Negotiation and Appeasement

[OhhJim]

Many people today are claiming that we shouldn't negotiate or appease "enemy" countries, and cite the failure of too much negotiation and appeasement prior to World War II. It is my contention that, although there is truth in that view, that conversely, World War I happened because there wasn't enough negotiation and appeasement. By that I mean that neither Germany nor Britain really wanted war, and if there had been more communication, the conflict could have been averted.

Thoughts?

 

[Oye11]

Many people today are claiming that we shouldn't negotiate or appease "enemy" countries, and cite the failure of too much negotiation and appeasement prior to World War II. It is my contention that, although there is truth in that view, that conversely, World War I happened because there wasn't enough negotiation and appeasement. By that I mean that neither Germany nor Britain really wanted war, and if there had been more communication, the conflict could have been averted.

Thoughts?

I couldn`t agree more Jim. That gives me a reason to brush up on my WW I history... Best memory tells me that Britain through diplomatic interaction had given the impression they would not get involved if Germany attacked France. France seemed well itching for a fight still with wounded pride from the Bismark conquests. Miscommunication and knee jerk reactions have set off many a conflict, U.S. Civil War comes first to mind. Perhaps others can elaborate further...

 

[OhhJim]

France seemed well itching for a fight still with wounded pride from the Bismark conquests.

Yes. I think a case could be made that France and, of course, Austria-Hungary wanted war, and perhaps, Russia. But I have never read any history of the time that said Germany and Britain wanted war-in fact, many sources claim they didn't. Take away those two, and it's not really a world war.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been best to sacrifice Serbia? Think of the devastation it would have averted.

 

[Oye11]

I wonder if it wouldn't have been best to sacrifice Serbia? Think of the devestation it would have averted.

Most certainly, not only the devastation of WW I but a Hitler likely would have never gotten off the ground had Germany not had their faces rubbed in the mud. The German start of hostilities was ill advised but France and Russia were really flexing their muscles... No one foresaw getting bogged down outside Paris in trench warfare for years. Hitler did it the right way, took Paris in a matter of weeks looping in through the back door...

 

[Dale]

Ohhjim in OP:
"It is my contention that, although there is truth in that view, that conversely, World War I happened because there wasn't enough negotiation and appeasement. By that I mean that neither Germany nor Britain really wanted war, and if there had been more communication, the conflict could have been averted."

I am generally opposed to appeasement.

Nevertheless, circumstances vary. Some say that Chamberlain's "appeasement" enabled the British to buy time while they built up their mililtary and prepared for all out war.

 

[OhhJim]

I am generally opposed to appeasement.

Nevertheless, circumstances vary. Some say that Chamberlain's "appeasement" enabled the British to buy time while they built up their mililtary and prepared for all out war.

I can believe that Chamberlain's appeasement enabled the British to buy time, etc.

However, just to play devil's advocate, suppose we (meaning the Western Powers) had abandoned Serbia, and let Austria-Hungary have their way with them. Would the world be a better place, today? Would WWII have been averted? Would millions have not been killed in the wars? Would Stalin have come to power and killed millions? Would the Holocaust have taken place?

Bottom line: Is Serbia a small price to pay for all that?

 

[indra_fanatic]

World War I happened because the Kaiser wanted to crush Russia and Serbia.

 

[The Lone Gunmen]

World War 1 happened because there were too many egotistical autocrats in Europe.

 

[Grey Eminence]

In point form....

-No one in Austria really like the Arch-duke
-Arch-duke gets killed in Sarajevo
-Austria figures this is the chance to crush the Serbian viper that threatens and which it believes is stirring up dissent within the A-H Empires Slav population
-Austria knows it cannot do this on its own, it calls Berlin

-Berlin decides to back Austrian action in Serbia
-Russia, having historic ties to the Slav population in the Balkans will simply not let them be crushed
-Russia warns A-H Empire
-Germany warns Russia

-Austria mobilizes, declares war on Serbia
-Russia mobilizes
-Germany mobilizes and declares war on Russia and France.
-Russia and France declare war on Germany and A-H empire

-Italy interprets the treaty of alliance with Germany and A-H Empire such that it remains neutral
-Germany invades Belgium
-Britain declares war on Germany, but not A-H Empire

It took about another few weeks for the decelerations of war to be sorted out.

The Austria-Hungary was simply looking for an excuse, any excuse, to go to war. And it did so by passing along one of the most infamous set of demands possible. Serbia agreed to all points but expressed 'reservation' about one of them. Since Serbia did not agree to all of them war was declared.

 

[CHARLES H]

I can believe that Chamberlain's appeasement enabled the British to buy time, etc.

However, just to play devil's advocate, suppose we (meaning the Western Powers) had abandoned Serbia, and let Austria-Hungary have their way with them. Would the world be a better place, today? Would WWII have been averted? Would millions have not been killed in the wars? Would Stalin have come to power and killed millions? Would the Holocaust have taken place?

Bottom line: Is Serbia a small price to pay for all that?

the real question and the one that can't be answered with certainity is would the austria-hungarian empire stopped with serbia? or be like germany a generation later seeing appeasement as weakness.

 

[Grey Eminence]

the real question and the one that can't be answered with certainity is would the austria-hungarian empire stopped with serbia? or be like germany a generation later seeing appeasement as weakness.

That can be answered with certainty.

Austria-Hungary was a shell. The only reason they pursued their aggressive policy against Serbia was because they had asked, and Germany replied that they would back them.

Had Germany given A-H the shove off in that matter A-H would have blustered and may have even submitted a diplomatic note similar to what they did. But they would have accepted Serbia's reservations because given the lack of back channel support from Germany they could not press the mater to a state of war; but they had enough general support Europe wide to press the matter greatly.

** ** **

When it comes to ranking the Pre-WWI powers most discussions will focus on the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary as being the weak men of Europe. The odd person might toss in Italy, but while A-H was notionally still a 'great power' it had to ask Germany to serve as guarantor of its actions. That should say all that needs to be said.

 

[OhhJim]

That can be answered with certainty.

Austria-Hungary was a shell. The only reason they pursued their aggressive policy against Serbia was because they had asked, and Germany replied that they would back them.

Had Germany given A-H the shove off in that matter A-H would have blustered and may have even submitted a diplomatic note similar to what they did. But they would have accepted Serbia's reservations because given the lack of back channel support from Germany they could not press the mater to a state of war; but they had enough general support Europe wide to press the matter greatly.

** ** **

When it comes to ranking the Pre-WWI powers most discussions will focus on the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary as being the weak men of Europe. The odd person might toss in Italy, but while A-H was notionally still a 'great power' it had to ask Germany to serve as guarantor of its actions. That should say all that needs to be said.

If this is true, it basically supports my point. With more negotiation and "appeasement", WWI might have been avoided. Which would have avoided the Bolshevik Revolution, WWII, the Cold War, and who knows what else. But no, there was not enough negotiation, and how many millions of people died? Let's learn from our mistakes and give negotiation a chance.

 

[MercuryAndy]

without appeasement world war 2 might have been avoided.

 

[OhhJim]

without appeasement world war 2 might have been avoided.

Which makes the historical record so far, 1-1 regarding appeasement.

I have no problem saying too much appeasement let to WWII, as long as we also say that too little appeasement led to WWI. Let's be fair.

 

[DLaurier]

you are equating negotiation and appeasment with eachother, They are two very different things,

Negotiation is TWO equal partys BOTH making compromises to find COMMON ground

Appeasment is ONE party making demands, and another party submitting to all demands, as made.

WW2 was not caused by negotiation, And in fact, The few acts of negotiation that DID take place, ALL accomplished their intended goal,
Re;
the Italan negotiations with the Americans for a seperate peace,
The Romanian negotiations with the Soviets,
the Finnish negotiations with ALL the allied powers,
The anglo spanish negotiations that kept Spain out of the war.
The anglo turksh negotiations to let the Soviet navy use Turkish ports.

etc etc,

negotiation clearly worked,


WW2 was caused by many factors,,
Among them;
the humiliations imposed unfairly on the Germans by the first versailles treaty,
The Resentment of the Germans towards the hypocracy of the British,
The hystrical fear that the old regimes of Europe felt towards the Soviet Union,

etc etc.

 

[Grey Eminence]

If this is true, it basically supports my point. With more negotiation and "appeasement", WWI might have been avoided.

The demands of Austria-Hungary against Serbia were in large part driven by domestic concerns. Namely the fact that originally a Germanic elite ran the Empire, and then after 1848 it became a Germanic-Hungarian affair. Even after that point a large portion of the population was Slavic (off the top of my head it is on the order of 30 to 40%).

If you want a modern analogue look at Turkish policy towards the Kurds. The one thing that Turkey will never tolerate is a Kurdish state because of the implications to its own integrity as it has a large Kurdish minority. In the case of A-H they had a Slavic state on their borders and they viewed it in the same way Turkey would view a Kurdish state in northern Iraq at the present time.

The point that I am trying to make is that even if A-H had crushed Serbia without intervention it would not have resolved the internal issues that drove A-H to crush Serbia in the first place. More importantly the link between the assassination and Serbia is rather tenuous, it was an A-H citizen who did do the killing (albeit as a member of group advocating a pan-Slavic movement). The link with Serbia was an extrapolated affair involving the source of the weapons.

Even if the assassination did not spark a war there were plenty of incidents in the previous decade that could have (Agadir is the best example) and it would have almost been assured that something in the coming years would have provoked such a war.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

... With more negotiation and "appeasement", WWI might have been avoided. Which would have avoided the Bolshevik Revolution, WWII, the Cold War, and who knows what else. But no, there was not enough negotiation, and how many millions of people died? Let's learn from our mistakes and give negotiation a chance.

I think you're pushing your case too far.

If WW1 had been avoided, there goes the main reason for WW2...agreed.

If WW1 had been avoided...there is no guarantee the the Communists wouldn't have come to power in Russia. It would have looked different, but there were a lot of other factors underlying dissent in Russia besides an unpopular war with Germany.

With no WW2 and a different 'type' of Russian Revolution...a 'Cold War' would have looked very different as well.

I don't think you can pin all of 20th century history on that one point.

 

[OhhJim]

I don't think you can pin all of 20th century history on that one point.

No, you're right, I can't. But that wasn't my point.

My point always has been that there are those who claim that negotiating with (and appeasing) aggressive states doesn't work, and as evidence, they use the example of Germany in 1937-39. While their example is valid, it is only one example, and history has other lessons to teach. History did not start and end with the run-up to WWII. There are other instances where negotiation could have (could have) precluded hostilities, just as surely as there are instances where negotiation failed to do just that.

My point is that it's not honest to pick and choose historical evidence in order to prove one's point. Not that dishonesty ever stopped people trying to make a point.

 

[Dale]

GrinningDwarf:
"If WW1 had been avoided...there is no guarantee the the Communists wouldn't have come to power in Russia. It would have looked different, but there were a lot of other factors underlying dissent in Russia besides an unpopular war with Germany."

The connection between WWI and the rise of the Bolsheviks is well known. In the movie Doctor Zhivago we find the view that the Revolution began with soldiers deserting the front en masse.

There were other leftist parties with more support than the Bolsheviks, whose popular support has been estimated at less than 2%, at most. The largest of these parties was the Mensheviks, far less extreme than the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks came to power for two reasons, first, Lenin's daring in seizing power, and second, that soldiers were so disillusioned that they refused to defend the Provisional Government that had already replaced the Czarist regime.

 

[Dale]

DLaurier:
"WW2 was not caused by negotiation, And in fact, The few acts of negotiation that DID take place, ALL accomplished their intended goal,
Re;
the Italan negotiations with the Americans for a seperate peace,
The Romanian negotiations with the Soviets,
the Finnish negotiations with ALL the allied powers,
The anglo spanish negotiations that kept Spain out of the war.
The anglo turksh negotiations to let the Soviet navy use Turkish ports."

Good list.