Appeasement: The lessons of history

Film buffs familiar with the works of Mel Brooks probably know “To Be or Not to Be,” where he did an amusing impersonation of Adolf Hitler and launched into a musical number that went: “I don’t want war, all I want is peace… A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France, a little piece of Austria, and a piece of...”

This classic piece of parody with the play on “peace” and “piece” somehow conveys how the policy of appeasement adopted by Europe’s leaders led to World War II. Before the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, Hitler engaged in a series of moves that must have been his version of a litmus test. In 1933, he withdrew Germany from the League of Nations, then in 1935 reintroduced conscription, increased arms production and expanded the German army to half a million in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. No European leader took action.

Hitler then upped the ante by sending soldiers into the demilitarized zone of Rhineland in 1936 — considered an act of hostility under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and a repudiation of the 1925 Treaty of Locarno. Definitely, the French were aghast to find three battalions of German soldiers on their border and condemned the action, but were unwilling to go into war without the help of Britain – whose government replied that the Germans were merely going into their own backyard.

By March 1938, Germany had annexed Austria, “legalizing” this through a manipulated plebiscite a month later that showed majority of Austrians approving the “Anschluss” or union with Germany. Pretty soon, Germany began the saber rattling, threatening to launch a war in Europe unless the Czechoslovakian region of Sudetenland — where some three million Germans resided — was turned over to the Deutschland. Neville Chamberlain, then the Prime Minister of England, believed it more prudent to appease Hitler rather than go into war and convinced France to sign the Munich Agreement — dubbed as the “Appeasement of Hitler” — on Sept. 30, 1938, ceding Sudetenland to Germany — without representation from Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain justified Hitler’s demands as reasonable, and had thought that if they gave in to the Führer, he would be satisfied and would stop.

One of the biggest critics of appeasement during that time was Winston Churchill, who famously said, “An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last.” Indeed, the appetite of Hitler grew even more — occupying the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939, followed by Memel in Lithuania a week later, then Danzig, West Prussia, Poznan and the city of Lodz in Poland in September 1939 — placing Chamberlain into an embarrassing situation where he finally had to declare that England was now in a state of war against Germany. Hitler went on to invade Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, France — and by the time it was over, World War II has claimed the lives of an estimated 55 million people worldwide.

Those familiar with world history would certainly understand the context of President Aquino’s reference to Hitler and Czechoslovakia in his New York Times interview, where he declared: “At what point do you say ‘Enough is enough?’… Sudetenland was given in an attempt to appease Hitler to prevent World War II.”

Observers have noted China’s increasing belligerence and growing brashness in its demands, pointing to a series of developments that make us — students of history — support President Noy’s growing concern, urging the international community to “prevent the mistakes of the past” and to “unite in upholding the rule of law.”

According to an expert, one of the policy principles adopted during the Chinese Communist Party’s 18th National Congress hinted at “expansionist” motives such as “securing China’s claims and rights over maritime regions” – clearly displayed by the current territorial disputes involving the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan over the South and East China Seas.

China’s declaration of an Air Defense Identification Zone for the airspace covering areas in the East China Sea including the disputed Senkaku islands under the control of Japan, and a new ADIZ for areas claimed by South Korea, indicate China’s growing boldness and confidence of its power. Add to that the fishing restrictions it imposed in contested areas in the South China Sea — described by the US as absolutely provocative and potentially dangerous.

Keen observers also noted subtle moves to place disputed areas under Chinese administrative control, like promoting Sansha City into a prefecture with jurisdiction over the Spratlys and the Paracels, and the issuance of new passports with a map incorporating the disputed territories under China — triggering a diplomatic furor. In November last year, a South China Morning Post report said that by 2020, China expects to finish building four medium carriers — the number that a country needs to become combat capable. Just recently, media reports said China was building its second aircraft carrier, quoting Liaoning provincial committee chief Wang Min as saying they were also building additional advanced 052D destroyers. Curiously though, the reports were later removed from the Internet.

Some people disagree with the seemingly confrontational tone adopted by the President urging other leaders to come out with a stronger response against China’s continued bellicose posturing — with some even criticizing historical analogies as hysterical and preposterous, arguing that times are different now. But one simply cannot and should not ignore disturbing signals from a country that claims to take the path of peace, yet refuses to accede to international arbitration.

Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to suffer the consequences — because indeed, history can repeat itself.

*      *      *

Email:babeseyeview@yahoo.com