"Peace for our time"
When the lessons of history feel more relevant than ever.
Black-and-white photos show the British prime minister returning, jubilant, to 10 Downing Street after signing a historic peace agreement. It was 1938. Britain was still (arguably) the leading world power, with huge military might.
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain followed his predecessors in ignoring German aggression—even though the Germans were consistently violating the terms of previous peace treaties. The German leader’s ideas were known from public writings and speeches suggesting his desire to wage war to regain glory and lost land. And Germany had already started annexing its neighbors.
Still, the British didn’t want to get entangled in the Continent again. Its leaders were trying to avoid war at all cost and focus on domestic measures.
80 years ago
Mr. Chamberlain’s policy came to be known as appeasement. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia, appeasement “involves making concessions to an aggressive foreign power in order to avoid war”—or to end a war.
Germany’s annexations continued beyond Austria. When appeasement proved futile to stopping the German leader from suggesting he would take over part of Czechoslovakia, the British prime minister defended his decision thus:
“However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that.”
Then the British prime minister, along with leaders of several other bigger European powers, went around the Czech government to negotiate “peace” with the Munich Agreement. Foreign leaders gave up significant Czechoslovakian land to their aggressor in order to prevent all-out war. The Czechoslovak government was forced to accept for “peace,” even though acceptance meant the German army would reside in their midst.1
If you know anything about Europe—and the larger world—from 1939–1945, you already know that this tragically-named “peace” proved anything but.
What kind of peace do we seek?
I understand the desire for peace.
True peace is a laudable goal—one we all should want. Peace for every conflict, from Ukraine to Gaza to Sudan (and deterrence against China invading their island neighbor). Those of us who value peace want lasting peace that recognizes the autonomy and sovereignty of the people who reside there.
History teaches us that peace at any cost is not such a laudable goal. Nor does this type of appeasement-diplomacy work, as the Czechoslovakian people and the rest of Europe learned at great cost shortly after trying to appease the German dictator.
Won’t we learn the lessons from the past? When a nation’s leader repeatedly violates their treaties, they’ve shown us who they really are—and that their word alone cannot be trusted. This must be part of any consideration, any calculation.
The Ukrainian conflict
In 1994, Ukraine—then with the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world—met with Russia and the United States to sign a trilateral agreement. We call this agreement the “Budapest Memorandum.” and in it:
“Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.”
Another source details that:
“The signatories of the memorandum pledged to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders, and to refrain from the use or threat of military force.”
The Budapest Memorandum held for nearly 20 years, before an increasingly powerful Russian leader with plans to expand to his nation’s former glory decided to break it. He did so in 2014, by annexing Crimea. This move was “peaceful” enough. although not without violence.
While American leaders at the time did unite with other Europeans to impose sanctions, they likely did not go far enough to support Ukrainian sovereignty against their powerful neighbor (to me, this seems clear in retrospect).
Because eight years later, Russia began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, fully violating its treaty. This time, the U.S. chose action, not appeasement. U.S. and European leaders attempted to walk a delicate line between keeping their treaty and inviting broader war (including potential nuclear fallout).
We started sending aid, including old munitions, new contracts for munitions, and a loan. In total, we’ve spent about $128 billion specifically for Ukraine. That’s no small sum—yet still less than point two percent (.2%) of our annual spending. (For reference, the 2024 U.S. federal budget was $6.9 trillion, a sum so staggering I can hardly imagine it.)
There are absolutely reasonable debates about how much money to pour into Ukraine, what munitions are appropriate to send, and more. But what I don’t see very much is a recollection that Ukraine is our sworn ally; that we have a treaty to uphold; and that history tells us that appeasement is seldom—if ever?—effective. (As a mom of a toddler, I heartily second the idea that appeasement seems convenient, but has poor long-term consequences.)
Trust and peace
Chamberlain’s infamous words have been ringing in my head for weeks. We have much to learn from the past. Yes, I know that Putin is not Hitler (not that his admiration for Stalin is any better), and that we are not Britain. But we don’t have to learn this the hard way!
Americans should remember that abandoning our ally—the one we promised to help when they agreed to nuclear disarmament—is counterproductive to creating lasting peace. So is throwing them under the bus, metaphorically, by cutting off aid and intelligence, and allowing Russia to attack and retake hard-fought territory.
Under Mr. Trump’s leadership, the United States has broken multiple alliances. We are advertising to the world that we no longer keep our promises; that we cannot be trusted.
Diplomacy is a delicate dance, and having it known that the U.S. abandons our allies is akin to diplomatic suicide. As the old adage goes, “trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.”
We’re still a big, strong nation, so yes, we continue to have clout. But America’s diplomatic leverage has been severely compromised. Who wants to negotiate with a power that routinely breaks their alliances?
My prediction is that abandoning our allies and giving up the soft power of USAID (and other efforts) may hurt US diplomacy for the rest of my lifetime. I’m in my mid-thirties, so that’s the next half a century or so. As a patriotic American who loves my country, these broken promises have weighed heavily.
Because I want peace. Not a phony peace treaty that ends in half a year, not a pause where the bigger country re-arms and comes back stronger, and not strongmen leaders carving up spheres of influence against weaker, smaller, countries. Not peace at any cost. Real treaties with security assurances that are really kept.
Peace that lasts for generations, where neighbors and neighboring countries can trust and rely on each other—and create a safer, better world for future generations.
I don’t know how we’ll get there. Still, I pray that we remember the hard lessons learned by our predecessors, and do all we can to build lasting peace.
Author note: While I’ve always been interested in diplomacy and foreign affairs, I certainly don’t have a corner on knowledge. What do you think we can do to create lasting peace?
Interestingly, the Czech army was one of the best trained and equipped in the world before 1938. Had they not been abandoned by their allies, the Czechs may have withstood Hitler’s troops for a while—and with the support of Britain, France, and the Soviet Union, could have won the fight. WWII enthusiasts should look into this!