When is appeasement an alternative?
Consider the situation when Chamberlain, Daladier and Mussolini met with Hitler at Munich in 1938. Hitler had already occupied the Rhineland in 1936, taken Germany out of the League, rearmed and united Austria with the Reich. All violations of the Treaty of Versailles. Germany had the most powerful and modern army and air force in Europe. France was in a defensive posture behind the Maginot LIne; England had the most powerful navy in the world but lagged behind in army and air force. Hitler claimed hte Suedetenland was Germany territory and under the right of self determination the German population there should be in the German Reich. France could not protect the Czechs against an attack by Hitler; England did not have an obligation to do so and the Soviet Union was mistrusted - no one wanted the Soviet military to move in against Hitler. France and England were faced with the choice of going to a war for which they were not prepared for a country they could not defend. The only thing France and England could hope for is that Hitler and the Nazis would get cold feet if they would go to war for the Czechs. Given Hitler’s will and power, this was out of the question. After Munich, England tried to form a military alliance waas against Hitler with the Soviets. This failed because the Soviets demanded the annexation of the Baltic States as their price. The Hitler-Stalin non-aggresion pact and the attack on Poland forced war. Hitler was surprised that England and France would fight over Poland. He had always stated his purpose of Lebensraum, or taking the Slavic lands including Russia in the the East. Meanwhile America was still in the Depression, in a state of complete isolation with a useless army and air force and an outmoded navy. America was engaged in the defense of China and trying to stop Japanese militarism in Southeast Aaia. We watched Hitler overun France, Scandinavia , Yugoslavia and North Africa, followed by the invasion of the Soviet Union. FDR had to pull out all the stops to enact a draft and give miltiary aid to England and the Soviets throught Lend-Lease.If Japan had not attacked Pearl and Hitler had not declared war on America, the question of when America would have entered the war is problematical.
Go back to Munich in 1938. Was appeasement a rational choice for France and England? Did the return of the Suedetenland to Germany seem like the satisfaction of a legitimate grievance? Was the Suedetenland worth another war?If you want to blame Chamberlain and Daladier then also include the head in the sand isolationism of the United States.

It’s diplomacy if my guy does it, appeasement if the other guy does it.

Diplomacy is the willingness of two or more sides to negotiate with one another. For instance, your teenager wants to borrow the car. Diplomacy is the negotiation of the terms surrounding this request and whether or not you can come to an agreement.

Appeasement is saying “Sure go ahead”, because you want to be the “cool” parent.

The first involves work and the willingness to compromise. The second is easy and solves nothing.

Talking with “opponents” isn’t necessarily wrong. The difference is exactly who those people are and what their vocal and apparent agendas are.

Nixon going to China and Reagan talking with Gorbachev are not the same as Carter talking to Hamas or Obama discussing talking to Ahmadenijad. Saudi Arabia as a whole has not expressed any terroristic or aggressive intentions, but the Iranian government has. Thus while we still have icy terms, we can talk to Russia and China, but I wouldn’t talk to Chavez, Syria or Iran.

Having a rocky relationship or rather a foreign nation with positions that aren’t necessarily congruent with ours, though we both seek some common ground and exchange is different from having a diametrically opposed relationship with a foreign nation that espouses positions that are completely different than ours, is vocally agressive and showing signs of specifically efforting to hurt us physically, much less our allies, as they don’t want a common ground execept on their terms only.

Raghvendra Singh:

An afternoon spent nipping on the cooking sherry enhances the use of authentic liberal gibberish when attacking the right.

c’mon sage you can do better than that.

Jimmy Russell:

“c’mon sage you can do better than that.”

Thank you for the encouragement. Whacked our loopies get the same wild hare attack and end up writing the same letter to the editor over and over, the only variation is blaming Cheney for something or other.

“that he started engaging in presidential politics in his recent trip to Israel, while indirectly commencing Sen.Obamaʼs support talks with Iran as a notion of making friends with a Nazi like regime.”

Please interpret that and get back to me. Singh could have been commenting on Jimmy Carter’s recent trip to the Middle East, kissing up to heinous murderers for no apparent reason other than an all consuming desire to flirt with sedition.

I think ” hs ” had the best definitions…

And - OMG! - Ms/Mr I.Sage made a post without the usual “Obamessiah” slur! WHO has been hitting the sherry?
But s/he can’t be all bad - after all, s/he has a sense of humor and must be a fan of “Monty Python And The Holy Grail,” whence her/his referencing The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog with the phrase “…wild hare attack…”

Ohhh - did you mean something else and used the wrong phrase ? ? ?
My bad…..I was crediting you with wit…

When not a sage believes he’s a wit, he’s only half right!

The reason Bush doesn’t talk to so many people and countries is Cheney won’t let him prove how much of a truly, deeply moronic imbecile Bush is and thereby invite immediate, devastating attacks upon the US and its allies.

Tim, you need to quit hittin the crack pipe.

Thomas F. Maher:

“And - OMG! - Ms/Mr I.Sage made a post without the usual “Obamessiah” slur! WHO has been hitting the sherry?”

Again, your irrational rant is unsupportable. “Obamessiah” does have a ring of truth but I haven’t used it a single time. Don’t be too concerned though, many leftists are delusional to some extent.

“But s/he can’t be all bad - after all, s/he has a sense of humor and must be a fan of “Monty Python And The Holy Grail,” whence her/his referencing The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog with the phrase “…wild hare attack…””

I am a fan of Monty Python but I intended no tribute to The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog in “Monty Python And The Holy Grail,” it was only a pejorative reference to the undomesticated Leporidae that invades the nether region of Swedish Socialists and other unstable political commentators.

Oh, and it’s “Mr. Iconoclastic Sage,” not that that’s ever made a difference in your amorous pursuits.

Tim Hogan:

“The reason Bush doesn’t talk to so many people and countries is Cheney won’t let him prove how much of a truly, deeply moronic imbecile Bush is and thereby invite immediate, devastating attacks upon the US and its allies.”

Your harsh appraisal of the President of the United States uses derogatory epithets based on misfortunes of people who have no control over their physical afflictions. I could do the same and say that Barack Obama is a liver-lipped blackamoor or that John Edwards overtly tantalizes some gender confused supporters with a saucy wiggle as he walks away from them. But I won’t.

Negotiation is what happens when you are being robbed. You tell the Guy that, “I won’t shoot and kill you if you if you surrender.” Appeasement is if he surrenders.

If he doesn’t, then dial 911, and ask tor the number for the local morgue.

That is the relationship between people, or countries. No Difference.

Appeasement is the result of trying to negotiate from a position of weakness and then giving in to superior force. When giving in allows what is going to be a fait accompli anyway and gives time for future resistance, what other choice is there. When playing poker if you don’t have the cards you can fold or bluff, but if your opponent knows you don’t have the cards, you are going to lose. Hitler knew England and France didn’t have the cards and that America was not even in the game. Hitler later overplayed his own hand and lost the game. Negotiation requires a strong position and also implies the willingness to give in on some points. There must be a quid pro quo. When one side refuses to offer anything worthwhile or one side insists on an unnegotiable demand, then a resort to force is necessary.The Rooosevelt Administration refused to agree to a Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere in Asia and the occupaton of China We know what happened.
In the case of the Palestinians v Israel there is room for negotiation even though one side has superior power. The destruction of either political entity is not negotiable. The question is what does Hamas want in return for ending attacks on Israel not including its destruction. What is Israel willing to give. If the U.S. wants Iran to stop its nuclear program, what leverage does it have? What diplomatic, economic and military cards are in our hands? If Iran takes the position that the nuclear progam is non-negotiable,the U.S. must either resort to force or use containment and deterrence of Iran. Has the Administration weighed the results that will come from either option and will it decide which is the lesser of two bad options. This is not a queston of appeasement. It is a high stakes game that both sides can continue to play or one side will try to make the other side fold.

MR. I. Sage -
Love it:
” Oh, and it’s “Mr. Iconoclastic Sage,” not that that’s ever made a difference in your amorous pursuits. ”
You are so sweet and clever, you naughty man! I bow to your wit!

I figured you meant “hair” in reference to the wabbit, but hoped you were just having a spelling-challenged moment.

You are writing better, though…

In case the OP actually wanted the question answered, and since I’ve not seen anyone else answer it, here goes:

Negotiation is two opposed sides coming to a mutually beneficial agreement.
Appeasement is one side giving up something valuable in the hopes that the other side will stop being a pain. Usually followed by the appeased side demanding even more.

Negotiation is the basis of capitalism. Appeasement is the basis of much foolishness.