blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/05/bush_and_his_use_of_appeasemen.html
Contact us Ed cetera Join the Editorial Page staff in lively discussions daily at our new blog, Ed cetera. We're returning to blogging after a hiatus, and enter the political year with the gusto of a blog with informed, opinionated writers of The Times' Editoral Board!
here, that to "negotiate with terrorists and radicals" is "appeasement." What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938. The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state. His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe--and ones that thought of themselves as German --be under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic. We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But 1938 was only 19 years since Germany's borders had been redrawn, and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I Certainly there was a memory of the "Great War." In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of "The Good War" it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following the historical lesson they had learned 1914-1918: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic--that is, territory that was not German. And so when Bush recalls the unnamed senator who, in September 1939, lamented that he had not been able to talk to Hitler, he hits an easy target. In September 1939, when Germany started the war, it had no just claim to any more territory. But the Palestinians who fight Israel do have a just claim to territory. we can argue about the justness of their military tactics, and so on. And the same for the Israeli side, which is equally arguable. The step that must be taken now is for the two sides to talk, so that they can make a deal that both will accept, and that each side will enforce against its radical elements. In that context, to continually bring up Hitler, the Nazis, the Munich Conference and continually use the word "appeasement," is wrong. To use those comparisons is to assert that it is morally questionable even to talk to the Palestinians. It is to give an excuse to seal them off, cast them out, to deny that they have any just claims. To compare the Palestinians--who are occupied, oppressed, denied, stepped-on--with Hitler's Germany in 1939 is incredible and ridiculous .
Posted by Mardukhai 1:42 PM, May 16, 2008 How many Israeli troops are in Gaza? Hitler always said that he never meant to keep treaties to build his "Greater Germany," and the Palestinians say the same thing today -- "one Palestine, from the river to the sea." Posted by Rebnatan 1:44 PM, May 16, 2008 You are insane. The Palestinians are acting just like others who demanded appeasement: it only whets their expectations, and they demand more. And what they teach about Jews is pretty much on a par with what Hitler taught. Not only that, but Palestinian nationalism has its roots in the close relation of the Mufti of Jerusalem with Herr Hitler. The Palestinians "are occupied, oppressed, denied, stepped-on" by their own leaders and their own choices. The comparison between Hitler and the Palestinians is right on the money. Posted by Chris Rinkus 1:46 PM, May 16, 2008 I can safely say this is the single worst display of reason AND journalism in the history of the printed word. To address the latter, you are providing news analysis of an event that happened 70 years ago. It seems like you might have missed the boat on that one. To address the former, you are defending Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. More importantly, in your discussion of the absorption of Sudetenland, you have discounted the basic premise of self-determination for a people as a fundamental right. Perhaps the Seattle Times would be wise to offer buy-outs. Posted by redc1c4 1:47 PM, May 16, 2008 Ignoring, of course, the small detail that the Paleostinians want to exterminate the Jews, just like Hitler tried to do. What is truly appalling is that you, Obama, and the Democratic party in general seem to have no problem with that. Posted by Daniel 1:49 PM, May 16, 2008 And had the allies made a deal with Hitler maybe he could have completed his "final solution." Posted by Sarah Banderleigh 1:49 PM, May 16, 2008 What I find incredible and ridiculous is your assertion that Hitler had some sort of "right" to German speaking territory and giving it to him in order to prevent war would be the right thing to do. So, under that twisted and repellent logic, I can demand that you turn over your home to me or I'll declare war on you.... Posted by jaytee 1:49 PM, May 16, 2008 Yes, by all mean, let's grant the Palestians their "claims" based on laughably naive historical analogies. The Sudetenland was not part of Germany before WWI, but part of the multi-ethnic Hapsburg empire. Germany had no historical claim on that land stretching back to the Middle Ages. Hitler was practicing geo-political thievery and the appeasers let him do it. If they'd attacked a weakened Hitler then it would have caused tens of thousands of deaths. But the allies dithered and the world lost tens of millions of innocents. It should be crystal clear to any thinking person that Hitler always had ulterior motives and what he actually wanted in 1938 was unreasonable to say the least. Next -- of course, any talks with Hamas are certainly appeasement. Hamas wants legitimacy in the international community, and they get it when the seal of the United States is installed at any table at which Hamas somehow wins the privilege to sit. Let the Palestinians elect new leaders who are willing to declare full respect of Israel's sovereignty. Until then we should not even think of talking with the Hamas genocidalists who have never ceased denying Israel's right to exist. Posted by Carol 1:51 PM, May 16, 2008 "What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable." Did you re-read what you wrote before hitting "Publish"? This is the stupidest thing I have ever read in the pages of the Times, and you all publish a lot of deeply stupid stuff. Last time I looked, Palestinians are mostly occupied, oppressed, denied, and stepped on by their own rulers. And for those of you who weren't paying attention last year, Israel doesn't occupy Gaza any more. They gave it to the Palestinians who promptly turned it into even more of a dump than it was before. And finally, the President was talking about talking to Ahmadinejad who has the same goal as Hitler, the extermination of the Jewish race. If you ever got out of your lefty echo chamber, you would know this: it's not about Israel, it's not about Palestinians who are merely a handy excuse, it's about the continued and (to Amadinejad and his ilk) intolerable existence of Jews. Posted by TakeFive 1:55 PM, May 16, 2008 "What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. well, let's not spoil the suprise for our gentle readers. Posted by Douglas 1:56 PM, May 16, 2008 "What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority." A dictator demands that bordering countries hand over some of their territory, and because there were some German speakers there, that made it OK? Posted by d00d 1:57 PM, May 16, 2008 Only a fool could argue that what Hitler wanted was unreasonable given that what he really wanted in the end was in the public domain all along. Does the author need a clue finding out what Hamas/Hezbollah want in the end? Do we give them the inch w/out conditions when we know they want th...
|
http://csua.com/feed/