a reply to: Tardacus
I believe yours was the best answer, the British were then governed by a prime minister whom while a very good peacetime prime minister was actually
a terrible judge of character AND went about appeasing Hitler, this prime minister was Neville Chamberain whom after meeting Hitler allowed the
dictator too many concession's and famously made the doomed statement in which he declared "Peace in our time" waving a worthless scrap of paper
Hitler had signed.
He was later kicked out by Parliament and one MP famously told him to go Now for he had stayed too long for any good he may have done (meaning that
his appeasement of Hitler which by that time had turned very sour indeed was one of the biggest mistakes of the century).
Winston Churchill was of course his successor, a terrible war planner in himself as the Australian's and New Zealanders will happily point out due to
this mishandling of the Gallipoli Campaign of the first world war but nevertheless a strong personality that helped keep up moral in a Beleaguered
Britain that clung to it's defiance despite the overwhelming might of the NAZI's.
Appeasement in that case led to ONE of the most terrible wars of the twentieth century, a war which actually was already being fought in China
between the Chinese and the Japanese but of course that could be argued to be a separate war that merged with the greater war that came with the rise
of the Third Reich.
Appeasement has always been a mistake and you very correctly point out how it lead's to worse wars because when it is understood properly Appeasement
is allowing a nation that is acting Rogue to bully and get it's way.
And Involutionist, a great post but you are wrong on many point's.
North Korea was the tip of the Soviet plan and it actually represented an expansion in the Soviet influence in Asia, Stalin like Hitler before him
had a dream of world domination especially having been emboldened by APPEASEMENT given to him at Yalta which allowed him to keep eastern Europe and
led to the Cold War.
It was only the threat of Nuclear weapon's that actually prevented the Soviets from taking the rest of Europe and doing what the NAZI's had failed to
do to them.
Communist Korea was a proxy of the Soviet's, at that time the Chinese were also an ally of the Soviet union but later Stalin and Mao both with there
huge ego's butted head's and it went bad for Russia with China actually allying itself to the US despite its own communist rule.
In Korea it was not just American's fighting, it was nation's from the whole free world, developed world and there were soldiers from England,
France, Belgium - Even Turkey there fighting against the Communists, A former SAS guy I knew, sadly now passed on was behind Communist Korean lines on
several occasion's and took out more than a few Soviet Advisers, he even spent several days in the middle of a Korean camp hiding in there rubbish
piles waiting for a target whom he later took down and spent several days lying half in and half out of a stream waiting for another.
The Soviet's were attempting to gain proxy state's there, in the case of NK it was a stalemate but actually the Communist Koreans' had lost and there
were only day's or week's left in the war but then the Chinese sent there own soldiers in to fight FOR the Communist Korean's, eventually a truce was
signed and a DM was set up but animosity remained between the South and the North Korean's, blood had been spilled and brother had fought brother
leaving there nation split in half and family's divided most often against there will.
But south Korea was not a Utopia and for many years a military dictatorship ran the country, democracy protesters even had there head's turned into
pulp by the boot's of the South Korean military as recently as the 1980's/90's before Democracy was finally brought to them, it always takes time to
get a military government to hand power to the people, still even under the military junta that ruled them they were far better off than there north
So you say America killed 4 to 10 million Korean's but you are actually wrong, the Soviet's caused that war with the intent of dominating the world,
the Un's and there communist party are drenched in the blood of there fellow Korean's upon whose bone's they rose to power and Lil Kim is sporting for
war so that he can blame the US for all his internal problems and secure his family's imperial Dynasty (it is not communism it is an imperial rule by
a jumped up little dictator and now his fat son), Kim need's problems' with the west to secure his position and the worst thing he can think of is
letting his people not be brainwashed and have free will because then he would be a nobody so he need's this trouble and is gambling that it won't go
wrong for him BUT if he is appeased he will just get worse, eventually the north will try to take the south and the truce once brokered will end, if
the US back's down that will happen and that will spark a war that will end up costing hundreds of millions and perhaps even billions of lives.
The Cost of appeasement is far more death and suffering as Tardacus correctly pointed out.
edit on 8-9-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)