
Today is the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Munich Agreement with Hitler. The word 8220;appeasement8221; has been a synonym for cowardly surrender to armed threat ever since. The Agreement marked the denouement of the foreign policy that Neville Chamberlain had pursued with unshakeable self-belief since8230; 1937. To him appeasement meant bringing a stable peace to Europe by replacing the Versailles Treaty of 1919 with a new settlement based on mutual consent8230; When Chamberlain conceived his vision, Nazi Germany had reoccupied the demilitarised zone of the Rhineland in defiance of the Versailles Treaty and was openly rearming; Britain, too, had begun to rearm. It seemed that Europe was heading inexorably towards another Great War. Here was motive enough for a man of peace such as Chamberlain. Yet there was something else: a deal with Hitler would also effectively solve Britain8217;s problem of defending a global empire in the face of a triple threat 8212; from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and militarist Japan. But Chamberlain, a decent, honourable English gentleman, did not perceive that by wooing Hitler he was yielding him the upper hand, an advantage Hitler was ruthlessly to exploit8230;
The word 8220;appeasement8221; haunts us to this day. It confuses our political leaders who believe that not to stand up to any aggressor anywhere at any time is to be an 8220;appeaser8221;. This was the argument advanced in 1994 to justify intervening in the Yugoslav civil war. No appeasement of Slobodan Milosevic! And recently, both David Miliband and David Cameron rushed to Tbilisi to promise that the West will stand by Georgia8230; No appeasement of Putin and Medvedev! Yet these cases are utterly different from 19388230; to leave Georgia and Russia to their quarrel would not be 8220;appeasement8221; in the derogatory sense, but 8220;strategic appeasement8221;8230; standing firm only in defence of a truly vital interest.
Excerpted from a comment by Correlli Barnett in 8216;The Times8217;