killings . Some reports of this horrendous event called it terrorism. The young man arrested for the killing of nine people looks like a clean cut young white Christian man.
    However , I heard no one suggest that all white men or all Southern men or all Christians were to be held accountable.
    It does seem to me that appeasement is less of an issue than prejudice. Please, understand that I am not calling you prejudiced. You are my dear friend and I do not see prejudice in you. I see an intelligent man who has chosen a good medium to raise questions, express ideas and generate thoughtful responses. I sincerely hope that my response is considered a thoughtful sharing response on your blog sight.
    Your friend, Bobbi

    • BurtonB BurtonB

      I do and thank you. I recognize clearly that you can’t paint all parties with the same brush. However, in the case you cited, I’m satisfied there are any number of white people who will condemn the young Southerner’s actions, calling him redneck, racist, etc. I would be more inclined to be sympathetic to the “non-radical” members of Islam if I heard more of them (any of them) condemn the actions of the radicals. I would be more sympathetic, if any of them rose up against and spoke out against and made efforts to suppress such radicals. You may know better than I, but I don’t hear much protest, or outrage expressed by the “non-radical” Islamists. Certainly, that doesn’t justify painting them all with the same brush, but it does makes being broad-minded toward them a lot more difficult.
      I appreciate the fact that you have read some of my posts and I hope you will continue to read and share your thoughts. As I said in my opening remarks, it is not my intent to try to make everyone/anyone agree with me. I as expressing my thoughts and feelings (hopefully in a rational, unemotional manner) and welcome open-minded debate. Thanks Bobbi!

    • BurtonB BurtonB

      To expand on my response just a bit, while prejudice can certainly be an issue. However, prejudice and appeasement are two entirely separate and distinct things. And in the geopolitical matters about which I am concerned and attempted to address, prejudice is not the issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *