Appeasement Is The Proper Policy Towards Confucian China

by Ambrose Evans Pritchard - January 25h, 2011 - The London Telegraph

Is China now where Germany was in 1900? Possibly. There are certainly hints of menace from some quarters in Beijing. Defence minister Liang Guanglie said over New Year that China’s armed forces are “pushing forward preparations for military conflict in every strategic direction”.

Professor Huang Jing from Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yew School and a former adviser to China’s Army, said Beijing is losing its grip on the colonels.

“The young officers are taking control of strategy and it is like young officers in Japan in the 1930s. This is very dangerous. They are on a collision course with a US-dominated system,” he said.

Leave it to another of the left wing radicals of Europe to openly suggest that the appeasement model of Obama is the rational course of action with China. Such advise is based on the idea that the two wars with Germany need not have taken place if we had more "effectively" appeased Germany. That we were blatant in our appeasement, and that it merely encouraged Germany to go to war, is a misunderstanding of the proper course towards handling the aggressive young militants, according to this writer. We should have appeased Germany earlier but in a firm manner and war would have never happened.

See. It was all the fault of the Western Democracies. We drove Germany's militant young officers to war the same way we are driving the Chinese young officers to war today. So when it happens, it will not be the fault of the Chinese aggressors. It will be the failure of America to properly appease the "good" Confucian forces in China.

It is just such delusional thinking that always leads the so-called "peace movement" to blame those who resist war for the war that results. If you just lay down like a lamb, the wolf will not eat you. If you doubt that, then you are worse than the wolf. At least that is the theory of the radical extremist anti-war proponents of peace by violence.