Why has appeasement become such a dirty word?

Question

JFK stopped WW3/Nuclear holocaust by 1st not invading Cuba & then by appeasing the Soviets by promising to withdraw all US Nuclear missiles from bases in Turkey. In that case appeasement actually worked very well, solved a extremely serious problem & saved the world from total destruction. Neville Chamberlin made the wrong choice at the wrong time but that doesn't mean that appeasement never works.

JFK showed that sometimes it works very well. Sometimes you have to give a little to get back something you want in return. In the business world they call it a DEAL & it's one of the main reasons why US business are so successful & no one gets killed. Bush may want to pick up a book on the Cuban missile crisis because he might actually learn that might doesn't always make right. Unless of course you are trying to take over the world then it makes perfect sense.

Answer 1

How did you get so smart watching Fox News? Do they have a channel i don't know about?

Answer 2

Your question caught me off guard because I know I am opposed to appeasement. One of your responders, incorrectly, stated that appeasement and negotiation are the same thing. And I realized I couldn't define the word. So I looked it up and share it here with you:

"Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation in the British government, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception. Most famous for being Chamberlains foreign policy during the inter war period 1919-1939 when he used a policy of appeasment to prevent another world war."

That worked for him pretty good too don't you think?

The part that struck me most was where it talkes about accepting imposed conditions of an aggressor instead of fighting. Well, there you go partner. THAT is why appeasement has become such a dirty word?

It is at best the admission of weakness and at the worst it is cowardice in the face of an aggressor.

I've had my A** whipped a couple of times in my life. But now that I know the meaning of the word I can PROUDLY say that I NEVER appeased a G** D*** one of those suckers lucky enough to catch me on a down day. ; )

I must add that now that I have "educated" myself some, I have no respect for any dirty scoundrel that would practice such a policy either as an individual or as a "leader".

So there you go. Knew I felt dirty any time I came into contact with an appeaser...know I know why!

Answer 3

Sorry, but blockading Cuba and bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war is not considered "appeasement". That was considered a trade-off, but was only able to occur AFTER confrontation. That's not appeasement, not by any stretch of the imagination.

The appeasement of Hitler through the 1930's is completely different. England and France did not mobilize, did not threaten, did nothing to prevent Germany from rearming, reoccupying the Rhineland, annexing Austria, and stealing Czechoslovakia in one of the most dishonorable pacts ever signed. The peace-at-any-cost policy was both dishonorable and it brought war. Hitler would have folded at any English or French mobilization or threat of mobilization at any of the early points, and thus the European conflict might have been avoided altogether.

I completely disagree with your assessment of events and your conclusions.

Answer 4

JFK was mad as hell about giving up those bases in Turkey. He did so only because they were no longer necessary, and he wished to God we had taken them out of the picture. He appeased the Soviets by appearing to give them something, when in reality he gave them nothing.

Answer 5

Mr. Neocon ... Sorry, but there's a blatant and fundamental flaw with your point: You seem to have totally overlooked the fact that JFK ordered a complete blockade of Cuba by the U.S. Navy. Translation: Nothing in and nothing out, other than food and medicine, as I recall.

JFK was not trying to starve them into submission, but this showed he meant business. Therefore, this omission on your part seems to completely invalidate the premise of your question.

I don't mean that sarcastically, but it IS a major omission that completely changes the logic of your argument, you must admit.

I invite your attention to my link below. Please scroll down to the section labeled "The US response." You'll find this extremely informative.

Answer 6

What are you talking about?! The Bay of Pigs incident was a far worse aggressive invasion than Iraq is! Mostly because it outright failed, and we had to turn tail and run! JFK did not help the Cold War Situation one bit!

Answer 7

haha, appeasement does not ever work. In the Cuban missle crisis, the missles near Izmir were not of strategic value because of the submarine capability. Hence, we gave up nothing of value and still won. Kennedy knew this.

Answer 8

JFK pulled missiles that he and the Soviets both knew were already setup to be removed. All that was merely allowing the Soviets to "save face"

Answer 9

appeasement works if the opposing party wants something material..al qaeda doesnt..they want death to the west, no more and no less. and the pelosi ites would have you believe cut and run is appeasement...ITS FAR FROM IT. it is an overt showing to our enemy that the liberals in our country dont have the stomach for war and even the secretary of defense says this is a failed policy that emboldens the enemy and will follow us home. again, this ISNT appeasement, its cowardice, plain and simple.

Answer 10

Because appeasement today to a democrats is cower at all costs. You cannot compare JFK to any democrat today.

Answer 11

We are not exactly dealing with a country here. we are dealing with a bunch of psychos who wouldn't think twice about using women and children as shields. Negotiations only work if both sides are willing to come to common ground.