Unformatted text preview: p://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/science/article/pii/S0030438706000056#,PS)
The strategy of appeasement, while seemingly discredited after 1938, has recently attracted surprising and favorable attention from scholars of international relations.2 Part of the problem surrounding the term has been a failure to agree on its meaning. Properly speaking, appeasement is not synonymous with diplomatic negotiations or diplomatic concessions, but refers only to those cases where one country attempts to alter or satiate the aggressive intentions of another through unilateral political, economic, and/or military concessions.3¶ It is sometimes argued that appeasement can work under certain circumstances, and that Neville Chamberlain's performance at Munich in 1938 was simply a case of appeasement badly handled. 4 The drawbacks of appeasement, however, are inherent. They lie in the fact that concrete concessions are made by one side only, while the other side is trusted to shift its intentions from hostile to benign. With this strategy, there is nothing to stop the appeased state from pocketing its gains and moving on to the next aggression. 5 Britain'...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/27/2013 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Summer '12 term at Berkeley.
- Summer '12