Talk:Appeasement: Difference between revisions

Northern Ireland

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

Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia

Could you provide a source which says that Chamberlain was prepared to go to war over Czechoslovakia?

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

Too Many Quotes?

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

This needs a *LOT* of Improving

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

172

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

It hasn't improved much in the last year. Its major shortcoming as an encyclopedia article is that it is about the concept of appeasement rather than the policy of appeasement. The general reader consulting this article would surely expect, before anything else, an account of British policy towards Germany in the 1930s and Ireland in the 1920s. It's too long since I did my history degree for me to re-write it without a lot of work, but it should be re-written. Marshall46 (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

At some point, the article Appeasement of Hitler was spun off, but it apparently turned into a battleground for conspiracy theorists (the same ones trying to insert the same stuff into this article, towards the bottom of this page) and was AfD'ed and redirected here. I don't think the useful information from that article was ever added back into this one. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have started to peck away at this. I hope to say more about the failure of the League of Nations and the policy of collective security, the background of rearmament, the mood of pacifism, and what Chamberlain's actually did. Marshall46 (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited "Differing View of Appeasement", but it's still a bit of a mess. One passage says the understanding of "appeasement" has changed, but the following quotations fail to illustrate that. The following section needs to be incorporated into it, though that is bad as well, giving far too much weight to Taylor's "Origins of the Second World War", whose arguments were dismissed by many historians.

I have removed this passage: "However, appeasement has also been deemed successful by many historians; as with the 'bought' year of 1938-39. During this time, Britain rapidly increased military production. the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia thereby allowed the protection of the British Isles. It must also be pointed out that, in turn, Nazi Germany was able to significantly boost its military power in the time thus granted, and quite possibly to a greater extent than the Allies, particularly since the annexation of Czechoslovakia gave the Third Reich access to well-developed Czech industrial resources and significantly improved the Reich's strategic standing, particularly due to lengthening the border to the next victim, Poland." It is unsourced and reads like a bad school essay. Marshall46 (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

what drives us to war

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

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

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

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

To Repeat, needs LOTS of NPOVing

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

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

— J M Rice 23:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV-ing is good. Just do it!

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

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

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

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

The second sentence sets the tone of the entire article, essentially declaring Appeasement a good thing, when history repeatedly shows appeasement only hurts the appeaser, and often leads to greater belligerence by the appeased (the old “Give a bully your lunch money, and he wants your piggy bank too” argument); Even the examples cited in the article shows this (it does not show attempts to appease Norse Raiders by the French in the 8ᵗʰ Century, for example). The entire thing needs to be re-examined.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Hitler ready for war?

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

Needs a rewrite

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

--

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

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

Acceptance of Appeasement

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

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

---

Probably should not be an article of its own. As stated the policy of appeasement has varied with historic context. Thus appeasement should be addressed in a standalone manner for each of these historic events. This is especially true in that the dictionary definitions include the ever popular "peace at any price" before the "rational negotiation...etc" cited here. Historically the general meaning is probably closer to "yielding to any demands for tribute or territory due to self-perceived weakness with respect the demanding party". While the writer tries pass off the policy of appeasement as noble in itself, historically I do not see anyone presenting it as more positive than stalling for time: Britian trying to restore forces or Kennedy maneuvering versus the USSR in the Cold War". In no case was the yielding to demands done for the sake of peace but because the yielding party thought victory impossible or at least too costly at the moment. Just my IMHO. Thus my ending point that talk of appeasement belongs only in its historic context and not discussed as a separate philosophy of life or government since that idea has few adherents. Even Gandhi did not believe in appeasement as standing policy; instead he believed you could often win via nonviolent means. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

--

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

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

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

Appeasement in the 21st Century

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

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

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

Why "citation needed"?

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

Wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different views on Appeasement

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

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

Further quotations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As said by Winston Churchill:

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

References

Differing Perceptions of Appeasement In World War Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American view of appeasement

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

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

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

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

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

Britain's strategy of turning Germany eastwards to destroy USSR

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

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

FINKLE, Alvin (University of Arthabasca, Canada) "In Our Time : The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.193.194 (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it "revisionist history"?

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

For example this article in TIME 1939:

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

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

Also this article in Nov 1937:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, here is another source:

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

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

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

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

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

Why above source tosh?

Can you show me?

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

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

What about below source:

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

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

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

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

What about a source from historian Ludo Martens?

Is that okay?

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

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

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

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

So is his source okay?

Cheers.

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

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

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

It is a factual and truthful view.

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

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

It is 100% completely factual.

See:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html Yasis (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not making any judgment on the accuracy of the claims but if you try to source it to something that fails WP:V and WP:RS, as anything from PLP and the Communist party does, it will be removed. L0b0t (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What if I use historian Ludo Martens as a source? Cheers.

On September 1, Hitler attacked Poland. Britain and France were caught in their own trap. These two countries assisted in all of Hitler's adventures, hoping to use him against the Soviet Union.

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

Yasis (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lundo Martens is not considered an expert on this topic. He is, rather, a Stalinist apologist and propagandist. His work product fails WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lundo Martens is not considered an expert on this topic.

Who told you that?

Are you expert on historian Ludo Martens?

Cheers. Yasis (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, let me point out the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where one can present sources that have contested reliability, where experts can assess them. I strongly recommend you posting your sources there for evaluation, Yasis. Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So far as Wikipedians are concerned, I am an expert on Ludo Martens. He is a Belgian Stalinist (in the truest sense of the term) who wrote an apologia for Stalin in a futile, last-ditch effort to rehabilitate his reputation. That book is precisely the source which this user is attempting to use. It fails all policy criteria and any serious historical scrutiny. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

He is a Belgian Stalinist (in the truest sense of the term) who wrote an apologia for Stalin in a futile, last-ditch effort to rehabilitate his reputation.

Can you be more specific and quote texts from the source?

What does Ludo Martens' alleged Stalinist views have to do with the topic of appeasement? Seems to be two issues here.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131.html 218.186.64.87 (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not 2 different issues, his stalinist propaganda is why he fails as a reliable source and his work is not welcome in the encyclopedia. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Which part of work is Stalinist propaganda?

Can you quote from text?

Thanks.

218.186.64.87 (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You ask "Which part of work is Stalinist propaganda?" All of it, the very link you keep posting is to his book about Stalin. Stop being obtuse and let's keep the Larouchist and Stalinist nonsense out of the encyclopedia. You and user:Yassis have been spamming articles with this drivel for a while now and it needs to stop. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Stalinist" propaganda?

Can you quote specific passages from below source that is "stalinist" propaganda?

Thanks.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131.html 218.186.64.87 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the work itself is titled Another View of Stalin, it was written in 1994 by Ludo Martens, a Belgian Stalinist. He introduces his book thusly "Defending Stalin's work, essentially defending Marxism-Leninism, is an important, urgent task in preparing ourselves for class struggle under the New World Order". Also, the work you are linking to is hosted by the Progressive Labor Party. Their website is littered with such gems as "Progressive Labor Party (PLP) fights to smash capitalism -- wage slavery. While the bosses and their mouthpieces claim "communism is dead:" capitalism is the real failure for billions all over the world." Yasis, we have been over this many times already, these sources are part of the reason that Appeasement of Hitler was deleted; you have been shown by numerous editors that the place for these discussions is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So Defending Stalin is "Stalinist"?

That doesn't seem to be the correct definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

I don't see any "Stalinism" in below source:

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

218.186.64.146 (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This analysis of Chamberlain's policies has now been reported in the article as a far-left POV, with a reliable academic source (A.J.P.Taylor) and a contemporary attribution (the Communist MP, Willie Gallacher). Marshall46 (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Baldwin and Ramsey MacDonald

When talking about British foreign policy in the 1930s the article needs to say something about the policies of Neville Chamberlain's predecessors as prime minister, especially Stanley Baldwin. After all, Neville Chamberlain didn't invent the policy. One also needs to bear in mind that Chamberlain only became prime minister in May 1937. Quoting from a lyric is not an adequate substitute for a few lines of discussion. Norvo (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-write, August 2008

I have re-written this article.

I have separated the narrative of events from the interpretations given to them at the time and afterwards. I have absorbed the quotations into the body of the article.

I would request that that the tags at the top of the article be reviewed and removed if appropriate.

I recognize the argument put forward in the AfD debate on "Appeasement of Hitler" that all this is treated in separate articles, but I thought there was still a case for bringing the events together under "Appeasement". Marshall46 (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mussolini

This article at first discribed him as "dictator". This was changed to the more neutral "prime minister". I have changed that to "leader", which remains neutral but recognises that, at the time in question, he had adopted the titles "head of government" and "Duce of Fascism". Marshall46 (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

After the First World War

Churchill's quote about the conflict between Greece and Turkey following the break-up of the Ottoman Empire introduces some interesting new material, especially as it includes an early use of the word "appeasement". As the quote refers to events that haven't yet been mentioned in the article, I wonder if that conflict shouldn't be described earlier? I'm not very familiar with that episode and it's not referred to in the histories of appeasement that I've read. Was appeasement of Turkey sought by many politicians or was Churchill alone? Marshall46 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I added this quote which was in an Australian book as an aside to a discussion of the different opinions of Churchill, Lloyd George and Billy Hughes on the post-WWI Greek-Turkish war. Actually on re-reading, though I assumed Churchill was referring to appeasement of Turkish nationalism's desire to regain Smyrna and Thrace, it may be the quote refers to appeasement of Greek territorial ambitions. I can't add any more detail from the sources I have, I hope someone else can add and/or correct the details. Strayan (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Another source confirms that Churchill did indeed wish to appease Greece. I have made some changes and taken the material from the "reactions" section to the "events" section. Would you check the quote, please? I am sure that Churchill would have said "In this world ...", not "On this world ...". Marshall46 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The bomber will always get through

The fear of bombers was a significant contribution to the pacifism and appeasement of the 1930s, so this article is sufficiently relevant to be included under "See also". Marshall46 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. Thanks for your explanation. Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

POV summary

I deleted this from the opening passage: 'The policy of appeasement can be summed up in two ways: either "a misguided act of policy" or "An act of supreme folly and betrayal"'. This is POV and not an adequate summary of the section on changing attitudes to appeasement. Marshall46 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

As there has been no response to my request for an assessment, I have upgraded the article from "Start" to "B" myself. In my view it meets the six criteria for a B-class article. Marshall46 (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro para

I have removed from the intro Cioannac's statement that Hitler, having portrayed himself as a man of peace, waited until March 1939 to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia. I'm not sure what that was supposed to add. At Munich, Hitler made no claim to the rest of Czechoslovakia, so Munich can't be said to have deterred him from it. On the contrary, Chamberlain's appeasement is more likely to have encouraged him. Marshall46 (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I replaced this passage about the term "appeasement", which was removed without explanation: "The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany between 1937 and 1939." Marshall46 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph Kennedy / Chamberlain disconnect

To define appeasement in Kennedy's terms and then say Chamberlain is the figure to whom it's most often applied is somewhat misleading (as well as completely unsourced). The implication is that Kennedy's term is applied most often to Chamberlain and not the idea in general. If we are going to mention Chamberlain and his current political meaning in American politics then we also need a non-academic definition to show where he fits in. If we are going to claim that Chamberlain is most cited along with appeasement under Kennedy's definition then we need academic sources to back that up. gren グレン 15:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversial statements need sources, but it is not controversial to say that "appeasement" is most often applied to Chamberlain's policies. I suppose one could go through a dozen history books for citations, but that's rather like seeking citations for the statement that the earth goes round the sun. If you think they're needed, would you like to put them in? Marshall46 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But if we define appeasement as Kennedy's definition of appeasement then it is not self-evident to say that it is most often applied to Chamberlain. The common political definition is most often applied to Chamberlain and that is non-controversial but we are talking about a specific academic definition. gren グレン 13:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not self-evident, but if you have read any histories of the period you would know that the term is, in fact, always applied to Chamberlain. And if you read the section of the article on the way the term has subsequently been used by politicians, you will see that they invariably refer to the appeasement of Nazi Germany. Marshall46 (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

German population of the Sudetanland

If there is controversy over the designation of the German, or German-speaking, population of the Sudetanland, editors should discuss it here and not simply revert. As far as I can see, it is more accurate, and more in accord with the usage of historians, to describe this population as "German" or "ethnic Germans". I suppose the editor who insists on substituting "German-speaking" wishes to say that they were Czechs and not ethnic Germans at all. (Please note that he has made several edits in Wikipedia to promote a Czech nationalist POV.) But see Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918–1938) - Marshall46 (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Cowardice"

The word "cowardice" was tagged "weasel words". The sentence reports the way the word "appeasement" has been used since about 1940. In this there is nothing "evasive, ambiguous, or misleading" (the Wikipedia definition of "weasel words"), so I have removed the tag. Marshall46 (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Liebovitz and Finkel

Their minority view has been added, but it has been badly summarised.

It is bad history. It ignores the fact that appeasement was popular in Britain and that the Labour Party, with its large pacifist wing, supported it almost as eagerly as the Conservatives. It also ignores the fact, pointed out by Churchill, that many members of the Conservative Association were unhappy about it. Labour said a lot about standing up to the dictators but they did not want war. The only MP to speak for a war on Germany when Chamberlain came back from Munich was the Tory Duff Cooper.

It is questionable anyway whether Britain could have won a war against Germany in 1936 or even in 1938, in which case appeasement cannot be dismissed merely as a cynical ploy to turn Germany against Russia. A premature war on Germany might well have meant victory for Hitler. In the event, Germany was defeated by Russia and America, not by Britain. The summary in the article says that Chamberlain held off attacking Hitler on the understanding that Hitler would attack Russia, but where is is the evidence that Hitler gave Chamberlain any such understanding?

This ultra-leftist analysis of appeasement is contradicted by the fact that a) Germany entered into non-aggression pact with Russia and b) Britain did actually go war with Germany.

However, it is a point of view and I will leave it in, but it needs to be better written and it needs a proper citation. Marshall46 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up this paragraph. Should this fringe theory be included? Note that Liebovitz was a physicist, not not a historian, though Finkel is a historian. Marshall46 (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It should get no more than a footnote. They are recycling the British Communist Party thesis at the time that fascists controlled British policy; (that theory was invented to explain away the British Communist support for Hitler-Stalin pact). I believe that all/nearly all historians have rejected idea that Fascism ruled Britain or that any major british leaders wanted the nazis to win. (You do have some people like Lloyd George and the ex-King who were somewhat favorable to Hitler, but they were out of power and kept out for that reason.) Rjensen (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, it should be identified as a communist thesis, which may not be mainstream, but is not fringe. Can you provide a citation for the contemporary Communist Party POV, so that we can put this book in context? Marshall46 (talk)

DONE Marshall46 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Communist interpretation (re fascist control of British appeasement policy in order to help Germany and hurt USSR) is laid out in Teddy J. Uldricks, "Russian Historians Reevaluate the Origins of World War II," History & Memory Volume 21, Number 2, Fall/Winter 2009, pp60-82 (in Project Muse). The thesis was developed by Stalin himself and all Communists had to follow the party line. Rjensen (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing Perspective

One extremely important thing to note about the political situation pre-WW2 is that a substantial segment of the elite in Britain and the US admired and approved of fascism in Europe; business interests were extremely pleased that the Nazis and Italian fascists could deliver stability and security for investment (to say nothing of their crackdown on any kind of labor organization). It is ridiculous to consider the question of 'appeasement' without understanding that popular, and more importantly elite opinion on the Nazis was seriously divided. Nazis as the personification of evil is pure hindsight, but it still seems to frame the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.155.195 (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This minority view is covered in the article: "British Communists, following the Party line defined by Stalin, argued that appeasement had been a pro-fascist policy and that the British ruling class would have preferred fascism to socialism. The Communist MP Willie Gallacher said 'that many prominent representatives of the Conservative Party, speaking for powerful landed and financial interests in the country, would welcome Hitler and the German Army if they believed that such was the only alternative to the establishment of Socialism in this country.'" But note that Chamberlain, the main architect of appeasement, did not admire and approve of fascism. Marshall46 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to be following the Stalinist party line to note that elite opinion was split on whether Nazis were a positive or negative; a simple sampling of newspaper articles from the 30's or the business relations between major American companies and the Nazis should give an idea. I'm NOT trying to imply that elite opinion was purely, or even largely sympathetic to the Nazis- I'm just trying to point out that appeasement must be understood in context, not hindsight. I'm going to avoid taking it personally that a point about context gets fobbed off as a 'minority view' that tows a 'Party line'. The historical record is obvious enough for those not dedicated to socialist revolution to note, as I said before, "Nazis as the personification of evil is pure hindsight, but it still seems to frame the issue." Chamberlain's personal antipathy towards fascism is a valid point, but does not change the argument about elite opinion - which is of course the single largest (and often only) influence over a politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.155.195 (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, appeasement must be understood in context, not hindsight. This was the point of A.J.P.Taylor's revision in the way it was looked at, which is also mentioned in the article. Your opinion is also represented in the following passage: "The Labour MP Hugh Dalton identified the policy with wealthy people in the City of London, Conservatives and members of the peerage who were soft on Hitler." Marshall46 (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

it is not true to assume falsely that in the US the elite "admired and approved" of the Nazis" or "were extremely pleased that the Nazis ...could deliver stability and security". Rjensen (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought this had been dealt with, but if we are going to return to it ...

The main reason for appeasement was not sympathy for fascism but fear of another war like World War I, to which was added fear of aerial bombardment. In the UK there was a large peace movement. The Labour Party was pacifist until 1935 and opposed re-armament until 1937. The 1935 General Election was known as "The Peace Ballot". Even anti-appeasers like Dalton conceded that the British population would not have tolerated war over the occupation of the Rhineland.

The idea that appeasement was the product of a pro-fascist policy comes from communist propaganda, although at times it could be hinted at even by moderate socialists like Attlee. It is true that Russia was for a long time (at least until the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) the only country to advocate military action against the fascist dictatorships, but this has to be seen in the context of an aggressive Russian policy towards all the western capitalist nations.

There is a lot of wisdom after the event in the popular condemnation of appeasement. It is all very well to say now that if the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria had been firmly resisted it would have checked the dictators, but no-one knew then that the Nazis would enslave and murder millions of civilians ten years later - and Britain had neither the popular support or the military capacity to send an army to China.

I don't know of any evidence that "a substantial segment of the elite in Britain and the US admired and approved of fascism in Europe". This is very vague anyway. What is "a substantial section"? 15%? 85%? And who is included in "the elite"? Mosley's British Union of Fascists had working class support - and anyway, after the Olympia debacle in 1934 support drained away very rapidly. Marshall46 (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Manchuria

I have replaced this section because Manchuria is included in the DNB article about appeasement. Marshall46 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

...and other sources. Marshall46 (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Anglocentric?

The article focuses on Chamberlain's foreign policy 1937-39, but France also pursued a policy of appeasement at that time. More should be written about French foreign policy. Marshall46 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oil

The passage on oil in Aftermath of the First World War is interesting, but without citations it is impossible to know whether it is the personal opinion of the editor or an accepted POV in reliable sources. The statement that oil provided the boom in agricultural output looks odd to me. Where did that happen? A huge boom in agricultural output had occurred in Britain between 1750 and 1850 that had nothing to do with oil. Marshall46 (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

odd thinking

"It appeared to be ineffectual when confronted by the aggression of dictators, notably Germany's occupation of the Rhineland". That's a bit odd to accuse Germany of "aggression" for moving it's own army into their own territory. But then it is fashionable to call anything "aggression" Germany did before 1945. --41.151.238.203 (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

it was an explicit violation of the Versailles Treaty. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Clinton "Payoff" to N. Korea in the 90's

Nick, Perhaps you were somewhat correct in your claim that the Front Page Mag was not the best of sources, and I have improved that ref as a result of your pointing that out. Still, the other two refs from PBS and the Congresional Research Service seem to me to have been good, and I think you may not have read through the PBS ref in enough detail to fully get what happened back in the 90's under Clinton regarding North Korea. If you find this information to be a bit hard to believe, please do the research more on it yourself before dismissing it out of hand. I voted for the man, and am a Democrat. Still, I think this may have been the one greatest failing of his presidency. Both PBS and the Congressional Research Service are government funded and not generally known for playing heavy partisan politics. Please note Obama's recent declaration that "Korea will no longer get paid every time it makes an international commotion". Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, That doesn't really address my concerns. I don't understand why you reinstated the weasel words "some have claimed" when the reference specifically identifies who was calling this appeasement ("Republicans called it appeasement" at the start). Moreover, could you please identify which pages in the Congresional Research Service reference support the material which is cited to it? The paper hosted at FAS.org doesn't appear to provide any material on the inspection regime that I can see, much less the strong criticism of it which it is being used to reference. Replacing one right wing commentator with another doesn't address my concern about the material cited to Front Page Mag (especially as this doesn't support the material that "many claimed" - it's that guy's opinion, and the PBS reference supports a statement that republicans were critical of this policy). It's fair to say that there was a viewpoint that Clinton's policies amounted to 'appeasement' and this is a good use of the term to note in the article, but the wording you've just reinstated is essentially presenting this viewpoint as a fact, and does not appear to be supported by the references. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Again, After doing the research you suggested, I have come to the conclusion that you were correct that there were no apparently no liberal critics of Clinton's move to commence a large scale foreign aid program for North Korea in exchange for their agreement to curtail their nuclear weapons development program. I have replaced what you called my "weasel words" with clearer attributions of these statements to American political conservatives. Regarding the ref for the "Congressional Research Service", that ref was only intended to clarify the fact that Clinton took foreign aid to North Korea from the 0-level to the 1.2 billion level during his administration. I sincerely doubt that there will ever be any "written record" of the exact nature of the negotiation between Clinton and the North Korean regime.

All that we can be certain of is that before this negotiation there was 0-American foreign aid going to North Korea, and North Korea had a active nuclear weapons development program. After this negotiation there was a pledge of high levels of foreign aid to North Korea and a promise from them to cease and desist in their nuclear weapons program. Regardless of whether or not permission for an inspection regime was also involved in the negotiation, the trade of money for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons was the meat of the issue. As far as I know that falls well within the definition of "appeasement", whether the label be first applied by a conservative or a liberal, does it not? Scott P. (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Done with my edits there for now. Thanks for waiting, and allowing me to try to rephrase and re-reference this article section in clearer terms. Scott P. (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No it's not "appeasement" and no RS is calling it that, only local politicians in the US. It's a cheap way to buy off a potential nuclear threat--whether it will work or not is for the future to decide. Rjensen (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is an RS?

Here's one for you…

appeasement [əˈpiːzmənt]

n

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the policy of acceding to the demands of a potentially hostile nation in the hope of maintaining peace

2. the act of appeasing

Collins English Dictionary

Do you think that Clinton didn't do this? Scott P. (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Scottperry is off base. Wikipedia works on reliable secondary sources and he has not used any...instead he is misreading primary sources, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you consider George Will, Perle, and McCain to be unreliable I guess we should delete the article then, thanks....bye Scott P. (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In that case I think that the general material referenced to the Congressional Research Service and similar should be removed, as it clearly doesn't support statements that this constituted appeasement (the word doesn't even appear in the documents). The key thing here for the purpose of the article is that Clinton was labeled an 'appeaser' by his political opponents for this deal, and that's basically all that needs to be included (probably also with whatever Clinton and/or his supporters response was to these criticisms per WP:NPOV. Your personal views of what is and isn't 'appeasement' are not relevant to this discussion as Wikipedia works off what's in published reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

George Will, Perle, and McCain are a) primary sources and b) they did not allege "appeasement." Both fatal errors in Wikiland. Calling a living person a nasty name (appeasement) violates the WP:BLP ironclad rule. "Clinton was labeled an 'appeaser' by his political opponents for this deal" ??maybe but no evidence has been provided. Perle for example never uses the word or anything close to it (he talks about blackmail). All statements must be explicitly based on reliable secondary sources or they violate Wikipedia policies. -- on Will he did not use "appease" it was added by a local headline writer, for proof see the identical story in another newspaper with a totally different headline here. Goes to show that using primary sources is a very tricky business that as wikipedia warns has to be handled with lots of care.Rjensen (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Why aren’t the attitudes of Britain, France and the USA to the German and Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War counted as appeasement? Didn’t the Fascist victory show yet again that aggression was rewarded and that the Western democracies were impotent? --Hors-la-loi (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

All the major powers agreed on a policy of nonintervention so that the Civil war would not spread to France and Europe as a whole. France, which had a left-wing government, was especially afraid of starting a civil war inside France. Rjensen (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

More complicated than that. Britain turned a blind eye to the Italian invasion of Spain, which left-wing opinion at the time regarded as appeasement, so it could be included. Pelarmian (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Spanish Civil War was not a straight fight between fascism and democracy, even if was portrayed like that in left wing propaganda and has come to remembered that way in popular mythology. The Republican side was a chaotic mélange of leftist groups, many of them quite unsavoury, who spent a lot of time fighting one another, who came more and more under Stalinist influence as the war went on and for whom there was little sympathy in the UK. That, incidentally, was Churchill's view in 1936, although he changed his mind later. Britain certainly didn't "turn a blind eye" to Italian involvement. She was involved in the suppression of "pirate" submarine activity (everybody knew perfectly well they were Italian) in the waters around Spain and negotiated a number of promises that Italy withdraw her "volunteers". The problem was that British policy-makers knew that Britain could not fight Japan, Germany and Italy at the same time and many, including Neville Chamberlain, wanted to continue the intermittent policy of making some kind of alliance with Italy, who had been a British ally in WW1 and briefly in 1935.Paulturtle (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC) After the war, Eden, Churchill and (with contemptible hypocrisy, but that's politics for you) the Labour Party all claimed loudly that Abyssinia, Spain etc had all been part of a craven policy of "appeasement". This oversimplifies the position of everyone involved, especially of Eden who agreed almost entirely with Chamberlain's policy towards Germany (even, privately, as late as Munich) and whose tantrums over Italy were a classic case of a personality clash looking for an "issue of principle" to latch onto. Although I'm happy to be proven wrong, I haven't come across any contemporary evidence of Britain's policy towards Italy being described as "appeasement" any earlier than late 1939, by Lord Cranborne, then out of office, when the government were attempting to dissuade Italy from entering the war.Paulturtle (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement - Appeasement?

Shouldn't the above Treaty be mentioned as another example of the policy of appeasement. By that Agreement the UK agreed to secede sovereignty over the Treaty ports to Ireland and to give up on most of the financial demands the UK had been making? It is widely viewed by historians as part of a wider policy of appeasement. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not think so. The term "Appeasement" is not usually used when dealing with a much smaller and weaker country like Ireland. No military action or threats were involved. Rjensen (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"Appeasement in a political context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an enemy power in order to avoid conflict." In the 1930s, Ireland and the UK were embroiled in the so-called "Economic War"; that was a kind of conflict, costly for both sides especially the Irish. Whether Ireland could be regarded as an "enemy power" is debatable. Its leader had previously led an armed rebellion against the British; had introduced a Constitution claiming part of the other's territory and was certainly regarded as an enemy by many British leaders (eg Churchill). Chamberlain cultivated friendly relations and provided the Irish with significant material concessions. I'd welcome other's views on whether this constituted an episode of "appeasement". Putting the Irish case aside, the question of principle is "Can appeasement involve the actions of a strong state vis-a-vis a weak state?" My own instinct is - Yes - If the actions are intended to avoid a conflict, the fact that the weak state is receiving the concessions doesn't to my mind rule out appeasement. But, again, I welcome views of those who've read up on this a bit more thane me. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules require reliable secondary sources to make claims, and no one has offered any in this case. Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I am happy to point out a secondary source for the assertion that the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement was part of the British policy of appeasement. I refer you to - RTÉ (Irish equivalent to BBC) documentary "De Valera v Churchill". It is an interesting documentary and I think you will enjoy it too. It features commentary from leading Irish and British historians and there is certainly reference in it to the Agreement having been part of appeasement. Indeed, it was what inspired me to raise this for discussion, hopeful of others having some knowledge of the topic. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The rules call for a citation to a written published reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Any one else out there want to participate in this discussion? Not much participation so far. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source:[1]

By the signing in April of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Chamberlain's appeasement of De Valera was but a small part of his wider European geopolitical outlook. Appeasement was not a dirty word at that time. Chamberlain had normalised Anglo-Irish relations. He trusted De Valera as being a man of his word. As a gift at the end of talks, he returned to the Irish leader a pair of field glasses taken from him by a polite British officer after the 1916 Rising.

- Dermot Keogh is professor of history at University College Cork. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source:[2]

Chamberlain's government had adopted an appeasement policy towards Germany in the hope of avoiding war. The resolution of outstanding difficulties with Britain's nearest neighbour, the Irish Free State, could be regarded as within this broad conciliatory approach....The argument was abroad that Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was not in Britain's interest, and the ports issue was regarded by some as smacking of an appeasement approach.

- Analysis of English Medium Press Coverage of the Treaty Ports as an Issue in Irish Neutrality, 1938-1943 - By William Coolahan (admittedly, not as prominent a figure as the Professor but in the context of a dedicated study nonetheless). Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Another source:The Treaty Ports in their military, geopolitical and diplomatic contexts

The return of the ports by the Chamberlain government was a supremelysuccessful act of appeasement.

- Michael Kennedy, Royal Irish Academy, Documents on Irish Foreign Policy, Head of Section/Head of Project.

Hmmm... careful. Churchill at the time denounced it as appeasement, so there is no doubt the term was used and his denunciation should be mentioned. The Irish sources just mentioned are perhaps not RS (they are self-published) and they indicate that the Irish policy was a success for Britain. What happened was that the Royal Navy was iffy about losing the ports -- which Churchill had obtained for them back in 1921. The British Army did NOT want them because they would have to invade Ireland to defend them and they wanted friendly relations with Ireland, not a war that would turn Ireland into an ally of Germany. That's all in Gibbs, Grand Strategy (1976) pp 817-23, the official British war history. Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I could understand everything you said above...You mentioned "careful" (about what?), and then "RS" which no doubt stands for some Wiki rule. I was already aware of all the other things you mentioned. Either way, I'm more interested in exploring my original proposal. In substance, I can't see any disagreement between you and me. We both seem to think this Agreement was viewed as appeasement (rightly or wrongly). Is that correct? If yes, do you want to suggest some wording that we could build into the article to cover this off? Or I can if you like. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

For extra clarity, in case its in doubt, there is no contradiction in the "Treaty Port Cession" being viewed as a "success" for UK and at the same time being "appeasement". Appeasement can be a successful policy. While it's debatable, I think most (like the Historian's I've cited) would agree it was successful for the UK in this case albeit that Churchill didn't see it that way during 1940 especially when he felt himself that having the ports was important, whether or not it was. That was probably telling you something you already knew but I mention it in case that could be something you are getting at. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that appeasement has a negative connotation and that is highly misleading. As applied to Ireland appeasement was a success and that made for an even stronger case for appeasing Germany to avoid a war that Britain was at very high risk of losing before its air defenses (radar, fighters) were ready in 1940. Rjensen (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh this is disappointing. I thought I might be dealing with some one as keen as I am on teasing things out. I might not be now, as I can't make anything of that response, except that I'm pretty sure you reject the proposal I made that the Article cite the Treaty Ports cession deal as an example of appeasement. "I think the problem (what problem?) is that appeasement has a negative connotation (oh really, so you are saying appeasement can't be positively successulf? I don't know what you're saying - could you elaborate please) and that is highly misleading (what is misleading?). As applied to Ireland appeasement was a success (You've just said that appeasement was applied to Ireland - and indeed was, perhaps uniquely for policies of appeasement, a success...doesn't that merit mention in the article!) "and that made for an even stronger case for appeasing Germany to avoid a war that Britain was at very high risk of losing before its air defenses (radar, fighters) were ready in 1940." (the bit I've put in "quotation marks" I have absolutely no idea how that relates to anything we are discussing....We aren't discussing the merits or demerits of appeasement....We are discussing whether a particular development, the UK/Irish agreement of 38 was an example of appeasement.... Finally, I will finish with a simple question: If I edit the Article to reference the Treaty Port cession as an example of Appeasement, are you in principle going to revert my edit? Even editors who don't engage are equally entitled to revert edits and don't have to give reasons really. On Wiki every editor is equal in that way. Please kindly do give me a clear answer to the latter point as I take time on editing and don't like to waste my time... I was hopeful for a positive discussion, collaborative if you like but your last response was just cryptic and didn't engage with me. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem a bit baffled yourself. Try to find some major published scholarship that looks at the appeasement issue for the Ports (blogs do not count). The problem is that Churchill called it appeasement but he is not a RS (he was deeply involved). Rjensen (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter. BMK (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's definitely noteworthy - Chamberlain's appeasement of Ireland almost lost Britain World War II. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)) The article is mainly about the foreign policy of Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany in the 1930s, which historians refer to as appeasement. Once you start including other policies that might be called "appeasement", there will be no end to it. A reader will visit this page to find out about the policies of the democratic nations towards the dictators. They are best served by sticking to that. Pelarmian (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC) The UK and France were appeasing both Germany and Italy from 1935. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

Italy

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter. BMK (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From 1935 the UK and France were also appeasing Italy, not just Germany. British foreign minister Anthony Eden even resigned over this. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)) Please source this. BMK (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Eden resigned in 1938 over Chamberlain's appeasement of Italy. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)) The source you provided does not in any way call the UK's dealing with Italy over the invasion of appeasement, It says: he late 1930s were marked by international conflicts due to the increasingly aggressive foreign policies of Germany, Italy and Japan. In 1935 the British government was debating how rearmament and appeasement could be used to secure the nation's safety. The concern for appeasement at a time of perceived vulnerability provides part of the context for the stance of the British government during this period. This is a general statement about the things they were considering. Later in the article, it says While the Cabinet wanted to prevent conflict with Italy and avoid it re-establishing relations with Germany, the Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Robert Vansittart, gained French support to put precautionary measures (possibly sanctions) before the Council of the League of Nations. ... With French support, Sir Samuel Hoare made a speech to the League of Nations in favour of sanctions in September, but Mussolini was undeterred and invaded Abyssinia on 3 October 1935. Cabinet members feared that sanctions might provoke war with Italy and by December, Britain was the only League member not to have imposed oil sanctions against Italy. ... Given the perceived need for collective security the British government joined the oil embargo, but questioned its effectiveness. The United States continued to supply oil. Note that these action are not categorized as "appeasement", the article says that the UK took "no effective action", but this is not the same thing as "appeasement", because appeasement requires taking positive steps to give the offending country what it wants, as Chamberlain gave Hitler the Sudetenland at Munich. The British did not take effective action, but they also did not "appease" Italy by giving her Abyssinia. This is the distinction you are missing. Countries throughout time have declined to take action, but that is not "appeasement" -- i.e. we did not "appease" Russia by not taking effective action to wrest the Crimea from her after she took it from the Ukraine recently. If there had been a meeting, or a statement, in which the West said to Putin "Go ahead, just assure us that you have no other demands" (as Chamberlain did to Hitler) that would be appeasement. So, unless you can come up with a source that says specifically that not intervening effectively in the invasion of Abyssinia was "appeasement", you must stop adding it to the article, because the consensus here is that that was not the case. BMK (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Britain and France offered to formally recognize Italian control of Abyssinia. The Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden called Chamberlain's treatment of Mussolini appeasement. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)) You keep saying things like that, but you have yet to provide a source. In any case, it's not the opinions of those involved at the time which carry weight, it is the collective opinions of historians - so, c'mon, let see some cites from historians to back up your claims. BMK (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC) The UK and France were appeasing Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union. Appeasement did not just refer to Germany. Hitler could only invade Poland in 1939 if Stalin did as well, otherwise he risked a two-front war before the Axis was ready. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)) Sources, please. BMK (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC) The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which agreed the combined Soviet-German invasion of Poland in September 1939 was designed to give Hitler time to prepare for the inevitable war in the East. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)) A random fact which has nothing whatsoever to do with "appeasement". BMK (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC) You know, it occurs to me that you are starting to sound awfully like User:CharltonChiltern, an editor on German declaration of war against the United States (1943) who kept giving opinion after opinion without ever providing a source, even after repeatedly being asked to do so. He was blocked as a sock of User:HarveyCarter, a banned editor. Would you like me to file an SPI to see if you are also a sock of HarveyCarter, or would you like to stop editing articles in this subject area and move on to other subjects and do some productive, non-disruptive editing? If that sounds like a threat, it is -- except, of course, it's only a threat of you are a sock of HarveyCarter, since if you are not, you have nothing at all to worry about. BMK (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)