It is the USA that has been the target of appeasement. Every expansion, every death squad, every war crime, every black site, every assassination, every war of aggression, every single time the world appeases the USA.

If you think the USA is appeasing China, your head is screwed on backwards. I know it's a common trope for abusers to feel offended and attacked when their victims standup for themselves, and I know you probably stand with the victims and see through the abusers' bullshit. You need to do that with the USA.

Abu Ghraib - appeased.
Nord Stream 2 - appeased.
Solemaini - appeased.
Iraq - appeased.
Iraq 2 - appeased.
Vietnam - appeased.
Laos - appeased.
Cambodia - appeased.
Korea - appeased.
Hiroshima - appeased.
Nagasaki - appeased.
Guantanamo - appeased.
Libya - appeased.
Syria - appeased.
StuxNet - appeased.
Pulling out of nuclear treaties - appeased.
Refusing to be accountable to ICC - appeased.
Refusing to sign landmine treaty - appeased.
Agent Orange - appeased.
Napalm - appeased.
White phosphorus - appeased.
Depleted Uranium - appeased.
Yugoslavia - appeased.
Afghanistan - appeased.
School of the Americas - appeased.
Wiretapping the entire US civilian population - appeased.
Wiretapping every embassy through Siemens supply chain attack - appeased.
NATO expansion - appeased.
Economic shock therapy kills millions - appeased.
Training terrorists - appeased.
Airlifting terrorists into other countries - appeased.
Environmental devastation - appeased.
Sending expired vaccines - appeased.
Refusing to send vaccines - appeased.
Refusing to follow the predefined protocol for sharing vaccine research - appeased.
Iranian regime change - appeased.
Color revolutions - appeased.
Extracting trillions from Africa - appeased.
Child separation - appeased.
Toddlers in solitary confinement - appeased.
Forced hysterectomies - appeased.
Collective punishment of civilians - appeased.
Support for Israeli apartheid - appeased.
Iran-Contra - appeased.
Fast and Furious - appeased.
CIA drug trafficking - appeased.
Haitian assassination - appeased.
Bolivia - appeased.
Nicaragua - appeased.
Pinochet - appeased.

I can keep going if you want.

Also "appeasement" is a made up post-hoc explanation for the western Allies' actions before WW2, blaming the supposed naivete or lack of spine of the leaders for simply allowing the Nazis to make expansionist moves uncontested, rather than it being an intentional policy to get out of their way and try to direct them eastwards against the Soviet Union.

The 21st century indo-pacific is not a comparable issue to 20th century Central Europe. Also appeasement wasn't even the complete disaster casual observers like to make it out to be (who still won the war after all?) but that's beside the point here. Taiwan is not some defenseless independent country being threatened by the reincarnation of Hitler calling for world domination. It's a part of China that broke away in an ideological civil war that China wants back. Even the US state department acknowledges this fact, yet they still believe it is very important that they protect one part of China from another part of China and extend their civil war which should have ended for good decades ago. This is not an act of peace or charity, this is creating a conflict situation, with Taiwan right in the center of any potential explosion.

See, the US doesn't care about these concerns is because the real reason America is in Taiwan is so they can use it as a strategic base for operations to oppose and weaken the PRC, a "West Berlin of Asia" so to say. And somehow, liberals and social democratic opportunists have deluded themselves into believing that stationing the most powerful naval fleet in history (US 7th Fleet) to permanently do 'freedom of navigation exercises' (armed provocations) in Chinese coastal waters is the "moderate" solution to this conflict. And I suppose we'll just have to keep the navy there forever right? Or until the PRC finally collapses? (I'm still waiting lol)

I say we should cut a deal with the PRC, let them have Loser Island in exchange for mediating other border disputes with their neighbors. A majority of Taiwanese citizens want more integration with China, and they're still their largest trading partner. While immediate annexation wouldn't be popular, a gradual process of integration would be best for the entire region. It would allow the two biggest military powers to step down their aggressive actions against each other, end the period of Taiwanese citizens being used as a geopolitical pawn, and provide a solid diplomatic framework to settle future disputes in the region (as this would be a massive rapprochement in Sino-American relations) This wouldn't even weaken American national security (which is what everyone hates about 'appeasement') since it's, you know, an occupied imperialist outpost on the other side of the world's largest ocean, not even in America's hemisphere.

Of course this option would be totally unacceptable for the American imperialist apparatus, they would never be willing to lose such an important base in the Pacific (just ignore that they would still have Japan, Guam, Philippines, etc). So what's going to happen instead is that the US is eventually going to get distracted and entangled in some other imperialist mess, because they can't recognize their empire is hopelessly overextended, and China will just take Taiwan when they think the balance of power is in their favor. This would be the worse thing to happen: a chaotic breakdown of the region instead of a negotiated reordering. There will be decades of bitterness and calls for mass violence. Maybe it will also escalate and some ships get sunk and the nukes fly and oh well its World War 3. Beware those who call diplomacy 'appeasement' in the post-atomic age, they seek your death.

this line has been and will continue to be trotted out every time Americans or their allies are braying for war anywhere and with anyone ever since the one example everyone can point to in Nazi Germany. how many times has the US justifiably escalated confrontation since WWII, and how many times has it led to a good outcome (and how many times has it led to arguably genocidal warfare on the part of the US)? Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, too many other examples in Latin America, Iraq, Afhganistan, as well as every smaller operation listed in another comment in this thread? America is the biggest threat to peace in the world today and has been since the Second World War.

even if you take it as a given that Americans have good intentions and China is literally Hitler, the calculus of appeasement versus confrontation has to be a hell of lot different from a hundred years ago and compared to a world without any nuclear weapons. The costs of pushing confrontation with Germany in the 30s would have been minuscule and provincial compared to those resulting from escalation between nuclear powers today.

just let China do whatever they want

No one is saying this, but go off.

The politics of appeasement has historically been very successful.

the one singular lesson liberals were able to tease out from all their history classes on ww2

feddit.uk

lmao is this literally a lemmy instance for British feds? this has to be some reverse psychology from the Ml5

westerners are really the most propagandized people in the world

These are the territorial claims of the government on Taiwan, from a state the US and much of the Western world support or at least de facto like to defend in Asia. They never made any remarks regarding Taiwan's claims with 18 other countries. If the US supports peace in the Asia Pacific (besides looking at a map and asking why the US has even a say about Asia in the first place), then surely Mainland China must be supported, as by protecting & legitimizing Taiwan's constitution, you're approving this shit in Asia.

But let me guess, neoliberal countries get a pass from the crackerverse?