Appeasement is the policy of making concessions to an aggressive or threatening power in order to avoid conflict or war. Throughout history, there have been many examples of appeasement being employed as a means of dealing with autocrats, with varying levels of success. Here are a few examples of appeasement that have ultimately proven to be ineffective in dealing with murderous autocrats:
Stalin: During the 1930s, many Western countries adopted a policy of appeasement towards the Soviet Union, hoping to avoid a confrontation with Stalin’s regime. However, this policy ultimately failed, as Stalin used the concessions made to him to further consolidate his power and pursue his own aggressive agenda.
Hitler: Prior to World War II, many European countries, including Britain and France, adopted a policy of appeasement towards Hitler’s Germany. This included the infamous Munich Agreement of 1938, in which Britain and France allowed Hitler to annex parts of Czechoslovakia in exchange for a promise of peace. However, this policy of appeasement ultimately failed, as Hitler continued to pursue his aggressive expansionist agenda and invaded Poland the following year, leading to the outbreak of World War II.
Putin: In the early 21st century, Western countries have pursued a policy of appeasement towards Putin’s Russia, hoping to avoid a confrontation with the country. This has included concessions such as the removal of economic sanctions and the recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. However, this policy has not been successful in deterring Putin from pursuing his own aggressive agenda, including military intervention in Syria and interference in foreign elections.
Xi: In recent years, many countries have pursued a policy of appeasement towards China and its authoritarian leader, Xi Jinping, in the hope of avoiding a confrontation with the country. This has included concessions such as the signing of trade deals and the avoidance of criticizing China’s human rights record. However, this policy has not been effective in deterring Xi from pursuing his own aggressive agenda, including the suppression of political opposition and the persecution of minority groups.
Kim: In the past, some countries have pursued a policy of appeasement towards North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-un, in the hope of avoiding a confrontation with the country. This has included concessions such as the provision of economic aid and the avoidance of criticizing the country’s human rights record. However, this policy has not been effective in deterring Kim from pursuing his own aggressive agenda, including the development of nuclear weapons and the persecution of political opponents.
Ayatollah Khamenei: In the past, some countries have pursued a policy of appeasement towards the Ayatollah’s regime in Iran, in the hope of avoiding a confrontation with the country. This has included concessions such as the signing of the Iran nuclear deal and the removal of economic sanctions. However, this policy has not been effective in deterring the Ayatollah from pursuing his own aggressive agenda, including the development of nuclear weapons and the support of terrorist organizations.
In conclusion, appeasement of murderous autocrats has often been unsuccessful in deterring them from pursuing their own aggressive agendas. While it may seem tempting to try to avoid conflict through concessions, history has shown that such a policy often only serves to embolden autocrats and further their own goals.
Leave a Reply