Why is the Federation so dumb?

[Timo]

"Appeasement" is a term often abused, thrown about by commentators who seem to have no idea what it actually means.

..Or even if they sorta do, more or less correctly associating it with what Chamberlain was practicing, they tend to forget that it was in fact a highly successful policy. Hitler nearly conquered the world with it!

Basically everything Hitler did until 1939 was appeasement. He bent over backward to let Stalin better fuck him in the ass so that he could keep oil from the USSR flowing - he gave Stalin free aviation technologies and training, free if half-built battleships, even free territory, all without direct reciprocation merely in order not to piss off the Soviet leader. He caved in on Mussolini's silliest demands, and granted special rights and privileges to all sorts of "neutral" leaders in Europe and the Middle East... All because he could trivially afford to. All his real enemies thought him a ridiculously weak leader, and allowed him to proceed with his plan (or with what would have been his plan, had he had the patience to think of one).

Caving in was a good policy back then, and remains a good one today, because it makes petty players feel empowered and unlikely to actually act against one's interests. Many an old empire appeased its way to long-lasting dominance, and the Federation's "neutral zone", "never-total-victory" policy seems to serve this newer empire pretty well...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Danger Ace]

"Appeasement" is a term often abused, thrown about by commentators who seem to have no idea what it actually means. Appeasement and diplomacy are certainly not the same thing ...

Are you aware of the word's meaning?

Just in case, "appeasement" is the policy or act of granting concessions to demonstrated or potential enemies in order to maintain peace. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

-- and given that the Federation kept sending its most powerful ship, the Enterprise-D, to confront the Romulan incursions beyond the Neutral Zone in early TNG, I think it's safe to say that the simple fact that the Federation made a concession to refrain from using their own cloaking devices, does not constitute appeasement.

Incorrect. When Chamberlin appeased Germany on specific points the royal navy still patroled the ocean to protect shipping lanes and he still ramped up military production, therefore, I respectfully submit your trying to somehow paint "diplomacy" and "appeasement" as somehow being mutually exclusive terms is wrong.

IOW, just because the Enterprise-D continued to patrol and confront when warranted does not mean there were no acts of appeasement by the Federation in their dealings with the Romulans, Klingons, whoever.

Also, when folks repetatively try to slap others with labels such as "warmonger" (or similiar) they only serve to highlight even more the flaws in their own arguments.

 

[Sci]

"Appeasement" is a term often abused, thrown about by commentators who seem to have no idea what it actually means. Appeasement and diplomacy are certainly not the same thing ...

Are you aware of the word's meaning?

Just in case, "appeasement" is the policy or act of granting concessions to demonstrated or potential enemies in order to maintain peace.

No, it is not. It is the act of granting non-reciprocal concessions to demonstrated or potential enemies in order to maintain peace. In other words, it is the international equivalent of saying: "I am weak; take my wallet, just don't hurt me."

No one has yet demonstrated that the Federation's decision to concede the development of its own cloaking technology was a non-reciprocal concession. Nor has anyone yet demonstrated that this concession has particularly cost the Federation, since the Federation constantly seems able to counter every new Romulan cloaking technological development, and seems to maintain a constant strategic and territorial advantage over the Star Empire and the Imperial Fleet.

 

[Danger Ace]

No, it is not. It is the act of granting non-reciprocal concessions to demonstrated or potential enemies in order to maintain peace.

You make me giggle.

With appeasement the reciprocation to the concession(s) is supposed to be peace.

I have even checked a few different sources and "non-reciprocal" hasn't appeared in any of the definitions for appeasment (so please cite a credible source for your expanded definition).

 

[Count Zero]

Just a small reminder: please keep the discussion on stuff in the Trekverse. Thanks.

 

[horatio83]

Also, when folks repetatively try to slap others with labels such as "warmonger" (or similiar) they only serve to highlight even more the flaws in their own arguments.

When people claim that the Feds are a bunch of Chamberlains who do give in to the uber-evil Hitlerian Romulan Empire which wants to burn the entire quadrant instead of standing steadfast and not paying even the smallest price for peace they gotta live with the label warmonger.
Distorting the truth in order to rationalize total war (if the Rommies are intergalactic nazis the only option is to pre-emptively crush them before they devour you) simply is warmongering.

And as Sci constantly points out, once you ignore these lies and take a look at what actually happened on the screen it becomes obvious that a) the Federation takes the Romulan threat very seriously, its flagship is often to be found near the neutral Zone and b) the Romulans have not conquered the Federation yet.

In the real world the nazis took the "neutral zone", the Rhineland, without any repercussions whereas in the fictional world of Trek the Federation would certainly not tolerate a fleet of warbirds. The appeasement stuff is simply nonsense.

 

[R. Star]

^

So basically you're saying that if anyone disagrees with your opinion, they deserve whatever labels you hurl at them. Real classy.

 

[horatio83]

No. I am saying that when you call somebody appeasement proponent you gotta live with being called warmonger.

 

[R. Star]

Amazing. A lesser man would be incapable of simultaneously denying and confirming my statement in a single post.

 

[horatio83]

Putting a label on somebody yet crying foul when the same thing is done to you is hypocritical.

 

[sonak]

No, it is not. It is the act of granting non-reciprocal concessions to demonstrated or potential enemies in order to maintain peace.

You make me giggle.

With appeasement the reciprocation to the concession(s) is supposed to be peace.

I have even checked a few different sources and "non-reciprocal" hasn't appeared in any of the definitions for appeasment (so please cite a credible source for your expanded definition).

giggles aside, Sci is correct here. Appeasement is NOT the same as a concession, otherwise you could never have negotiations. Appeasement has the connotation of a non-reciprocal concession made out of fear or out of weakness in order to avoid conflict.


Appeasement is giving your lunch money to the bully so he doesn't beat you up. It's NOT the normal "give and take" of diplomacy.