Summary
In his 1976 article, "The Tradition of Appeasement in British Foreign Policy, 1865-1939," [Paul M. Kennedy] defined appeasement as a method of settling quarrels "by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise," thereby avoiding the horrors of warfare.
From the prime ministry of William Gladstone until its discrediting in the late 1930s, appeasement was, in Kennedy's description, a "perfectly respectable" term and even "a particularly British form of diplomacy" well suited to the country's character and circumstances.With reference to Iran, for example, George W. Bush may bravely have denounced "the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," but Middle East Quarterly editor Michael Rubin rightly discerns in the realities of U.S. policy that "now Bush is appeasing Iran."See the full content of this document
Extract
The Historical Argument for Appeasement
AFTER HITLER, THE POLICY OF APPEASING DICTATORS - RIDICULED BY WINSTON Churchill ("An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last") - appeared to be permanently discredited. Yet the policy has enjoyed some successes, and rema...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
