Jens Asbjørn Bøgen
History repeats itself – all we can do is learn from it.
What was meant as a sweeping blitzkrieg to conquer Ukraine has turned into a grinding war of attrition for Russia.
Nearly four years of war, and still no end in sight, even though Donald Trump is trying to get Putin and Zelenskyy to meet for peace negotiations.
The Russian demands
The Kremlin continues to stand firm on its demands for the bloodshed to end:
- Ukraine must give up any ambitions of joining NATO.
- No Western troops will be accepted in Ukraine.
- Ukraine must cede five regions in eastern Ukraine to Russia and recognize them as Russian.
The five regions Russia has annexed and demands control of are the Crimean Peninsula (which Russia annexed in 2014), Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
Ukraine has repeatedly rejected these Russian demands as unacceptable.
A quid pro quo?
In mid-August, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin held a summit in Alaska.
After the summit, Trump reportedly backed a plan for Ukraine to cede unoccupied Ukrainian territory to Russia in order to secure an end to the war.
However, such concessions have often failed to prevent larger conflicts throughout history — as appeasement did in the 1930s.
Appeasement diplomacy
The reason we bring this up is that the build-up to World War II was influenced by what is called “appeasement diplomacy.”
The idea behind this kind of diplomacy is that you give an aggressor something in order to avoid a larger conflict.
The legacy of World War I
In the wake of the devastating losses of World War I, Britain and France adopted appeasement as a policy rooted in the desire to prevent another catastrophic war.
Public opinion in both countries was overwhelmingly pacifist, and leaders believed that the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh on Germany.
Appeasement was seen not just as diplomacy, but as a moral obligation to right past wrongs while preserving peace at almost any cost. This created a permissive environment in which early signs of aggression were downplayed or ignored.
Economic instability and political paralysis
The Great Depression had weakened the economies and political systems of many European democracies, especially Britain and France.
With massive unemployment and political unrest at home, these countries were in no condition to rearm or confront dictators abroad. This economic fragility made confrontation seem impractical and dangerous.
Appeasement offered a less risky path — at least in the short term — for nations struggling to stabilize internally while facing growing external threats.
The remilitarization of the Rhineland
When Hitler ordered German troops into the Rhineland (between Belgium and Germany) in March 1936 — violating the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact — Britain and France failed to respond. This event was a critical test of their resolve.
Hitler even told his generals that if the French had resisted, he would have ordered a retreat. The lack of any military or diplomatic pushback emboldened Hitler, convincing him that the Western democracies lacked the will to stop his expansionist plans.
It marked a turning point, showing Hitler that calculated risks could be taken with little consequence.
The Anschluss of Austria
In March 1938, Nazi Germany annexed Austria in the so-called “Anschluss,” a clear violation of international agreements.
Yet again, Britain and France issued no more than diplomatic protests. Their reluctance to intervene was based on a combination of reasons: many viewed Austrians as ethnically German, and there was a widespread belief that Germany was simply reclaiming what was rightfully theirs.
This failure to act reinforced Hitler’s perception that territorial expansion under the guise of national self-determination would go unchallenged.
The Munich Agreement
Perhaps the most infamous moment of appeasement came with the Munich Agreement in September 1938.
Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, along with French leaders, allowed Hitler to annex the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia without consulting the Czech government. Chamberlain returned home declaring “peace for our time,” but the move only delayed the inevitable.
It was a strategic blunder: not only did it hand over Czechoslovakia’s defensible borders and industrial heartland to Germany, but it also further convinced Hitler that the Allies would continue to back down.
The Nazi-Soviet Pact and the invasion of Poland
Having learned from years of Western inaction, Hitler signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with the Soviet Union in August 1939 — a non-aggression treaty that secretly included plans to divide Poland.
This cleared the way for Hitler to invade Poland on September 1, 1939, without fear of Soviet intervention.
Only then, after years of appeasement and failed diplomacy, did Britain and France declare war on Germany. But by that point, the policy of appeasement had already given Hitler both the confidence and the geopolitical advantage to launch a global conflict.
Additionally, NATO was created in the wake of World War II, meaning no such defensive alliance existed when the war broke out.
There are, of course, differences
Now, as full disclosure, it’s important to point out the differences between the 1930s and today.
First of all, Russia is not 1930s Nazi Germany. In the 1930s, Germany elected Adolf Hitler. Russians did not elect Vladimir Putin leading up to the war in Ukraine — he has been in power for nearly a quarter of a century.
Additionally, the 1930s United Kingdom is not the United States of today. The UK was marred by the Great Depression and was in a position of weakness. The U.S. of today is not, at least not nearly as weakened — depending on who you ask.
Finally, nuclear weapons did not exist in the 1930s. With thousands of nuclear warheads in stock around the world, a new world war could prove apocalyptic for all of humanity, leaving no one the victor of a confrontation.
Do you see the similarities?
If Trump is indeed supporting a plan for Ukraine to cede territory to Russia in order to stop the fighting, it could become the “Anschluss” of Ukraine.
Simple diplomatic protests did not deter Hitler from continuing his aggression toward the rest of Europe.
It is unlikely that Vladimir Putin would refrain from further aggression if he learns that he can actually get something from it.
This article is made and published by Jens Asbjørn Bogen, who may have used AI in the preparation
