NationStates Jolt Archive

Often we are presented by leaders, who wish to undertake militairy action, the analogy of München in 1938, 30th september. It has even become somewhat of a household name known as Appeasement policitics.
However, to use it in the discussion concerning terror and Iraq is entirely flawed and quite counter-procductive.

To summerize the result of apeasement in the case of 1938: After the old European powers such as England and France promised the strip of Czechoslowakian land known as sSudetenland to Hitler they hoped they had satisfied Nazi Germany enough to prevent them from annexing anything else and as a result prevent Europe leaping into another war. What follows is well then well known. Hitler proceded to occupy the entire republic and soon after launched an attack into Poland. Appeasement failed and another world war started.

Of all the historical analogies made, the Appeasement analogy has to be one of the more popular ones. It is however a dangereous one. Before the Iraq war there was another less than succesfull war; Vietnam

Lyndon Johnson also fell into the trap of analogy by defending the war of Vietnam saying: "From München till today, we have learned that stepping aside for agression will only lead to more agression"
The results are well known; About 60.000 US soldiers and 2.5 million Vietnamese perished in South-East Asia and the communists still won.

Chamberlain was actually recieved as a hero back in England and oddly enough for the very same reason as my topic here. Namely the use of historical analogy. In this case the wounds of the first world war had not healed yet and Chamberlain refused to fall into the historical trap of the first world war which was to start a horrible war based upon vague alliances and heavily influenced by nationalistic jingo while all being set into motion due to the assasination of some royal in the backyard of Europe.

He too tried to "learn" from history and failed miserably at it.

The reason for it being simple. The rules had changed. Europe in the 1930's was entirely different from the Europe in 1914. Analogy could not prouve usefull anymore because it was an entirely different scenario.

The same goes for Iraq or the fight against radical Islam today. Lately I find myself bombarded with arguments such as: "We must strike know because you know what happend to people who want to appease, like in 1938" or "Learn from history. Remember München!"

The use of analogy here ladies and gentlemen is entirely flawed. For the same reason why Chamberlain made his mistake in trying to learn from history, namely that the situation is entirely different.
To use the analogy upon for example the fight against terror would be flawed because:

- Nazi Germany was a major economical and militairy power.
Radical Islam at it's best can be seen as a heavily financed fragmented organisation.
- Nazi Germany wanted to rule the world
Radical Islam might wish to convert all infidels to Islam but now their strategy is cleary to terrorize and not to conquer
- Nazi Germany was a threat from the outside
while radical Islam comes also from the inside as the outside.

Etc. etc.

I find that using history is much like using statistics. One can use it to proof anything you want in the right context. To use analogy in the case of the fight against terror is flawed and not productive when trying to discuss it.

Let us try not "pollute" the discussion of the fight against terror by pointing towards the Appeasement analogy which falsly claims that there are only 2 possible outcomes: Either follow hard-liners even though they find themselves in a costly adventure or bow down to a new kind of facism.

PS: My apolagies for my flawed english due to the fact im not a native speaker.

Since there is such a lack of response, I must assume that either there is no interrest, that all people agree with me or the post was too long and subtle.

Seeing as we seem to thrive on contreversial, fastfood-like opinions that enjoys little or no argumentation, let me rephrase my stance:

Stop defending the war Iraq and discrediting european nations by comparing it with the Appeasement politics before the 2nd world war. It is wrong it doesn't share any major factors at all.

- Nazi Germany wanted to rule the world
Radical Islam might wish to convert all infidels to Islam but now their strategy is cleary to terrorize and not to conquer


Terrorise with an aim to create a global Islamic state

Terrorise with an aim to create a global Islamic state

Perhaps, though their current anti-western actions can hardly be considered a giant step towards the goal of world domination. Merely attacking doesn't mean conquering.

In that same line of reasoning you can claim that the USA wishes to create a global use of democracy and freedom though they are hardly trying to implement it globaly for obvious practical reasons. They are however activily trying to guard themselves against despotic rogue states.

While I am opposed to the war in Iraq, and I agree that the circumstances are different between the middle eastern situation now and the European situation in the 1930s, I feel that you are missing the point of the analogy.

The historical facts of the appeasement of Nazi Germany in 1938 are irrelevant to the concerns over appeasement as a viable process.

There is a psychological issue at stake here. If someone threatens me in some way, and I react by offering him something he wants if he stops, then I have allowed his violence to obtain benefits for him. This inevitably encourages him to repeat this strategy - either with me or with others.

Appeasement seems to be flawed in principle.

Now with regard to Iraq - as Iraq was not actually threatening anything the whole analogy to the appeasement of the Nazis is essentially wrong.

While I am opposed to the war in Iraq, and I agree that the circumstances are different between the middle eastern situation now and the European situation in the 1930s, I feel that you are missing the point of the analogy.

The historical facts of the appeasement of Nazi Germany in 1938 are irrelevant to the concerns over appeasement as a viable process.

There is a psychological issue at stake here. If someone threatens me in some way, and I react by offering him something he wants if he stops, then I have allowed his violence to obtain benefits for him. This inevitably encourages him to repeat this strategy - either with me or with others.

Appeasement seems to be flawed in principle.

Now with regard to Iraq - as Iraq was not actually threatening anything the whole analogy to the appeasement of the Nazis is essentially wrong.

I believe you have misunderstood my intentions here. I was merely describing the use of the analogy by certain offcials who have used it in an inproper maner. This is not so much as how I view the use of the analogy but more how other people use it in their argumentations to support possible militairy action.

However concerning your use of Appeasement as psychological issue I fear I cannot agree with your example. Appeasement doesn't automatically mean an invitation for more agression (although in the case of 1938 it was) considering you are offering the party something they feel satisfied with and thereby cease their hostilities. If Hitler would be happy with just Sudetenland then we wouldn't even be speaking of a second world war.
Problem ofcourse was that he wasn't but this is merely in this case and therefor we should refrain from using it at other scenario's that might seem the same but essentially aren't.

PS: This reply is assuming you are offering your own view as to what Appeasement means instead of what you think Appeasement is as understood by others.

I believe you have misunderstood my intentions here. I was merely describing the use of the analogy by certain offcials who have used it in an inproper maner. This is not so much as how I view the use of the analogy but more how other people use it in their argumentations to support possible militairy action.

However concerning your use of Appeasement as psychological issue I fear I cannot agree with your example. Appeasement doesn't automatically mean an invitation for more agression (although in the case of 1938 it was) considering you are offering the party something they feel satisfied with and thereby cease their hostilities. If Hitler would be happy with just Sudetenland then we wouldn't even be speaking of a second world war.
Problem of course was that he wasn't but this is merely in this case and therefor we should refrain from using it at other scenario's that might seem the same but essentially aren't.

PS: This reply is assuming you are offering your own view as to what Appeasement means instead of what you think Appeasement is as understood by others.

While, technically it is possible that an aggressor may be permanently satisfied with what they receive as appeasement, it is very unlikely indeed.

It is part of the human condition to be permanently seeking something more - this is the basis upon which capitalism has succeeded. So unless the aggressor is very atypical, they will not stop after receiving their first award, but will adopt aggression as an effective strategy to obtain more.

Of course they can be atypical - in which case appeasement would work.