BF2S Forums Appeasement Avoided WW3

SenorToenails wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That was compromise. Both sides lost and gained in that deal. (appeasement is generally one sided.)

That is why Serge should define what he thinks appeasement means.

It can be this:

"... the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be, expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous."

or this

"... something sinister, the granting from fear or cowardice of unwarranted concessions in order to buy temporary peace at someone else's expense... "

Two different meanings.

sergeriver wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Serge, why don't you define appeasement as you see it here.  The word has several connotations, many of which are negative. 

We can't debate with you unless you tell us what you think the word means.

In this case achieving something by granting concessions.  JFK achieved peace by accepting to remove the missiles from Turkey.

Kmarion wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That was compromise. Both sides lost and gained in that deal. (appeasement is generally one sided.)

That is why Serge should define what he thinks appeasement means.

It can be this:

"... the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be, expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous."

or this

"... something sinister, the granting from fear or cowardice of unwarranted concessions in order to buy temporary peace at someone else's expense... "

Two different meanings.

The United States secretly removed all its nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy soon thereafter. That was our compromise.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Compromise != Appeasement

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

That is why Serge should define what he thinks appeasement means.

It can be this:

"... the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be, expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous."

or this

"... something sinister, the granting from fear or cowardice of unwarranted concessions in order to buy temporary peace at someone else's expense... "

Two different meanings.

The United States secretly removed all its nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy soon thereafter. That was our compromise.

as I understand it, they were scheduled to be removed prior to the crisis.  they just removed them 6 months sooner.

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The United States secretly removed all its nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy soon thereafter. That was our compromise.

as I understand it, they were scheduled to be removed prior to the crisis.  they just removed them 6 months sooner.

I don't think JFK would have removed the missiles, because Turkey wanted the missiles there.  He removed the missiles because that was one of the conditions put by the Soviet Union.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement


appeasement is never good.

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

And then we're back to:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Compromise != Appeasement

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

The PGM-19 Jupiter was an medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) of the United States Air Force, removed from service by April 1963.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_missile

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

as I understand it, they were scheduled to be removed prior to the crisis.  they just removed them 6 months sooner.

You guys should really hear the tapes if you haven't.  It was October 26, 1962 that Khrushchev claimed he was justified by our actions in Italy and Turkey.

2) negotiations would then continue to dismantle and remove the missiles along with a guarantee of the territorial integrity of Cuba. He also adds that the other side may ask the US to dismantle the missile sites in Turkey and Italy as part of a settlement. (50:00)

I know this.   That doesnt stimey my point of the missles being obsolete and were scheduled to be removed before october 62.   the cuban missile crisis just expedited the fact

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

You are making assumptions.  Let's say the US replaced the missiles because they were obsolete.  How do you know they didn't plan to replace those missiles on Turkey too?  Here I'm also making assumptions.  My point with this thread is that appeasement is given a negative connotation, mostly because of Chamberlain.  And it can be a positive thing.

no, im not pmaking assumptions.  read my several posts regarding the fact just above yours.   better yet, watch the movie 13 days.   movies are terrible for examples but youll learn something from this one.

I watched that movie.  But again how do you know the US didn't plan to replace the missiles in Turkey?