Appeasement

It is funny how “appeasement” popped into my mind. Isn’t that what is happening now? If only one side with disarm the other side would settle down and not make more demands. It didn’t work so well the last time, did it? Who are the Neville Chamberlains of this generation? I remember Chameberlain was quite popular for a time till his “peace” went to pieces.

Would you describe it with a different word?

4+
avataravataravataravatar

19 thoughts on “Appeasement”

  1. yes I would describe it with a different word: CAPITULATION.  and it makes me 🤢.

    i can’t look at our flag any more without crying—or wanting to cry, at least.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  2. My phrase for some years has been “defeat with dignity”.  Most of the GOP would rather deliver their constituents into servitude than rage against the dying of liberty.  I configured my “Monkeying with the Mainstream Media” Web site filter to translate “Democrat” to “Locust” and “Republican” to “Quisling”.

    9+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  3. John Walker:
    My phrase for some years has been “defeat with dignity”.  Most of the GOP would rather deliver their constituents into servitude than rage against the dying of liberty.  I configured my “Monkeying with the Mainstream Media” Web site filter to translate “Democrat” to “Locust” and “Republican” to “Quisling”.

    I would like to spell “dignity” as “dingnity”.  There are a lot of dings and ding-a-lings in that defeat.

    1+
    avatar
  4. I take it that we are talking about Portland.

    After several weeks of nightly riots, the mobs turned their attention against the U.S. Courthouse, which is located between two State of Oregon buildings.  Because it was close to the nightly demonstrations that turned into nightly riots, the Courthouse was guarded.  When Portland ordered their police to stand down, this supplemental guard was reinforced.

    Then the AntiFa rioters discovered that the Mark O. Hatfield U. S. Courthouse made a great target.  The force that guarded the building was not all that large and was under orders to use restraint.  And the Fake News Media were sympathetic to rioters and hostile to federal officers.  This made for a very appealing nightly play, in which AntiFa pretended to be tough, and the Feds arrested only a small number of rioters.

    But the AntiFa rioters were getting increasingly aggressive and using increasingly dangerous weapons.

    The Department of Justice rightly approached Portland.  Portland’s Mayor and a few Councilpersons had been quoted in the media as blaming all the violence on the presence of federal officers.  DOJ said they were willing to remove the officers if the City and the State would protect the Courthouse.   Win-win.

    Of course, once the Portland Police were given the task, the first thing they did was to clear out the park that the rioters used as a staging ground.  They removed a bunch of riot gear, removed park furniture, removed grills and evacuated the area, and cordoned off a couple of nearby blocks and did not allow demonstrations in their usual spaces.

    The result of a larger, more comprehensive police presence, without federal officers, resulted in two quiet nights so far.   Fake News Media attributes this to the removal of federal officers, and neglects to mention clearing the park, cordoning off the adjacent blocks, and increased numbers of police plus state police reinforcements.   They are truly the Enemy of the People.

    [Edit to add an example of disgraceful Fake News coverage:]

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/portland-protests-peaceful-after-federal-officers-scale-back-presence-n1235590

    9+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  5. Rudyard Kipling

    Dane-Geld
    A.D. 980-1016

    It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
      To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
    "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
      Unless you pay us cash to go away."
    
    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
      And the people who ask it explain
    That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
      And then  you'll get rid of the Dane!
    
    It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
      To puff and look important and to say: --
    "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
      We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
    
    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
      But we've  proved it again and  again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
      You never get rid of the Dane.
    
    It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
      For fear they should succumb and go astray;
    So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
      You will find it better policy to say: --
    
    "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
      No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
      And the nation that pays it is lost!"
    
    7+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  6. 10 Cents:
    Who are the Neville Chamberlains of this generation?

    It’s an insult to Chamberlain to associate him with most modern politicians. He was foolish, but not an active collaborator.

    He was far more honorable a man than any modern Democrat or Labourite. And far more honorable than NT-types like Romney and leftist Tories like May and Rudd.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  7. ctlaw:
    It’s an insult to Chamberlain to associate him with most modern politicians. He was foolish, but not an active collaborator.

    I think he was both weak, fearful, and naive. Not sure how this differentiates him from today’s politicians in the end. If one rejects collaborators, perhaps one must define what characteristics make them so.

    2+
    avataravatar
  8. EThompson:

    ctlaw:
    It’s an insult to Chamberlain to associate him with most modern politicians. He was foolish, but not an active collaborator.

    I think he was both weak, fearful, and naive. Not sure how this differentiates him from today’s politicians in the end. If one rejects collaborators, perhaps one must define what characteristics make them so.

    Betrayal.

    Chamberlain wanted the United Kingdom to thrive.

    We have politicians who want America to fail.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  9. ctlaw:
    He was far more honorable a man than any modern Democrat or Labourite. And far more honorable than NT-types like Romney and leftist Tories like May and Rudd.

    When Chamberlain became Prime Minister in 1937, he immediately began a programme of rapid re-armament, focussing upon air power, with the intent of deterring aggression by the dictator states in Asia and Europe, and especially the possibility of a three-front war in the Far East, Mediterranean, and Western Europe, as had been envisioned in an analysis by the British general staff in 1937.

    Between 1933 and 1939, the RAF’s budget rose from GBP 17 million to 106 million, most of this under Chamberlain.  Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement was largely intended to buy time for British re-armament to close the gap against Germany.  The opportunity to stop Germany in the early days had been squandered under the Stanley Baldwin premiership, which you can think of as “Conservative, Ltd.”, and Chamberlain was faced with a near-impossible situation.  Chamberlain also had to contend with the sentiment in the dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa, among others), which was strongly against involvement in a European war.

    Here is Winston Churchill on Neville Chamberlain on the occasion of his death in 1940.

    11+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  10. President Herbert Hoover’s posthumous book “Freedom Betrayed” (2011) ISBN 978-0-8179-1234-5 may be relevant.  Hoover argued before WWII that Germany was expanding to the east and was destined to get into a fight to the death with the USSR;  consequently, the smart approach for other Europeans was to keep out of the way, and let Germany & the USSR destroy each other.

    Unfortunately, the English and French declared war on Germany (but not the USSR) over their coordinated invasions of Poland in September 1939 — and then followed up that aggressive stance by doing nothing to help Poland (the “Phony War”).   This put Germany into a strategic bind;  they could not continue to move east to attack the USSR leaving declared (albeit pusillanimous) belligerents behind them on the west.  Hence Germany broke the English/French Phony War by invading France in May 1940.

    Hoover of course blames FDR for encouraging the English & French to declare war.  He also notes sadly that, having started WWII to save (western) Poland from German domination, the Allies ended it by abandoning all of Poland to Soviet domination.  If it had not been for the subsequent foolish English/French decision to declare war on Germany over Poland, Chamberlain’s “appeasement” might today be held up as a masterful example of smart strategy — and the world would be quite a different place.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  11. Gavin Longmuir:
    President Herbert Hoover’s posthumous book “Freedom Betrayed” (2011) ISBN 978-0-8179-1234-5 may be relevant.

    Here is my review of Freedom Betrayed.  This was one of the first long-form posts on Raburger.org after it went live, published as much to stress test the system as to publish content, so it may seem somewhat crude in formatting compared to current posts.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  12. I doff my metaphorical hat to you, Mr. Walker.  That is an excellent review of “Freedom Betrayed” — a book which because of its length can become a bit of a slog.

    Pres. Hoover’s account certainly changed my perspective on the Second World War.   I was brought up with the usual Western simple tale about the “Good War”.   Germany plunged the world into war until some gallant Brits with the aid of some over-paid, over-sexed, over-here Yanks landed on D-Day and made the world safe for civilization again.  It was not until well after I left the halls of formal education that I learned about the significance of the USSR’s contribution to the defeat of Germany, or that war had been declared not by Germany but by England & France.  Hoover opened my eyes to the extent to which WWII failed to accomplish the high-minded goals set forth in the Atlantic Charter, including the abandonment of the Poles at the end of the war — the declared casus belli.

    My own admitted ignorance is apparently widespread.  I recall a conversation with an intelligent well-educated Russian (is there any other type?) who amazingly had never heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and could not believe that the USSR had invaded Poland in concert with Germany.

    If we all knew a little more history, might we have a somewhat more realistic skepticism about the words & deeds of the Best & Brightest of all nationalities?

    7+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  13. I don’t know that we have appeasers. I look at McConnell and Pelosi and see the same threat: bought off politicians more interested in serving their paymasters in the foreign policy blob and the financiers.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  14. MJBubba:

    EThompson:

    ctlaw:
    It’s an insult to Chamberlain to associate him with most modern politicians. He was foolish, but not an active collaborator.

    I think he was both weak, fearful, and naive. Not sure how this differentiates him from today’s politicians in the end. If one rejects collaborators, perhaps one must define what characteristics make them so.

    Betrayal.

    Chamberlain wanted the United Kingdom to thrive.

    We have politicians who want America to fail.

    Semantics. If one really loves one’s country, you work to “collaborate” with other powers to protect yourself and disregard public opinion and one’s own political legacy. Chamberlain was lazy.

    See: Winston Churchill.

    0

  15. John Walker:

    ctlaw:
    He was far more honorable a man than any modern Democrat or Labourite. And far more honorable than NT-types like Romney and leftist Tories like May and Rudd.

    When Chamberlain became Prime Minister in 1937, he immediately began a programme of rapid re-armament, focussing upon air power, with the intent of deterring aggression by the dictator states in Asia and Europe, and especially the possibility of a three-front war in the Far East, Mediterranean, and Western Europe, as had been envisioned in an analysis by the British general staff in 1937.

    Between 1933 and 1939, the RAF’s budget rose from GBP 17 million to 106 million, most of this under Chamberlain.  Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement was largely intended to buy time for British re-armament to close the gap against Germany.  The opportunity to stop Germany in the early days had been squandered under the Stanley Baldwin premiership, which you can think of as “Conservative, Ltd.”, and Chamberlain was faced with a near-impossible situation.  Chamberlain also had to contend with the sentiment in the dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa, among others), which was strongly against involvement in a European war.

    Here is Winston Churchill on Neville Chamberlain on the occasion of his death in 1940.

    It didn’t work, did it? Results and not intentions count. Winston wins.

    And pls, spare me WCs kind words about a weakling; he was a grand gentleman and would have said no less.

    The rest of us know better.

    0

Leave a Reply