History Forum / General / Ancient History / April 2004

Which is incorrect too. Hitler was very upset when Chamberlaim gave him
what he wanted. Hitler desperately needed war in 1938 (he was in
financial troubles). Now that he got what he asked, it meant that France
and the British were able to build more arms and prepare themselves.
Hitler had to find additional support, and he found it at an unlikely
place: in Moscow. Having secured his rear, he could attack France. It
was not the war he wanted, but at least offered a solution to his
financial problems.

Think of Tiberius who negotiated after the Roman defeat at the
Teutoburger Forest (and had done so before). Unlike Augustus, Tiberius
knew the Celtic and Germanic tribes. Leave them alone and they start to
quarrel among themselves. And indeed, Arminius was immediately killed by
his countrymen and the Rhine frontier was safe until, say, 240 - with
the sole and atypical exception of the Batavian revolt of 69-70.

Another example: Xerxes gave the Yauna (we call them Greeks) everything
they wanted. And indeed, the rivalry between Sparta and Athens was the
best guantee for peace on the western front.

So, I'd say: what's wrong with appeasement when your enemy only finds
unity in opposing you?

Jona