Beschwichtigung wird unterschätzt

Look I think negotiating with Russia shouldn’t be off the table but saying the big example people cite is Chamberlin and not the failure of the Russian reset is just embarrassing. 

Reading the article, I don’t think the author understands what appeasement is, or is willfully misconstruing appeasement to make a hot take.

Appeasement is giving up without gaining. Almost every time, appeasement is one party giving an authoritarian what they want in exchange for something else, but the authoritarian never intends on honoring their end of the bargain. That’s the lesson from Munich. If you make a quid-pro-quo with an authoritarian, it’s almost guaranteed to just end up being appeasement because they have no intention of following through. The authors goes on to cite a bunch of quid-pro-quos as examples of appeasement working, which, that’s not the same.

They also make up hypotheticals as to why if Chamberlain didn’t appease Hitler things could have gone much worse. Considering made up hypotheticals of something that didn’t happen, I don’t think, is a very genuine or well thought out argument.

They also ignore all the appeasing that Chamberlain did aside from the Munich Agreement. They also claim that the Munich agreement somehow gave the UK more time to prepare because non-sequitur the UK was already re-arming, and that Hitler would have invaded anyway. Ya can’t have it both ways. Either it worked or it was a naive pointless exercise that did nothing to deter the Nazis. Regardless of how Munich went, the UK was rearming, not because of Munich. Hitler didn’t agree to give the UK more time, he agreed not to invade the rest of Europe in exchange for the Sudentland, which he did. If he didn’t invade the rest of Europe it would have been an effective quid-pro-quo, but it wasn’t because he didn’t honor that agreement.

Sponsored by Neville Chamberlain