THE GOOD & THE BAD SIDES OF APPEASEMENT

"Good v. Bad When It Comes To Appeasement"

Tony Blankley in his most recent piece at Real Clear Politics has a piece discussing the history of appeasement and why appeasement will not work with the islamofreaks.

Blankley goes on to say that:

"appeasement -- in and of itself -- is neither inherently unwise nor immoral. It depends on the facts of each case."

He follows that up by giving a few examples of both good and bad versions of appeasement.

The "good" appeasement(s):

"...In 1862, during our civil war, in the Trent Affair, after a Union ship violated British maritime rights, the British threatened war if Lincoln didn't capitulate on the matter. His cabinet wanted war, but Lincoln "appeased" the British on the theory of "one war at a time." Bravo Abe the appeaser.
In 1555, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V signed the Religious Peace of Augsburg, whereby he gave in to the newly Protestant princes of his most Catholic empire and permitted them and their subjects to practice Lutheranism. He thereby delayed by 63 years the onset of the Thirty Years War -- which eventually killed 30-40 percent of the entire German population in Europe, plus vast numbers of Spanish, Swedes, Danes, French, Dutch, Italian and others.
...
Throughout the 19th century, the British Empire was constantly appeasing minor potentates around the world in order to keep them off the warpath. ..."


The "bad" appeasement(s):
"...
in the 1930s in England to describe the Ramsey McDonald/Stanley Baldwin/Neville Chamberlain British governments' policy of avoiding military conflict with Hitler's Germany by yielding to his territorial demands.
...
But it is important to note that prior to then, the term was typically used as a positive description of individual action, such as in the phrase "appeasements of Divine displeasures," (Ralph Cudworth, the Cambridge Platonist, 1678.)
Just so, the British governments of the 1930s thought they were acting both ethically and in the best interest of their people. While there were a few pro-Nazis and anti-Semites in Britain (mostly in the upper classes), Chamberlain and most of his government were neither.
They did think Germany had been unfairly dealt with in the Versailles Treaty after WWI. And they did think it reasonable, natural and more or less inevitable that the 80 million German-speaking people of Europe would be re-united under one nation. Thus they appeased Hitler's demand for the Rhineland, anschluss (union) with Austria and the invasion of the Sudetenland (German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia).
And if that were all Hitler had wanted, Chamberlain would have gone down in history as the 20th century's greatest statesman and peacemaker. (And Winston Churchill would have been remembered -- if he was remembered at all by the general public -- as an antique, Edwardian warmonger and troublemaker.)
..."


The most current calls for appeasement, made by the likes of Pat Buchanan, Michael Scheuer (author of "Imperial Hubris" & former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA) along with the majority of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, come hot & heavy on behalf of the islamofreaks:

"...the radical Islamists are irreconcilable and unlimited in their goals. And, they are expanding their reach into the broad grass roots of Islam throughout the world (including in Europe and the United States). ..."

PERTINENT LINKS:

Appeasement -- It Won't Work This Time

Imperial Hubris