Appeasement

Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1976-063-32, Bad Godesberg, Münchener Abkommen, Vorbereitung

Addis Ababa-8e00855u

Stanley Baldwin 02

Bundesarchiv Bild 119-5243, Wien, Arthur Seyß-Inquart, Adolf Hitler

Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R69173, Münchener Abkommen, Staatschefs

Appeasement is a diplomatic policy aimed at avoiding war by making concessions to another power. Historically, appeasement has been a controversial and often debated strategy, particularly in the context of pre-World War II European politics. The most notable example of appeasement is the Munich Agreement of 1938, where Britain and France allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia in hopes of preventing a larger conflict.

Origins and Definition

The term "appeasement" can trace its origins back to the early 20th century, though the concept of making concessions to maintain peace is much older. Appeasement is derived from the French word apaiser, meaning to pacify or to soothe. In a diplomatic context, it involves making compromises to potentially hostile powers to avoid conflict, under the assumption that their demands are limited and that satisfying these demands will lead to peace.

Historical Examples

While the Munich Agreement is the most cited example, appeasement has been a strategy employed in various situations throughout history. Prior to World War II, several European leaders believed that the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh on Germany and that allowing some territorial concessions could prevent another major war. This belief was partly based on the desire to avoid the horrors of World War I and the economic turmoil that followed.

Other instances of appeasement include the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935, where Britain allowed Germany to rebuild its navy within certain limits, and the initial Allied response to the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935-1936.

Criticism and Legacy

Appeasement is often criticized for having emboldened aggressors like Adolf Hitler, making them more confident and aggressive. Critics argue that it can signal weakness, encouraging further demands and aggression rather than deterring it. The failure of appeasement in preventing World War II has led to a general consensus among historians and political scientists that confronting aggression early on is more effective than trying to placate an aggressor.

However, some scholars argue that under certain conditions, appeasement can be a rational and effective strategy, especially when the potential aggressor's demands are limited and the cost of war is high.

In Modern Times

In contemporary international relations, the lessons of appeasement continue to influence policy debates, particularly in how states respond to the actions of potentially hostile powers. The term often carries a negative connotation, used to criticize policies perceived as too conciliatory towards aggressive states.

See Also

• Munich Agreement
• Diplomatic history of World War II
• International relations

   This article is a  stub. You can help WikiMD by expanding it!