Appeasement is exactly what the world has done to Israel for stealing and occupying the West Bank, the Golan Heights, east Jerusalem and the Sheeba farms.

R. Bates, Ipswich, England

What about "appeasement" towards Saakasvhili's aggression of unarmed civilians, then? Was the carpet bombing of Tshkhinvali -really- different from the Guernicas of the XX century? Why are our soldiers not storming Tbilisi to restore peace? Oh, I forgot: Saakashvili is "our" bad guy... all ok then..

Pietro B, SP, Italy

Did I miss something, wasn't Georgia the aggressor here.
This gave Russia the excuse to 'support' the breakaway regions.
What would America do if it had been in Russia's position? Much the same I expect.

Norman Robinson, Nottingham, UK

Danzig only came under Prussia at the 1st Partition of Poland in 1772 by Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

Louis Poniatowski, Liverpool, UK

The lesson is 'know your enemy'.

Bob Enn, Wolverhampton, UK

People today do not realize the extent of public support for appeasement in 1938. I was a schoolboy at the time and my best friend, no doubt echoing his father's views, said to me: "Dont you think that Mr. Chamberlain is the greatest Englishman ever lived?"

G. Eaton, London,

It is neither necessary nor desirable for Russia to take on the West militarily. Remember it is not a "communist" behemoth like the USSR. It is playing our game by our (somewhat fluid) rules. And, my word, can it play.
Sour grapes produce unpalatable wine. Learn to drink vodka.

Mike L, Chippenham,

Germany France & England have invaded Russia over 100's of years which is why Russia likes neutral border states. Communism has gone and was never a militant threat to Western Europe. Who needs bully boy US policies to defend Europe. Against what? Friendliness is not appeasement -so why not try it?

john bentley, Loule, Portugal

1). The last remaining pipeline for gas, which Europe, relies on to maintain a suply of electricity, runs through geogia, within (determined) walking distance of the new russian position.

Tim Whitworth, Basingstoke,

I thought Chambelain was pursuing a duel goal - both to find peace if it were possible, and to play for time for the rearmament program.

Tim Whitworth, Basingstoke,

did someone cut Correlli off in mid flow? This article starts where it has ended. Old hat about Chamberlain had me skimming to the end for some insight for which Correlli is well appreciated but a subs digit on the delete key got there first..

John Walter, bonn, germany

Unfortunately, the fascists are already in Britain, and running their own fascist legal sysytem with government approval.
Little girls with British citizenship are even being raped & murdered by fascists, and the schools, let alone the government , stand by.
Hitler's favourite religion is winning

Martin, Bracknell,

Paul Williams: the point of the interventionists is, precisely, that those we intervene against will attack us in the end whatever we do. The mistake that Britain and France made with Hitler was that early intervention could have saved much suffering. Some people regard moderation as weakness.

Alex Swanson, Milton Keynes, UK

Unfortunately Barnett ends the article using the language of appeasement to argue against intervention - are Bosnia and Georgia examples of far away countries of which we know little...?

Austin, London,

if you beleive a lie you are blind to the truth.Chamberlain was decived because he was blind to the nature of the man.This parliament is as blind for they do not understand the nature of this European 'bastard' union.For E Heath lied in the reforendum as to the true nature of the beast.

G Blezard, London, uk

Germany was in the right in 1939. Danzig and the disputed territory had been populated by Germans for 800 years. Germany even offered to accept a tunnel link from East to West Prussia . Britain was the one responsible for turning a local border dispute into a World War precipitating the holocaust.

keith b, Wigan, uk

The Russians only respect one thing......An Iron Fist. Sadly, there are no Western Countries who will stand up to Russia and show their respective Iron Fist because they are dependant on Russian oil & gas. The Russkies are therefore laughing at us!!

Louis, Liverpool, UK

First it would be useful to define who the aggressor is in today's situation. For people in the Middle East and areas close by it would often be the UK and the US

Heinz Geyer, London,

I should imagine the concept of appeasement would find a better home when dealing with enviromental issues today

haralambos, Johannesburg,

Lots of 'interventionists' here (how many have served in the Army? I have.) The West is in decline after living beyond it's means for many years. When the new rising powers decide to 'intervene' in the West to impose their world-view on us you'll get a taste of your own medicine. You won't like it..

Paul Williams, London, England

Chanberlain was involved by Daladier in helping France renege on treaty obligations to Czechoslovakia. The British have been useful stooges for French policy since 1904 and still are.

TomTom, Leeds, England

Funny thing about Geogia - given all the great defenders of democracy who write on this site - why do none of you demand a referendum by the people in the breakaway regions, as in Kosovo? Remember? Let the people decide? The reason is they would vote to either join Russia or become independent.

Mark, Munich,

"No such considerations applied to Bosnia or Kosovo." Don't be so sure, Mr Barnett. What example would it have sent to Pamyat and other ultra-nationalist forces in the Slavic world, if Karadjic and his murderous acomplices had won. Thanks again to USA for saving Europe!

Jon, Sydney, AU

The British Establishment fear of Soviet communism forced Chamberlain into a corner with only two choices. A tactical alliance with Russia could have resulted in the replacement of Hitler by moderate forces in Germany.The EU could have evolved in the 1940's. Fear based policy is always dangerous.

Francis Cousins, Wrington, UK

"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions regarding vegetarianism when the wolf is of a contrary opinion"; apologists for appeasers such as the author are always surprised by the existance of wolves.

As Hitler said of Chamberlain, "the nice old man wanted my autograph, so I gave it to him".

Dr Andris Lielmanis, Brampton, Canada.

Just because a conflict arises in a region deemed to be 'strategically unimportant', it doesn't meant we should ignore it. Countries in the West have a duty to act when an aggressor starts to bully a weaker neighbour into submission.

David, London,

Chamberlin may have been weak, but it is also possible he played for time. By September 1939, the UK was rearming and fighter aircraft (" the Spitfire" ) were nearly ready in sufficent numbers. We might have been beaten in September 1938. The question is should we have gone to war in 1938?

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

The author has argued there is a difference between 'appeasement in the derogatory sense', & a new concept of 'strategic appeasement'. But nowhere an explanation of the difference! Worse, "strategic appeasement" may simply be a synonym for recreancy, cowardly, perfidy, untrustworthy, or wobbly.

Bob Evans, Anaheim, California

Absolutely Correct !
100%!

J.Conrad, London, UK

Im stunned by the naivety of this article.Do we only stand up against dictatorial regimes when our strategic interests are threatened?Who decides what is strategically important?Aren't the principals of democracy and self determination worth defending regardless?The author has missed the point,sadly

Ian, Austin TX, USA

Strategic appeasment sounds fine if you are talking about a world with 1930's communications, military and weaponry but today is vastly different. Death can come almost instantly from anywhere on earth or even space. Appeasment is a false premise and should not be countenanced in any form.

Len, Perth,

The problem with this article is that Russia is a resurgent millitary power that poses a general threat to European security.

Does Barnett think that Putin will be satisfied with just the Georgian outposts?

Patrick Hadley, Lichfield,

Never underestimate the far right sentiments of much of the professional military caste in Europe (thankfully the British officer corps is an exception). If a resurgent Germany were today threatening stability they would have no shortage of excuses about how we were to weak to resist

Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

Is it just to me, or do the words 'a matter affecting only a distant region of the Caucasus and in no way posing a threat to Europe or the United States' not ring as a disquieting echo of 'a faraway country of which we know nothing', the phrase with which Chamberlain wrote off Czechoslovakia?

R. Owen, Newbury, UK