You may gain temporary appeasement by a policy of concession to
You may gain temporary appeasement by a policy of concession to violence, but you do not gain lasting peace that way.
“You may gain temporary appeasement by a policy of concession to violence, but you do not gain lasting peace that way.” Thus spoke Anthony Eden, a statesman tempered in the fires of the twentieth century, who had witnessed firsthand the consequences of yielding to tyranny. His words resound like a warning bell through the corridors of history: that to bow before violence for the sake of quiet is not true peace, but merely the postponement of greater storms. For peace bought at the price of surrender is fragile, and it crumbles the moment the aggressor hungers again.
The ancients themselves taught this wisdom. They wrote that wolves grow bold when sheep scatter, and that tyrants swell when citizens kneel. A city that yields its freedom for safety soon loses both. Eden’s words echo this ancient law: to appease the violent is to teach them that force triumphs, and thus to invite still more force. True peace can never be built on concessions alone, but must rest on justice, courage, and the refusal to sanctify violence with reward.
History offers a grave witness in the tale of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in the late 1930s. Hoping to preserve peace, Britain and France allowed Germany to annex Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain declared he had secured “peace for our time.” Yet Eden, who opposed such concessions, understood the truth: Hitler was not satisfied but emboldened. Within a year, war engulfed Europe. The lesson was written in blood: appeasement may bring temporary calm, but never lasting peace.
Contrast this with the stand of Winston Churchill. When Britain stood alone against Nazi aggression, Churchill refused to bow, even when defeat seemed certain. His resolve inspired a nation, and his defiance turned the tide of history. Here lies the difference Eden spoke of: appeasement offers comfort for a season, but resistance—costly though it may be—secures freedom for generations. Violence must be met not with concession, but with steadfastness and strength, or it will never cease.
Yet Eden’s words are not merely for nations, but for every soul. In our own lives, when confronted with cruelty, injustice, or manipulation, we may be tempted to yield, to buy quiet by giving in. But each time we surrender to such violence, whether physical or of spirit, we empower it to rise again. The bully, the tyrant, the oppressor—each thrives on concession. To resist may bring conflict, but it also draws the line where peace can truly begin.
The meaning, then, is clear: peace is not the absence of struggle but the fruit of justice. It is not gained by letting evil have its way, but by standing firm against it. Those who confuse appeasement with peace will always be disappointed, for they mistake silence for harmony. Real peace, enduring peace, is born only when aggression is checked and violence is denied the reward it seeks.
The lesson for us is this: in your dealings—whether in family, community, or nation—do not mistake yielding to wrongdoing as a path to peace. Seek dialogue where possible, but draw the line when violence demands surrender. Stand firm in defense of justice, even when it brings temporary conflict, for only through such courage can lasting peace emerge.
So let Anthony Eden’s words ring across the generations: “You may gain temporary appeasement by concession to violence, but you do not gain lasting peace that way.” O children of tomorrow, remember: peace built on cowardice will shatter, but peace built on courage will endure. Choose always the harder path of truth and justice, for in that strength lies the only foundation upon which true peace may rest.
Mmiphahahaha
This quote really hits on the challenge of dealing with violence. While appeasement might seem like the quickest fix, it doesn’t necessarily lead to a true end to conflict. How do we ensure that our response to violence doesn’t just postpone the inevitable? Could there be situations where negotiation and compromise are a better long-term solution than outright resistance? Where do we find the balance between standing firm and addressing underlying grievances?
TVNguyen Tieu Vy
Eden’s view on appeasement seems to reflect a timeless truth about the cycle of violence. While it might provide temporary peace, appeasing violent forces often leads to even greater harm down the line. But what’s the alternative when facing a situation where one side is much more powerful or willing to escalate? Should we always resist appeasement, or are there situations where it’s better to buy time until a more lasting solution can be reached?
VMVinh Mai
Eden’s statement makes me think about the long-term consequences of giving in to violence. While it may offer a temporary sense of calm, is there really such a thing as lasting peace if the underlying issues aren’t addressed? How can we move away from appeasement and focus on finding solutions that prevent further violence? Is it always possible to resolve conflict without giving in to demands, or is that just idealistic thinking?
HMNguyen Huu Minh
I agree with Eden’s point, but it’s hard to ignore that sometimes giving in seems like the only way to avoid immediate escalation. How do we balance the need for short-term peace with the dangers of appeasement? Is it possible to find a middle ground where we avoid violence but still stand firm against unjust aggression? When do we draw the line, and how do we stay consistent in our approach to peace?
GDGold D.dragon
This quote makes me question the effectiveness of appeasement in the long run. It’s easy to give in to violence or aggression to avoid conflict in the short term, but as Eden suggests, this may only delay the real resolution. Isn’t there always a risk that appeasement leads to more demands and even greater violence later on? What other strategies could be more effective in securing lasting peace without compromising principles?