Instituted in the hope of avoiding war, appeasement was the name given to Britain’s policy in the 1930s of allowing Hitler to expand German territory unchecked. Most closely associated with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
It is now widely discredited as a policy of weakness!!!
“However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbours, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in a war simply on her account. We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will.” Neville Chamberlain
“We are ready with diplomacy — to be engaged in diplomacy with Russia and our Allies and partners to improve stability and security in Europe as a whole. And we are ready to respond decisively to a Russian attack on Ukraine, which is still very much a possibility.” Joe Biden
A day later-
President Joe Biden reiterated Thursday that the United States will not send its military forces to the front lines of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“Our forces are not and will not be engaged in a conflict with Russia in Ukraine,” Biden said at a White House news conference.
“Our mission is clear – diplomatically, politically, economically – and eventually, militarily – this hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure.” Boris Johnson
“We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote in a tweet Thursday morning. “Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones. I say this as the President of a great power.”
“My friends, as I have discovered myself, there are no disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters.” Boris Johnson
“I will call it what it is: the Russian government launched a brutal invasion, unprovoked, on Ukraine and should be condemned for doing so,” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
Meanwhile Russian tanks roll on:
Taken 24 hours ago
This just sounds all too familiar!
Putin’s rhetoric about Russian sovereignty of Ukraine is just plain wrong in fact.
Ukraine first became a kingdom, Kievan Rus, in medieval times, but it took several hundred years before a national flag was adopted. In 1848, a flag was introduced with a band of yellow above one of blue. The colours come from an old coat of arms, but they also have new symbolism. While under Soviet control, the blue-and-yellow flag was banned. Between 1949 and 1991, Ukraine used the Soviet flag, but with a stripe of blue at the bottom.
I get where your coming from, I really do. It’s the same argument I make.
But it has one serious caveat that I didn’t read in your post: we live in a world with nuclear weapons.
Putin is clearly either insane or desperate to commit to such an invasion, and to back it up with saying intervention by Western countries will be met with nuclear force? That changes a lot of things. Any intervention now must be costed against massive civilian loss of life, on a scale that has yet to be seen in warfare. Like a sword of Damocles it hangs, ready to fall. This isn’t like 1938-39. Mutually Assured Destruction is now a thing.
That being said, MAD only works if both sides are terrified of the consequences, which Putin isn’t anymore. How do you fight something like that? There is enough speculative fiction and real world plans and drills that point to just how dangerous that could be.
If it comes to it, if my country puts out the call I’ll gladly go serve. I’d rather die in a trench then at home from nuclear weapons. But know what it is your advocating for.
I really believe Putin must be stopped. And I’m willing to do what that takes if Canada needs it, as I’m sure many Australians believe as well. But this won’t be WW2 again, with carefully planned campaigns and time to think.
This will be total, and possibly apocalyptic war if Poland or another NATO country is next. Sabre rattling on the internet is one thing.
But are we ready for what that truly means?
The whole atomic bomb thing does change the equation. The other point to ponder is that our modern world is a much more connected world, and I’m talking economically. So in theory crippling sanctions and encourage boycotts should work. Realistically the only thing Russia has to export is terror and energy.
I thoroughly agree with you. MAD is always the elephant in the room.
I am not advocating for military intervention, but am concerned that megalomaniacs cannot see reason and always want more. Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, also NATO countries, are far more vulnerable and could easily be next.
Sanctions on Russia aimed at the Oligarchs that support Putin will hopefully hurt enough to temper his aggression.
As I said let us hope that diplomacy and sanctions work. I am just not sure they will.
It really sucks. I have a Russian friend who is utterly appalled at Putins actions. He lives here now, but a lot of his family is from there and Ukraine and it’s a tough situation all round.
I want to help, desperately. I’m unfortunately disqualified from military service, so that’s out.
Sanctions I don’t think will work on Putin…he’s not making the calls of a sane man at the moment.
Honestly, I think my best bet is to go back to school as soon as I can, finish my journalism diploma, and beeline it to Poland and the Baltics.
Truth dies when no one documents it. I’m tired of being a keyboard warrior. Protesting outside an embassy that could care less won’t work.
But if I can photograph or write down anything important first hand, maybe that’s my job here. I’ll have to do it as a citizen or guerilla journalist but what options do we have?
I have an awfully large pile of shame. It can easily be subsidized into a donation or pay for my schooling and a camera.
This whole thing stinks. I’m young enough to make a difference…but how?
This is NOT our fault. There is no shame in feeling like a very small pixel in a far greater tapestry. All we can do is influence in a positive way those we come in contact with and hopefully change world opinion one step an one person at a time. Direct action can put us, our family and those who may be required to rescue us in danger and this is not a wise approach. speak to your local member of parliament and advocate for what you think is appropriate.
Sadly, most of the western leaders at the end of WWII became Chamberlains. They should have listens to General Patton – rearm the Germans and combine arms to wipe Stalin and his cronies off the map! I mean, the whole of the French Army warmed the bench for 6 years, they could have come in as fresh replacements!
Patton was not on his own. Churchill was also advocating attacking Russia to drive it back to its pre-war boundaries. Interesting what-if isn’t it!
The French Army did not. Most of them were basically POW slaves of the Germans under the Armistice from 1940-1945, and did not have anything close to a normal life. Post-war, they returned to a country that did not recognize that it was really the folly of the French generals and their failed doctrine that caused the fall of France in 1940, not the soldiers. The troops that did eventually form the Free French Army fought well. Agree that Stalin’s demise would have been a blessing, but after 1945 there was little stomach for that.
Agreed and these what if’s are not really very productive.
The folly of the French in 1940 was lack of technology, they sacrificed most of their army at Dunkirk, fighting a delaying action. That said, they did sit out much of WWII, and could have been put use fighting the Soviets.
Respectfully, you need to read more about the French pre-1940. How an Army trains to fight is just as important as what they fight with.
The French doctrine was based upon “the methodical battle” which was born of WWI artillery experiences, where higher (not lower) commanders moved assets and made decisions about where and when firepower was to be concentrated on the battlefield. The French Army also drew upon a much-reduced base of draft-age men (a direct demographic result of the losses of men in WWI), which in turn further limited them in terms of how divisions could be built, which in effect also influenced their doctrine. The methodical battle doctrine was of course not in any way effective when faced with a war of mobility, especially as the Germans allocated authority down to front-line commanders who then could immediately exploit any battlefield opportunities. French officers who challenged doctrine (like deGaulle) were ostracized and their careers held back in the worst kind of groupthink imaginable. Yes, the French forces (mainly the Seventh Army which had the bulk of the mobile cavalry divisions) rushed towards Belgium and Holland and were cut off. They were among the best forces the French had and that decision (Plan D) would leave France with no remaining mobile reserves. It did not help that the Belgians would not allow any Allied troops into Belgium until it was too late as well. Technologically, many of the French vehicles were superior to those of the Wehrmacht of 1940, and were incorporated into their army post-Armistice. Some French tanks had radios, most did not, further exacerbating the weaknesses of the doctrine of “the methodical battle”. One man turrets, limited tank ranges and horrible logistical support, and virtually no air cover did not lead to success. But those were all children of faulty doctrine.
Robert Doughty’s “The Seeds of Disaster” details the failure of French Army doctrine well. His “The Breaking Point, Sedan and the Fall of France” also examines the tactical and strategic perspectives from both sides. As far as a fighting force, having endured 4.5 years of slavery and near starvation in most cases meant that the POW’s (nearly 2 million men) were in no shape to just immediately become effective soldiers. They hardly “sat out the war”. In 1945, their country was in ruins, and desperately needed to rebuild. Even we Americans had no stomach for more war, and thankfully never needed to pull the trigger on Operation Downfall in the Pacific.
Respectfully, you have no idea how much WWII I’ve studied. I your response is a good reminder of why I stopped following your blog years ago.
Good day sir.
I’ve been thinking of the Sudetenland a lot in the last few days for some reason…
The Sudetenland is a good analogy as it mirrors a large number of one ethnic group living in the country of another (Germans in Czechoslovakia and Russians in Ukraine) and them acting for their country to intervene. Interesting how history repeats itself particularly in Eastern Europe!
Well done everyone,
Putin doesn’t strike me as mad, more as a high functioning sociopath with zero empathy for others who enjoys instilling fear & watching people squirm – look at how he’s treated his own people & flunkies in recent days, not to mention the progression of forelock tugging world leaders who’ve recently tiptoed to Russia.
The tragedy in Ukraine is very like the long series of bloody conflicts in the decade after WW2 when various European countries tried to hold onto their vanished empires – hopefully this one ends the same way & fingers stay off nuclear buttons. The grim reality is though that it is only a curtain raiser for what China will do if Western weakness & dithering continues.
Dave knows how I feel about wargaming in the modern period. I really encourage everyone to think very seriously before doing so. People like Putin give it a particular reek.
John I agree with all but your last paragraph. The was a post about the horrors our fellow world citizens are facing in Ukraine ( I have a good friend whose mother and daughter are in Kiev as we speak and she is so distraught at the potential consequences they may face.
I respect your opinion and can agree with an argument based on personal experience and preference but not on ethics. I cannot see how hobby gaming one conflict is more acceptable than any other, after all ” Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won” attributed to Wellington but probably apocryphal as it first appears in lady Shelley’s diaries printed after her death.
I do see professional wargaming in a totally different category as this is using a scenario based approach to improve performance.
Also, “any person who believes we are obtaining “realism” in any game of ours has very little understanding of war
………. The only way you could possible approach an accurate simulation of the battle environment and its tension
would be if both players had the clear understanding that the loser would be shot.”
John Hill War Avalon Hill Games.
You have clearly stated your views and others clearly have a different preference.
I am happy to open a separate blog on this topic but this post is for Nina and her family and is not the place to introduce the ethics of gaming one period over another.
Pingback: Is it a matter of ethics or preference to play one period over another. – Guru PIGS Blog
Putin clearly is a) a sociopath b) a madman who may have some medical issue infusing him with paranoia c) all of the above. I expect that chemical weapons use or a low-yield tactical nuke are possible uses. As an American, I am embarrassed that our senile dotard in chief Biden held up a Trump administration-approved weapons shipment to the Ukrainians that should have arrived in 2021. Biden did not want to “aggravate Putin”. How’d that work out. About as well as peace in out time. God save Ukraine.
Hear Hear!
Mark I agree with you. The lack of French success was not technological but one of outdated thinking. At the battles of Hannut and the tank battle at Orp the French Somua S35, Hotchkiss H35, and the Panhard armoured cars were more than a match for all but the very few PZ1V’s that were present. In fact in the afternoon at the Battle of Orp a counter attack by the Hotckiss tanks of the 3rd DLM and the Ist Cuirassiers caused the Germans to retreat to a more defensive position.
Amen, thanks Dave.
This post has brought out a fair bit of emotion and controversy. A healthy difference of opinion is great and should be encouraged. I hope people challenge my opinions robustly, and I hope I take it as just that – challenging my ideas and thoughts and not me the person.