When talking about appeasement, i think that it is important to consider the position as to the nation is in when deciding to appease. For instance, for Chamberlain and the British empire to appease to Hitler's Nazism, i thought was a decision that Chamberlain didnt want to make but had to for the sake of Britain. Like mentioned, it was not a state of weakness or defeat rather a strategy to deal with the problem at hand. Hitler being a major force to any European country at that time, it was hard for leaders like Chamberlain to not face the facts and to give in a bit. As mentioned, a form of appease is to yield, and i think that in order for the survival of ones nation at this time of chaos, it is critical to give and take, to yield, to stay in a manageable position where one can thrive.
I think those in favor of what George Bush said about appeasement, and those in favor of what Barack Obama said are both right. You cannot just do anything possible to avoid war and keep peace. What is the point of peace if it's really just one country giving into the other country's demands. One country is the bully, and the other is the victim. You should make it clear you want peace, but not tolerate the other country breaking Treaties and not listening to a word you are saying. This is what the Axis Powers did. I think a country that wants peace also needs to make demands, such as keeping their word, etc. But, if some sort of wake up call needs to be given, then by it all means it should be give, so that it is not a disaster, but more of a heads up call.
The appeasement made at the Munich Conference has had lasting effects on the world today. Today there is an argument as to whether or not we should negotiate with terrorists. In the article there was a reference to the decision to appease Hitler when he wanted Czechoslovakia’s Sudentland. The result of that appeasement was an empowered enemy, Germany. Now people feel that by appeasing with terrorists, you are empowering them as well. In my opinion, we should not appease with terrorists. Based on past decisions and consequences, appeasement only seemed to hurt the country giving into the demands. One thing I found interesting while reading the article was how there were many anti- Churchill books arriving in stores. Based on my knowledge of history, Churchill was a wise and strong leader. I never knew so many people were against him and his decisions. I also found it interesting when it said that Churchill was trying to appease Roosevelt. I never thought about what he was doing that way, but looking at it now it kind of makes sense to me. Jenna F period 9
It is not right to make the comparisons between Chamberlain’s appeasement policy with Hitler and Senator Obama’s support for dialogue with world leaders who are hostile to U.S. interests because the term now and then has different meanings. Appeasement back then meant a truthful strategy to ensure the survival of inhabitants and it was not associated with weakness to confront danger. This version of appeasement prompted Chamberlain to negotiate with Hitler because he wanted to ensure the survival of the British Empire. Now, appeasement has changed. To appease means to produce or allow to aggressive demands. This is what Mr. Obama was not trying to do. He wanted to make the U.S. stronger than its opponents. Overall, the term appeasement has very deep differences between now and the past. -M Misir Period 9
In this article, the idea of appeasement was shown in many different ways. As history does repeat itself, the use of appeasement has happened more than once throughout time. Appeasement is like an agreement made to satisfy someone. By doing this, you would avoid war or conflicts. Such thing happened with Hitler and Chamberlain. Hitler wanted the Munich, and he got it. Chamberlain decided to give in, to avoid war. Thinking that, that would be enough for him. But little did he know, that Hitler would be back for more. Bush had the same problem in the U.S. with Iraq. But he was the one who said that you could never negotiate with a terrorist. In today's world, many people do things to avoid conflict and even war. But sometimes giving in is not the answer. That may as well inspire the person to want more. Maria U.
It always surprises me when I read more recent articles how the faults of our past and how they affect us today. It is a constant reminder that we are living history, we write the story of time. When I think of appeasement, I think of weakness and a sense of "giving up". This article really backed up those feeling. Appeasement is like an excuse for your insecurities. Chamberlain tried to protect Britain from getting into another war by pleasing the Germans, but it is clear that was a move that revealed vulnerability and ironically enough led to an even deadlier war. I think it is the selfishness of trying to protect one's own country that leads to appeasement. I really don't think appeasement is the answer to a nations' problems, including the problems Bush faced, because it only powers the one making the demands, and with an unequal distribution of power, as history shows, something is bound to happen. -Tiff K
This article was a little confusing, but I think I get the gist of it. Although World War II is relatively modern compared to the rest of history, it is still surprising to see how much of an effect the rise to war has and how many references are made to it today in everyday politics. Just the word "appeasement" itself and its definition is being debated by scholars and Presidents of this country. This term is being used to describe what action the United States will take towards Iran, which is the predicament Neville Chamberlain faced with Mussolini. We are trying to decide whether meeting with radicals and terrorists is "appeasement" and "cowardly" or just negotiation. I would think that we would have these values figured out by now, but I guess that is not the case.
I feel that it was a mistake to appease to Hitler's requests back in the '30's. Things could have been different, had the other nations been assertive and explained their views to Hitler- even if he is tough to approach and even more difficult to go against and confront. The fact that when it came to a major event we were forced into appeasement, and comparing to today, as we still use appeasement, shows that it is a big issue in politics today, and that we need to change it. Politics and communication will go a lot smoother with no appeasement, and instead, finding common ground. -DS, pd 9
SK period 9: I basically agree when the author when he says that in Obama's speech he was arguing that "diplomacy and talk are the opposite of appeasement." Appeasement is defined as to concede, sometimes at the expense of other principles, but I think that you can partially concede and still maintain your own principles.Roosevelt was tough, directly confronted fascism and formed strong alliances. He did not seek to appease his enemies, but he kept a close eye on them. In my opinion, it is not wrong to keep our enemies close, and it is vital to have an open dialogue to protect ourselves.
both Obama and bush have different ideas on appeasement and i agree with both but mostly Obama because hes right i f we communicated with other countries then we wouldn't need to worry about other ways to fall into appeasement. only if bush didn't rush into it blindsided we could have made better decisions. and maybe Obama was president first it would have changed a lot of things. but, in the situation that were in then i agree with bush we shouldn't appease into the terror like they did in the Munich conference. AM Prd.9
Appeasement is to bring to a state of peace and to satisfy temporarily. In the article, Chamberlain thought that the best way to deal with Hitler was through give up territory to Hitler in exchange for peace and stability: appeasement. But what I don't understand there were comparisons being made between Chamberlain’s appeasement policy with Hitler and Obama’s support towards with leaders who are against U.S. interests and benefits. I agree with what Obama had to say because as the years progress, the U.S. is going to face many problems and it is better to make peace than to fight and make war.
I think that the definition of appeasement has dramatically changed over the course of time. Before World War I, the Munich Conference is an example of other European countries using Czechoslovakia as a scapegoat. This article even states that Churchill “saw negotiation with Hitler as the best way to ensure the survival of the British Empire”. This means, that the only reason Churchill agreed to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia was to make sure that Britain wouldn’t become Hitler’s next target. Not that he actually thought what Hitler was doing was just. I don’t think appeasement means being a coward anymore. However, it means to diplomatically and civilly negotiate with rival nations without losing your own nation’s sense of dignity. For example, if Obama was to meet with terrorist group leaders, obviously he wouldn’t give into their ways and do what they say (like Churchill and the other leaders did at the Munich Conference). Instead, Obama (or any leader) could learn to come to civil agreements, instead of continuing long lasting feuds and wars.
It was kind of smart for Chamberlain to do this. He did what was best for his empire. Not what was the best for Czechoslovakia. It may have been stupid in the long run, but it was smart at the moment. He tried to do what was best for the England.
The way I see it, the US acknowledges what appeasment is and how it can lead to problems. Although they try their best to go away from appeasment, they still end up subtly appeasing those in Iran and Iraq by trying to negotiate with the terrorists that are present there. Even if appeasment can avoid conflict temporarily, it will eventually make the other side stronger and the conflict will still remain.
I disagree with those who are anti appeasement. Appeasement is a powerful tool, when a child is cribbing we can appease and satisfy him This can be a problem however, when appeasing is only putting something off, like in the case of Hitler. Many people knew that Hitler would want more, and giving him Czechoslovakia was just postponing the inevitable.
In this article, it appears that some people may believe that appeasement may represent a sign or form of weakness. The definition and meaning of appeasement can definitly be tossed aorund, and can be interpretted and thought of in a variety of different ways.Bak then, Chamberlin didn't think of appeasementof weakness, but more of a strategy to keep his country alive.
Personally, I believe that appeasement is a sign of weakness and should not be used when faced with potential danger of enemies. For example, several terrorist attacks occurring in the USA have been injuring and killing many people. If our government were to "appease" and give the terrorists what they want, they'd be wrong about thinking it would end there. The terrorists would continue to feed on our weakness to surrendering and continue with their attacks until they get more and more. When Britain had appeased to Hitler in Munich and gave him what he want, it didn't end there because that just increased Hitler's thirst for more land and more power. Appeasement, although it may be a safe way of ending conflict and saving lives, ends up being damaging in the long run.
SP p9 I feel like these people are kind of like little kids in the way they do things but the consequences are huge. The fact that they do anything to stop Hilter before he starts is hilarious but there's nothing they can actually do besides stop him.
I agree with the fact that appeasement is not the way to go. It empowers the other party/country and basically makes you weaker. Also, regular diplomacy isn't appeasement, however I think that the current American government does slightly appease to other countries. I think that this is the case of what happened in Pakistan. We were giving in to their demands and eventually they became empowered and disobedient. On the other hand, I liked the way they handled the North Korea situation because they didn't really give in to any of North Korea's demand except the fact that they cancelled a missile test:(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4877169/us-cancels missile-test-in-face-of-north-korea-nuclear-threat.html ). I think that this cancellation, even though it may be small is a form of appeasement and empowered the North Koreans. Eshawn Sharma World History 9
When talking about appeasement, i think that it is important to consider the position as to the nation is in when deciding to appease. For instance, for Chamberlain and the British empire to appease to Hitler's Nazism, i thought was a decision that Chamberlain didnt want to make but had to for the sake of Britain. Like mentioned, it was not a state of weakness or defeat rather a strategy to deal with the problem at hand. Hitler being a major force to any European country at that time, it was hard for leaders like Chamberlain to not face the facts and to give in a bit. As mentioned, a form of appease is to yield, and i think that in order for the survival of ones nation at this time of chaos, it is critical to give and take, to yield, to stay in a manageable position where one can thrive.
ReplyDeleteI think those in favor of what George Bush said about appeasement, and those in favor of what Barack Obama said are both right. You cannot just do anything possible to avoid war and keep peace. What is the point of peace if it's really just one country giving into the other country's demands. One country is the bully, and the other is the victim. You should make it clear you want peace, but not tolerate the other country breaking Treaties and not listening to a word you are saying. This is what the Axis Powers did. I think a country that wants peace also needs to make demands, such as keeping their word, etc. But, if some sort of wake up call needs to be given, then by it all means it should be give, so that it is not a disaster, but more of a heads up call.
ReplyDelete-Rahul Shah
The appeasement made at the Munich Conference has had lasting effects on the world today. Today there is an argument as to whether or not we should negotiate with terrorists. In the article there was a reference to the decision to appease Hitler when he wanted Czechoslovakia’s Sudentland. The result of that appeasement was an empowered enemy, Germany. Now people feel that by appeasing with terrorists, you are empowering them as well. In my opinion, we should not appease with terrorists. Based on past decisions and consequences, appeasement only seemed to hurt the country giving into the demands. One thing I found interesting while reading the article was how there were many anti- Churchill books arriving in stores. Based on my knowledge of history, Churchill was a wise and strong leader. I never knew so many people were against him and his decisions. I also found it interesting when it said that Churchill was trying to appease Roosevelt. I never thought about what he was doing that way, but looking at it now it kind of makes sense to me.
ReplyDeleteJenna F period 9
It is not right to make the comparisons between Chamberlain’s appeasement policy with Hitler and Senator Obama’s support for dialogue with world leaders who are hostile to U.S. interests because the term now and then has different meanings. Appeasement back then meant a truthful strategy to ensure the survival of inhabitants and it was not associated with weakness to confront danger. This version of appeasement prompted Chamberlain to negotiate with Hitler because he wanted to ensure the survival of the British Empire. Now, appeasement has changed. To appease means to produce or allow to aggressive demands. This is what Mr. Obama was not trying to do. He wanted to make the U.S. stronger than its opponents. Overall, the term appeasement has very deep differences between now and the past.
ReplyDelete-M Misir Period 9
In this article, the idea of appeasement was shown in many different ways. As history does repeat itself, the use of appeasement has happened more than once throughout time. Appeasement is like an agreement made to satisfy someone. By doing this, you would avoid war or conflicts. Such thing happened with Hitler and Chamberlain. Hitler wanted the Munich, and he got it. Chamberlain decided to give in, to avoid war. Thinking that, that would be enough for him. But little did he know, that Hitler would be back for more. Bush had the same problem in the U.S. with Iraq. But he was the one who said that you could never negotiate with a terrorist. In today's world, many people do things to avoid conflict and even war. But sometimes giving in is not the answer. That may as well inspire the person to want more.
ReplyDeleteMaria U.
It always surprises me when I read more recent articles how the faults of our past and how they affect us today. It is a constant reminder that we are living history, we write the story of time. When I think of appeasement, I think of weakness and a sense of "giving up". This article really backed up those feeling. Appeasement is like an excuse for your insecurities. Chamberlain tried to protect Britain from getting into another war by pleasing the Germans, but it is clear that was a move that revealed vulnerability and ironically enough led to an even deadlier war. I think it is the selfishness of trying to protect one's own country that leads to appeasement. I really don't think appeasement is the answer to a nations' problems, including the problems Bush faced, because it only powers the one making the demands, and with an unequal distribution of power, as history shows, something is bound to happen.
ReplyDelete-Tiff K
This article was a little confusing, but I think I get the gist of it. Although World War II is relatively modern compared to the rest of history, it is still surprising to see how much of an effect the rise to war has and how many references are made to it today in everyday politics. Just the word "appeasement" itself and its definition is being debated by scholars and Presidents of this country. This term is being used to describe what action the United States will take towards Iran, which is the predicament Neville Chamberlain faced with Mussolini. We are trying to decide whether meeting with radicals and terrorists is "appeasement" and "cowardly" or just negotiation. I would think that we would have these values figured out by now, but I guess that is not the case.
ReplyDeleteI feel that it was a mistake to appease to Hitler's requests back in the '30's. Things could have been different, had the other nations been assertive and explained their views to Hitler- even if he is tough to approach and even more difficult to go against and confront. The fact that when it came to a major event we were forced into appeasement, and comparing to today, as we still use appeasement, shows that it is a big issue in politics today, and that we need to change it. Politics and communication will go a lot smoother with no appeasement, and instead, finding common ground.
ReplyDelete-DS, pd 9
SK period 9: I basically agree when the author when he says that in Obama's speech he was arguing that "diplomacy and talk are the opposite of appeasement." Appeasement is defined as to concede, sometimes at the expense of other principles, but I think that you can partially concede and still maintain your own principles.Roosevelt was tough, directly confronted fascism and formed strong alliances. He did not seek to appease his enemies, but he kept a close eye on them. In my opinion, it is not wrong to keep our enemies close, and it is vital to have an open dialogue to protect ourselves.
ReplyDeleteboth Obama and bush have different ideas on appeasement and i agree with both but mostly Obama because hes right i f we communicated with other countries then we wouldn't need to worry about other ways to fall into appeasement. only if bush didn't rush into it blindsided we could have made better decisions. and maybe Obama was president first it would have changed a lot of things. but, in the situation that were in then i agree with bush we shouldn't appease into the terror like they did in the Munich conference.
ReplyDeleteAM Prd.9
Appeasement is to bring to a state of peace and to satisfy temporarily. In the article, Chamberlain thought that the best way to deal with Hitler was through give up territory to Hitler in exchange for peace and stability: appeasement. But what I don't understand there were comparisons being made between Chamberlain’s appeasement policy with Hitler and Obama’s support towards with leaders who are against U.S. interests and benefits. I agree with what Obama had to say because as the years progress, the U.S. is going to face many problems and it is better to make peace than to fight and make war.
ReplyDeleteMonica Patel
Pr. 9
Caitlin McTiernan pd 9
ReplyDeleteI think that the definition of appeasement has dramatically changed over the course of time. Before World War I, the Munich Conference is an example of other European countries using Czechoslovakia as a scapegoat. This article even states that Churchill “saw negotiation with Hitler as the best way to ensure the survival of the British Empire”. This means, that the only reason Churchill agreed to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia was to make sure that Britain wouldn’t become Hitler’s next target. Not that he actually thought what Hitler was doing was just.
I don’t think appeasement means being a coward anymore. However, it means to diplomatically and civilly negotiate with rival nations without losing your own nation’s sense of dignity. For example, if Obama was to meet with terrorist group leaders, obviously he wouldn’t give into their ways and do what they say (like Churchill and the other leaders did at the Munich Conference). Instead, Obama (or any leader) could learn to come to civil agreements, instead of continuing long lasting feuds and wars.
It was kind of smart for Chamberlain to do this. He did what was best for his empire. Not what was the best for Czechoslovakia. It may have been stupid in the long run, but it was smart at the moment. He tried to do what was best for the England.
ReplyDeleteAnsh Hirani Pd. 9
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, the US acknowledges what appeasment is and how it can lead to problems. Although they try their best to go away from appeasment, they still end up subtly appeasing those in Iran and Iraq by trying to negotiate with the terrorists that are present there. Even if appeasment can avoid conflict temporarily, it will eventually make the other side stronger and the conflict will still remain.
I disagree with those who are anti appeasement. Appeasement is a powerful tool, when a child is cribbing we can appease and satisfy him This can be a problem however, when appeasing is only putting something off, like in the case of Hitler. Many people knew that Hitler would want more, and giving him Czechoslovakia was just postponing the inevitable.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, it appears that some people may believe that appeasement may represent a sign or form of weakness. The definition and meaning of appeasement can definitly be tossed aorund, and can be interpretted and thought of in a variety of different ways.Bak then, Chamberlin didn't think of appeasementof weakness, but more of a strategy to keep his country alive.
ReplyDelete-AB per. 9
Personally, I believe that appeasement is a sign of weakness and should not be used when faced with potential danger of enemies. For example, several terrorist attacks occurring in the USA have been injuring and killing many people. If our government were to "appease" and give the terrorists what they want, they'd be wrong about thinking it would end there. The terrorists would continue to feed on our weakness to surrendering and continue with their attacks until they get more and more. When Britain had appeased to Hitler in Munich and gave him what he want, it didn't end there because that just increased Hitler's thirst for more land and more power. Appeasement, although it may be a safe way of ending conflict and saving lives, ends up being damaging in the long run.
ReplyDeleteSP p9
ReplyDeleteI feel like these people are kind of like little kids in the way they do things but the consequences are huge. The fact that they do anything to stop Hilter before he starts is hilarious but there's nothing they can actually do besides stop him.
I agree with the fact that appeasement is not the way to go. It empowers the other party/country and basically makes you weaker. Also, regular diplomacy isn't appeasement, however I think that the current American government does slightly appease to other countries. I think that this is the case of what happened in Pakistan. We were giving in to their demands and eventually they became empowered and disobedient. On the other hand, I liked the way they handled the North Korea situation because they didn't really give in to any of North Korea's demand except the fact that they cancelled a missile test:(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4877169/us-cancels missile-test-in-face-of-north-korea-nuclear-threat.html ). I think that this cancellation, even though it may be small is a form of appeasement and empowered the North Koreans.
ReplyDeleteEshawn Sharma World History 9