Join the informed, opinionated journalists of The Times' editorial staff in lively discussions at our blog Ed Cetera.
May 16, 2008 8:52 AM
Posted by Bruce Ramsey
Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. 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. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.) Germany's claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.
So the British and French let him have it. Their thought was: "Now you have your Greater Germany." They didn't want a war. They were not superpowers like the United States is now. They remembered the 1914-1918 war and how they almost lost it.
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. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless--and the British and French did not appease Hitler any more. Thus the lesson of Munich: don't appease Hitlers.
But who else is a Hitler? If you paste that label on somebody it means they are cast out. You can't talk to them any more. And it has gotten pasted on quite a few national leaders over the years: Milosevic, Hussein, Ahmadinejad, et. al. In particular, to apply that label to the elected leaders of the Palestinians is to say that you aren't going to listen to their claims to a homeland. I think they do have a claim. So do the Israelis. In order to get anywhere, each side has to listen to the other. To continually bring up Hitler, the Nazis, the Munich Conference and “appeasement,” is to try to prolong the stalemate.
Posted by Nazi Idiot
1:41 PM, May 16, 2008
Wow. Thats a load of bunk. Hitler's demands were not reasonable, ever.
Posted by Mardukhai
1:42 PM, May 16, 2008
How many Israeli troops are in Gaza?
And how many Israeli troops were in Hebron in 1929?
The comparison to Munich is very reasonable. 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. Learn some history, or go see a psychiatrist.
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. Is that the definition of illogical? 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."
Are you insane?
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.... and you'll just turn over the keys and the deed? Is that how it works, Bruce? Is that how it worked for the Jews living in Germany?
I used to think the left was just misguided. Now you're veering towards malevolent insanity.
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. There's your REAL analogy.
Posted by Ed
1:50 PM, May 16, 2008
Good heavens. What deplorable revisionist history. 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"? You just defended Adolf Hitler! 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. What they have, they have brought on themselves. 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. "
And when his reasonable demands were not met...
...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."
Is this guy serious? 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. Mein Kampf may ring a bell.
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 the mile?
History settled this argument years ago. No point in arguing against it.
Posted by Sally J.
2:55 PM, May 16, 2008
This has to win the "Tripe Editorial of the Year" award.
Posted by schmelke
2:57 PM, May 16, 2008
Wow -- what an appalling display of ignorance. As if Hitler was going to be incredibly happy with his first set of demands -- as if he hadn't already outlined his plans somewhat clearly in his writing (I know, he didn't mean it either, just like Ahmadinejad). You are either naive or just so desperate to demonstrate yourself as some kind of misguided "progressive" that you couldn't take the time to reread history. What's next? If we only had let Hitler have those territories, he would have given up on the "final solution"??? I guess the Times has no standards for their so-called pundits.
Of course, you'll probably be so happy you elicited responses -- that does not make you in the least bit informed or intelligence -- it does make you a joke.
Posted by cu17en
3:00 PM, May 16, 2008
this is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read... crongratulations to you sir, and your publication.
Posted by brett
3:03 PM, May 16, 2008
Self-Godwin, right in the face.
Everyone who had the slightest bit of reasoning skills available to them in the year 1938 knew that Hitler would not stop with the Sudeten, with Czechoslovakia, or with anything short of the entire world. Churchill had been warning the world about Hitler since the early 1930s.
You know, most people would think twice about posting a piece calling Hitler reasonable. Not the good old Times! Nice work.
Posted by Rick Morenas
3:04 PM, May 16, 2008
Is this guy on acid or does he suffer from hypoxic brain damage? This can't be real.
Posted by John
3:07 PM, May 16, 2008
Those National Socialists were really quite progressive. The even had a national service program like many democrats are suggesting today (the Hitler Youth). They pressed Volkswagen into designing a "people's car" which became the beetle. fascism seems to be okay with dems as long as its their ideology being forced on people.
Posted by wolfgangvonhelsing
3:10 PM, May 16, 2008
"What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable..."
This sentence represents conclusive proof of dementia. It also employs a double negative. How reassuring for your readership to know that the Times' editors are mentally and vocationally incompetent.
Posted by Kman
3:12 PM, May 16, 2008
Un - be - lieve - able!
Posted by Kevin
3:13 PM, May 16, 2008
Go to Prague, and see what the Czechs think of your incisive support of the Munich Agreement.
Posted by BummerDietz
3:15 PM, May 16, 2008
Stalin also made completely "reasonable" demands to 12 million or so of his comrades.
Hussein made completely "reasonable" demands to the neighboring Kuwaitis.
Posted by Ken
3:16 PM, May 16, 2008
This has to be the single most moronic thing I have ever read in a newspaper. Your historial ignorance is horrifying.
This would make a nice entry on Stormfront.
Posted by fire_Bruce_Ramsey
3:16 PM, May 16, 2008
Hitler demands were reasonable.
How things have changed.
You need to be fired.
If you were alive at the time. You would understand that being fired is getting off easy.
Posted by earlsofsandwich
3:18 PM, May 16, 2008
President Bush promised the Palestanians an independent state in his speech, and was talking about appeasement in reference to Iran/Hamas. This editorial misconstrues Bush's statement.
And wow, defending Hitler, Obama has a way of bringing out the best in his followers.
Posted by Strangepost
3:19 PM, May 16, 2008
The old saying goes "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
A careful reading of the Sudetenland article in Wikipedia shows the following:
1. There were some legitimate frustrations by ethnic Germans
2. Local leaders of the German community allied with Hitler to try to take advantage of these grievances.
3. Hitler had his own agenda as well. He was not interested in protecting Germans, he wanted to grow his empire and emasculate Czechoslovakia. And shortly after Germany annexed Sudetenland, he started persecuting Jewish people in that region.
An idiot like Ramsey could argue Hitler was reasonable. And therefore, the argument could go, anytime someone mentions Hitler, they better be in a situation where in their judgment the demands are NOT "reasonable" or "just claims." Otherwise they are just waving "the Hitler card".
however, what about the Czechs and Slovaks who lived there? Did their rights count?
What about the the rest of Czechoslovakia, who was rendered defenseless because the military fortifications they had to abandon?
And what about Jewish people who lived in the newly occupied land? 270K died as a result of the appeasement.
I think the point of appeasement analogies though is - it didn't work for Hilter. He had his agenda. He found excuses, perhaps which had a portion of legitimacy - but there was a lot of gray, and no interest at all in finding a gray answer for a gray problem.
This is another error of Ramsey: when he writes "to used these comparisons is to assert that it is morally questionable even to talk to the Palestinians" - he ignores the reality that there are always talks with the Palestinian and that the US has given help recently to Fatah in its struggle against Hamas.
What is the agenda of Iran? it is simple:to destroy Israel.
What is the agenda of the Palestinans? Well, it depends on which Palestinians you mean. If you mean Hamas, it is simple: they want to destroy Israel. Unless of course you believe Jimmy Carter. Uh huh.
What about Hezbollah? Simple. Destroy Israel.
Just as Hitler's legitimacy depended on conquest and destruction, so does the legitimacy of the Iranian government, and hamas, and Hezbollah. Just look back at the breakdown after the Palestinian Accords, the ones Arafat signed then reneged on.
Broad sweeps like Ramsey's make one wonder what history he has read. Does he understand complexity and grayness?
Look at the Wikipedia article about the Sudetenland.
Some very interesting quotes:
In August, UK Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, sent Lord Runciman to Czechoslovakia in order to see if he could obtain a settlement between the Czechoslovak government and the Germans in the Sudetenland. His mission failed because, on Hitler's command, Sudeten German Party refused all conciliating proposals
Chamberlain met Hitler in Godesberg on September 22 to confirm the agreements. Hitler however, aiming at using the crisis as a pretext for war, now demanded not only the annexation of the Sudetenland but the immediate military occupation of the territories, giving the Czechoslovakian army no time to adapt their defence measures to the new borders. To achieve a solution, Italian prime minister Benito Mussolini suggested a conference of the major powers in Munich and on September 29, Hitler, Daladier and Chamberlain met and agreed to Mussolini's proposal (actually prepared by Hermann G�ring) and signed the Munich Agreement accepting the immediate occupation of the Sudetenland. The Czechoslovak government, though not party to the talks, promised to abide by the agreement on September 30.
The Sudetenland was occupied by Germany between October 1 and October 10, 1938. This unification with the Third Reich was followed by the flight or expulsion of most of the region's Czech population to areas remaining within Czechoslovakia.
The remaining parts of Czechoslovakia were subsequently invaded and annexed by Germany in March 1939.
You could even see Hitler's claims he was protecting the Sudeten Germans as a way of expanding his anti semitic reign of terror. Another quote from Wikipedia:
Shortly after the annexation, the Jews living in the Sudetenland were widely persecuted. Only a few weeks after, the "Kristallnacht" occurred. As elsewhere in Germany, many synagogues were set on fire and many Jews were sent to concentration camps. In later years, the Nazis transported up to 300,000 Czech and Slovak Jews to concentration camps. where 90% of them were killed or died. Jews and Czechs were not the only afflicted peoples; German Socialists, communists and pacifists were widely persecuted as well. Some of the German Socialist fled Sudetenland via Prague and London to other countries. The "Gleichschaltung" would damage permanently the community in the Sudetenland.
Posted by VicSemprini
3:19 PM, May 16, 2008
Wow. Is this a signal that you've now decided to drop all pretense of objectivity and finally publicly admit that you're just a media organ for the Democratic party?
The logical and historical contortions and distortions in this piece are clear evidence that you guys are doing your best to keep obviously inexperienced and naive Barack Obama from looking like the genuinely dangerous college campus ideologue he is.
Posted by ztower
3:22 PM, May 16, 2008
Unbelievable! You'd have to be a pole vaulter to take the leap this logic requires. Disjointed blather in search of a point.
Posted by Tom
3:23 PM, May 16, 2008
Wow. To defend Obama against the President people will take Hilter's side.
Posted by charles soper
3:24 PM, May 16, 2008
Hitler 'not unreasonable' his propagandist and ally the Palestinian Mufti and his followers incomparable!
What a twit!
Posted by vivendum
3:28 PM, May 16, 2008
In my opinion, you're a very sick man, Mr. Ramsey.
I can't tell which you need more: a full psychological evaluation or an exorcist.
Posted by Brian
3:28 PM, May 16, 2008
I take it you never read Mein Kampf.
Hitler's "reasonable" requests would have been followed up by subsequent "reasonable" requests until he controlled the whole of Europe.
Additionally, the idea that we must take whatever action possible to avoid war is simply wrongheaded. War is a necessary tool. When you face people who will not compromise (or who's "compromise" is unacceptable), war is inevitable.
Mr. Obama's assertion that negotiation is the answer assumes that the people he is talking to are going to be reasonable. For example, President Ahmadinejad has been shown to be unreasonable. He wants the complete destruction of Israel, which is one of the few democracies in the area.
The reason this is called appeasement is because we are negotiating under the threat of war. Essentially, our opponents are threatening war if we do not agree to their terms. That is not a negotiation. It is appeasement.
Posted by Ted Strout
3:32 PM, May 16, 2008
So what exactly is its own "radical element" against which Israel should enforce an acceptable deal?
The people in Sederot, maybe, who are rabble-rousing against rocket bombardments?
Or maybe you meant the "settlers" in Gaza who...oops, never mind, they left.
Bruce, you're a fool. There's no "deal" to be made with a neighbor who fundamentally refuses to accept your existence, and works every arrangement toward the ultimate goal of your eradication.
Posted by Mardukhai
3:34 PM, May 16, 2008
I've been reading your replies. I think the one that said that you should "re-read what you wrote before hitting 'Publish' was spot on.
You are now, officially, the contemprary great idiot on the left. There will be dumber ones. But you have it for now.
Posted by Cringe
3:35 PM, May 16, 2008
"In regard to this point I should like to make the following statement: To demand that the 1914 frontiers should be restored, is a glaring political absurdity, that is fraught with such consequences as to make the claim itself appear criminal. The confines of the Reich as they existed in 1914 were thoroughly illogical because they were not really complete, in the sense of including all the members of the German nation. Nor were they reasonable, in view of the geographical exigencies of military defence. They were not the consequences of a political plan which had been well considered and carried out, but they were temporary frontiers established in virtue of a political struggle that had not been brought to a finish; and, indeed, they were partly the chance result of circumstances."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 1925 regarding post WW1 borders..
Doesn't sound like he was just concerned with getting back lands lost from the war...but maybe a bit more.
I know you're just an op/ed writer..but try not to remind us so blatantly remind us that you guys have no connections to ideals such as character and integrity.
Most of us could garner more "facts" on the subject from a used car salesman...(sorry to used car salesmen for the insult)
Posted by Brian Garst
3:37 PM, May 16, 2008
"When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don�t give anyone an excuse to start one."
And yet, give Hitler an excuse is exactly what they did. Weakness is an excuse for war. Hitler's aggression was not some big surprise. Winston Churchill saw it coming well in time to prevent it. It's painful how poorly you missed the point. If the objective is to avoid war, giving in to the demands of thugs, no matter how "reasonable" is not the way to go about it.
Even if we accept your premise that the Palestinians have some territorial claim (they don't), their true objective is much more than that: the destruction of Israel. Appeasing their territorial demands will only encourage them to pursue their broader goals, just as it did Hitler.
Posted by Jeff
3:39 PM, May 16, 2008
"What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable."
Sir, with all due respect. You have a diseased mind.
Posted by bob
3:40 PM, May 16, 2008
this editorial proves that twisted revisoinism has taken over liberal politics. I used to consider myself a liberal--but Hubert Humphry has long since departed. When Obama becomes pressident, I'm sure that this kind of writing will beomce more the norm. Those who still have a grain of common sense:m fasten your seat belts: it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Posted by Nathan Crutchfield
3:41 PM, May 16, 2008
What kind of people work at the Seattle Times?
If you are a representative of journalism, it is a sad day. You must be a Holocaust-denier as well as a Nazis sympathizer. I really don't believe after several readings an intelligent person could have have written these comments as well as the absolute absence of any intelligent understanding of Hitler, Nazis or their history.
No, I think you are actually a total fool.
Posted by Christopher Taylor
3:43 PM, May 16, 2008
"What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable."
This reads like someone so totally in the bag for a politician that they're willing to abandon all reason and principle to defend them. Can you face yourself in the mirror?
Posted by Bryan
3:45 PM, May 16, 2008
Hitler's demands were reasonable???
What exactly were you smoking when you wrote this sir?
Posted by Eli
3:45 PM, May 16, 2008
This is delusional tripe. That's why you go with a massive military buildup when you're annexing something, strip citizens of rights, seize their property and promote an expansionist agenda from the lowest to the highest person within the country.
Do people not learn history anymore? Perhaps they just learn revisionist history. What a failing, I guess this is what we get when we 'do forget'.
Posted by Kevin
3:46 PM, May 16, 2008
"He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed."
If you were Jewish in Vienna, you might disagree with the "without bloodshed" part. I have friends who lost most of their families because of the Anschluss.
Posted by Jon
3:47 PM, May 16, 2008
Oh your so right! "What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable.' " Now for his intentions, that is another story. Now "comparisons is to assert that it is morally questionable even to talk to the Palestinians" , Gee I missed that part of the speech!
Bush has tried to form a two state solution since taking office. No other person on the planet has come up with Bush equates Palestians to Nazi's like you do here. Every other leftist in this country, has said this is an attack on Obama's call to sit down with Iran, Chavez, N. Korea and Assad without pre-conditions. Hillary was even calling that policy "naive". I mean you could have taken the MSNBC rant some of his ex cabinet members suggested talking to these countries. Even though we do, just not at the Presidential Level. No you wanted to bring to light how bad the plight of the Palestinians is. As for Hamas, every concession given by Isreal has been met with rockets and promises. Promises of more rockets until Isreal is no more.
Posted by Yashmak
3:52 PM, May 16, 2008
"What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority."
Apparently Obama isn't the only one who needs a history lesson. If that's all Hitler wanted, he would've stopped when he got it, don'tcha think?
Posted by George Santayana
3:55 PM, May 16, 2008
While I disagree with Mr. Ramsey's assertion that Hitler's demand for the Sudetenland in 1938 was merely a "reasonable" request for the return of German speaking territories, I fully embrace his comparison of Nazi demands for territory to the Palestinian demand for territory today. And should the Palestinian demands be met I fully expect the same outcome that befell the Jews of Europe at the hands of the Nazis.
Posted by wormzer
3:57 PM, May 16, 2008
Please tell me that Mr. Ramsey is reading all of these comments.
"Person X, having just ANNEXED another country, was not being unreasonable in asking for more." What sort of reality distortion field is the author living in? He even admits that in just "a few months" that dealing with Hitler was "worthless."
At what point will this author admit that dealing with Iran, Hezbollah and the like will be "worthless." Some reason, this guy thinks we're still in that "not unreasonable" phase. Must be nice living in that reality distortion field.
Posted by Saul Goode
3:57 PM, May 16, 2008
I wrote over a year ago that if a left wing poloiticain were compared to Hitler that the left would try to rehabiliate him and the Third Reich
Posted by Incredible
4:05 PM, May 16, 2008
"He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. "
By that logic, since so many people in Texas, California and the other southern states speak spanish, we should allow those states to fall under Mexican authority.
Posted by John
4:08 PM, May 16, 2008
"Ramsey and his use of Equivocation" would be a more appropriate title for this garbage.
1. "What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable."
a. Bannish religion.
b. Exterminate the Jews
c. Complete control of the world.
You're right Bruce, those things only "sound bad". Hitler was really misquoted , taken out of context.
2. ":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, "
Isreal: We have a right to exist.
Hamas: NO YOU DON'T!
Yes, the possibilities for compromise are unlimited!
Isreal: Okay, Only have of the Jews have a right to exist.
Hamas: NO YOU DON'T!
I see how compromise is so different from appeasement.
Isreal: All Right! We give. We'll go find some island to live on.
Hamas: Deal. We'll need the coordinates to this island - fo course.
Posted by Big Guy
4:08 PM, May 16, 2008
Barack Obama agrees with your statements. He wouldn't have stopped Hitler in 1939, either. In fact, I'm sure he would have been the American Chamberlain. So, Bruce, are you happy to support the American Chamberlain of the 21st century?
Posted by lb
4:11 PM, May 16, 2008
I am canceling my subscription to the Times. This is just too much.
Posted by YatYas
4:12 PM, May 16, 2008
I cannot believe the drivel you wrote here. Worse, is that you and those like you believe it.
Posted by d
4:18 PM, May 16, 2008
I disagree with Bush and intend to vote for Obama. But your editorial is ridiculous. 1) Hitler's intentions were clear. 2) Bush was not comparing "the Palestinians" to anyone. He was comparing Iran and its clients. And that comparison, while melodramatic, is not incredible nor ridiculous.
Posted by Bruce Ramsey
4:19 PM, May 16, 2008
Good grief! What a reaction--and the more vitriolic reactions we have not printed. Most of the readers seem to have read just the one paragraph, out of context--so I have rewritten it and made it more difficult to misinterpret what I was trying to say.
I am making an argument against using the story of the Munich Conference of 1938 and the idea of "appeasement" as a touchstone in making foreign policy decisions in the Middle East. I am making two claims about it. The second claim, which most of the respondents did not mention, is that the comparison is not relevant. That is, that the Middle East is so different from Europe in 1938 that the two should not be connected.
It was the other point that set off the fireworks. What I was trying to say was that given the facts at the time, and the history that the people had gone through, especially World War I, the demands made by Hitler at Munich were not outrageous on their face. And that is why Britain and France could agree to them. Immediately after Munich, Hitler broke his word and invaded Bohemia and Moravia, and that wasn't reasonable, and Britain and France couldn't deal with him any more.
Posted by MattM
4:23 PM, May 16, 2008
This is a joke, right? Nearly everything you say is factually, morally, or philosophically wrong. There's no way you can actually believe any of this. If so, you're incredibly ignorant about history, cartoonishly naive, incapable of understanding Bush's point, and/or hopelessly in the tank for Obama.
Neither Germany nor Hitler had any claim to the Sudetenland (other than the fact that many people who lived there spoke German). It was not a part of Germany before WW1.
The Germans were "occupied, oppressed, denied, stepped-on" after WW1. They were occupied after the war. They were forced to pay war reparations, which crippled their economy They were told that their culture was responsible for innumerable wars and deaths. That's the fertile ground in which Nazism grew to a patriotic national fervor.
Bush never said that Israel should not talk to the Palestineans. He said that people who think we can talk the terrorists into putting down their guns are wrong. So unless you think all Palestineans are terrorists, then you're misrepresenting his argument.
In fact, Bush was right. Do you think there's anyone who can construct an argument so rock-solid that it will convince Hamas to lay down their weapons? Of course not. If it was possible, then surely someone would have done it by now.
And if you think that the difference is that a President who was willing to talk to terrorists would be able to offer incentives -- like more land -- then that's appeasement. And the lesson of WW2 is that appeasement doesn't work. The addition of a few miles to a country's borders is not going to slake the bloodlust of a maniac who's devoted his life to exterminating the Jews.
Posted by warty
4:23 PM, May 16, 2008
You must have suffered a head injury at some time in order to form an opinion as twisted as this.
Posted by Bubba
4:27 PM, May 16, 2008
As a former British territory, just like Palestine, the U.S. claim to British Columbia is consistent with the nature of the author's argument for the Palestinians.
And what's more, Canada speaks English! So it is a perfectly reasonable request that we annex this territory for God and Country.
And anyone who refuses to entertain these negotiations because of fear of "appeasement" is just Godwining the argument. So shut up Bush and let us have Canada! (except the French part)
Posted by chaos
4:31 PM, May 16, 2008
One of the most idiotic pieces of writing ever put down. Hitler's demands were reasonable. Yeah.
Posted by Ralph Woods
4:48 PM, May 16, 2008
Using the idiotic argument put forth in this article Mexico has every right to annex California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and several other cities and regions of the US where Spanish is the primary language. Actually we should re-examine Hitler. He seemed to be such a likable cuss admired by a great number of people such as Joe kennedy and his son. We could have a nice little TV show Tea Time with the Furher where little snippets of his conversations and social commentary with companions and friend at the tea house below the Berghof are recreated.
Posted by 209209
4:54 PM, May 16, 2008
Oh poor Mr. Ramsey, so misunderstood. Stop whining. Did it occur to you that when you misapply history you might be called on it? I'm no Bush fan but you obviously didn't listen to his speech very well or you have no knowledge of the Middle East either -- he was referring to Iran, to Hamas and Hezbollah. Gee, I thought Israel was already talking to the Palestinian Authority (i.e not Hamas) under the auspices of the present US Government. Cut the crocodile tears and grow up. You chose a ridiculous analogy so either take the criticism, or admit you have a fantasy view of history, or stop writing nonsense.
Posted by Zee
4:54 PM, May 16, 2008
It is amazing how at ease Obama and his band of "Progressives" are with antisemitism, so adept at revisionist history, in such sweet accord with so many of America's enemies.
And it should be no surprise that the foul breed of journalists extant today, such as Bruce Ramsey, find little problem cozying up with Hitler. I have no doubt that a great deal of Hitler's career impresses Mr. Ramsey and his ilk.
Why does anyone with a shred of sense take anything offered up by mainstream media seriously? Well, "progressives" do, they need their pabulum - their daily dose of "hope and change" (gag me).
For verifiable documentation of Obama's long standing antisemitism and loathing of the country that he dares presume to lead, go to theobamafile.com or littlegreenfootballs.com - but you "progressives" should stay here and sup on Ramsey's slop. You don't have the stomach for the truth.
Posted by Alice H
4:54 PM, May 16, 2008
So let me get this straight...you post something incredibly offensive to millions, maybe billions of people, do a rewrite on it one you realize how badly you've screwed up, but still don't recognize how offensive your rewrite still is. This is an op-ed - is this a case of someone doing so badly as a reporter that he had to be promoted to editor?
Posted by BillyDinPVD
5:00 PM, May 16, 2008
Even your explanation in the comments section show that you have no insight into world history, and a seriously malfunctioning moral compass. Hitler's demands were outrageous on the face of it, and Chamberlain was an idiot and a coward to give in to them. Professionally speaking, heads should roll over this insane editorial.
Posted by Steve
5:00 PM, May 16, 2008
Mr. Ramsey claims: "War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment."
Only someone who never lived under Hitler or other totalitarian regimes could make a statement like that.
The Czechs, the Poles, the Dutch, the Norwegians, the French, the Jews, the Russians in the conquered territories, all learned the hard way that PEACE under Nazi rule was far more horrible than anyone had expected. Some of them became resistance fighters and gladly gave their lives rather than live any longer under Nazi rule.
If freedom is to be protected, you have to believe that there are things worse than fighting for it. Otherwise, you might as well become a pacifist and wait for the next dictator to come along and take your freedom away. Don't worry. He'll show up. Eventually.
Posted by Joe Obvious
5:15 PM, May 16, 2008
What Hitler was demanding was this: The destruction of western democracies and the elimination of the Jews.
Hmm... sound familiar? History repeats itself again- But nevermind that. I'm sure we can acheive peace in our time. Now go home and have a nice restful sleep.*
Posted by Eurom
5:20 PM, May 16, 2008
"From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable,..."
It was to men of honor and integrity. Check Winston S. Churchill's speeches and notes.
You are supposed to learn from history, but liberals just rewrite history instead.
Posted by Zack
7:12 PM, May 16, 2008
Ok, everybody, calm down. First of all, Bruce Ramsey is not a liberal. If you don't like something he's saying, don't attribute it to Democrats, liberals, Obama, or anybody else. Bruce is a big boy, and he speaks for himself.
Second, what he's saying ain't that unreasonable. The world of 1938 is way different from the world of 2008. Decisions made back then may in retrospect look like terrible ideas, but that doesn't mean that analogies to that time and place are automatically applicable to some other distant time and place. That's all Bruce is saying.
Posted by Lame Leftist
1:19 AM, May 17, 2008
Move over sanity! Obamessiah is here; and his men(like the good ol' Pastor Wright) will make all your problems go away!
The more one hears from his supporters; the more you can see the snake-oil-salesman that the messiah really is! Obama's one term in office will make Bush's two terms look like America's golden age!
Posted by aggrophoto
2:31 AM, May 17, 2008
This is beyond sick. A great many people around the world were well aware of Hitler's Evil, and took him at face value. It only seems as though no one had any idea..... because of revisionist historians who covered up the ignorance, and shortsightedness of the worlds elite.
To make a comment that "What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim " is about as intellectually honest as saying that the Jews are to balme for Iranian missiles landing in Israel from Gaza. Much the same way we should simply shrug off comments like Bashar Assad's today, claiming that Israel will never make it to see it's 100th anniversary...... This after being caught last year developing a nuclear facility, with the North Koreans.
We live in an age where information is dissemenated around the globe at record speed. The world can see first hand what people like Assad, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Il have in store for people who refuse to cave to their demands. They can read the rhetoric and spin in real time.
To simply plead ignorance, and/ or whitewash appeasement, is as childish and insane as a kid playing on a hot stove, after he has been warned that he will burn himself.
So just continue and be that ostrich with it's head in the sand........ I simply pray that we don't end up with a president as Spineless and morally feeble as you come across.
Posted by Molly
5:10 AM, May 17, 2008
1. What Hitler also got what the Sudetenland was control over what was then Czechoslovakia's munitions factory, the Skoda Works--the most advanced in Europe.
2. Hitler also got access to the Czech fortifications against Germany, built by the architect of the Maginot Line. The German Army used them to train on before invading France.
3. Hitler also got, at the Anschluss over Austria and at Munich, and at his March 15, 1939 invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia, access to more and more of European Jewry--part of the process of his wiping them out.
Saying Hitler's demands were reasonable because they involved "German speakers" makes as much sense as saying that because there are lots of Spanish-speaking Cuban-Americans in Miami, then Florida should go to the Castro brothers.
I think it's an excellent idea to "cast some leaders out." Milosevic was a good start, Ahmadinejad, who wants to wipe Israel off the map, another.
Do we really need to talk to every ravening madman who is practicing, or plans to practice, genocide?
Posted by justanote
5:20 AM, May 17, 2008
So other than that overrated Holocaust thingy, the editors make me realize Hitler was a good Joe. Would love to have beers with him. If the selfish English and French had been more reasonable, there would have been no war. Everyone would just speak German. If silly Israel would get over that "wipe them off the face of the earth" , "diseased country", suicide bombers and constant missile launches into their territory, there would be peace. Stupid Israel refuses.
The medias love affair with Obama continues. He can do no wrong.
Oh yeah, the Munich Olympics thing was Israels fault as well.
Posted by davod
5:28 AM, May 17, 2008
They gave Hitler what he wanted, and look how that worked out. If only they had read Mein Kampf.
Posted by Karl Schenzig
6:00 AM, May 17, 2008
The Israeli claim to a homeland in the land of Israel is unimpeachable. The Palestinian is not. To suggest otherwise is to pervert history and make common cause with anti-Semites. I suggest that you apologise for your statement or leave your position with the Seattle Times forthwith.
Posted by Andrew Nisbet III
6:51 AM, May 17, 2008
Having read all eight paragraphs of this op-ed and its addenda, a few printable comments seem called for.
The story of the Munich Conference of 1938 is not the story appeasement. The story of appeasement, in Europe begins with the failure to enforce the disarmament clauses of The Versailles Treaty against Weimar Germany. Once Hitler had come to power we have the failure to prevent German rearmament, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, the lack of affective opposition to the Italian conquest of Abyssinia, the Peace Ballot of 1935, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the lack of action following the attempted coup in Austria, the failure to act after the assassination of the primer of Austria, the failure to act before or after the annexation of Austria, the ineffective response to the Italian and German intervention in the Spanish Civil War and then there was Munich. Hitler had made his goals clear in word and deed since his emergence in 1920 but his speeches, his actions and the complete failure of any concessions to change his goals were all ignored and Czechoslovakia was betrayed. Was it �unreasonable� to hope that eighteen years of speeches and actions might have been taken into account? It is a cruel irony that opposition at almost any of these points might have caused Hitler�s fall from power and prevented World War II. Indeed, the German General Staff attempted to get the British and French to block Hitler at Munich so they could remove him from power. It would be nice to think that the German occupation of what remained of Czechoslovakia ended appeasement but this was not the case. Britain and France did not meet their commitments to defend what was left of the Czech state. During the Polish crisis of September of 1939 the cry went up, �do you want our boys dying for Danzig?� Chamberlain, three days after German tanks rolled into Poland remarked, �Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland.�
In Asia the record of the attempts to appease Imperial Japan is just as lengthy and just as bleak.
Now can we learn anything from this beyond, Hitler was a bad man? There are four fairly obvious lessons.
� You can not negotiate reasonably with someone who is not prepared to be reasonable.
� What people say they want is at least an indicator of what they will attempt to do.
� What people have done in the past is a predictor of what they may do in the future.
� Concessions mistaken for weakness make it harder, not easier, to negotiate.
Maybe these points have no use in understanding how you must think about negotiations with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, but I have the feeling that few people other than Mr. Ramsey will find this to be the case.
Posted by Jeffrey Imm
7:04 AM, May 17, 2008
"What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable" - how can any major newspaper in the United States print such a horrible comment. This is something that one would expect to read in a diatribe from the American Nazi Party or Stormfront.org
This is one of the singular most sickening texts that I have ever seen in any American newspaper ever. If this is what you have to publish, CLOSE THE DOORS.
Posted by Shane
7:23 AM, May 17, 2008
No Bruce you make a very liberal childish point and here it is in a nut shell. "People know war is bad and want to avoid it. They, and by they I mean the pandering liberals like the democrat party, thought they could get away with a few hundred thousand people enslaved or killed and maybe avoid war by sacrificing the freedom of a few million people. So you believe they were justified in sacrificing the freedom of a few million."
Posted by cynic345
8:11 AM, May 17, 2008
Obviously the writer lacks knowledhge of history. Any territorial garb Hitler was making involved geopolitical advantages and not his desire to unite all German speaking peoples especially those not wanting to be part of Germany. Example Sudetenland: this �border area� contained Europe�s most advanced munitions plant, the Skoda Works, and also had fortifications built by the architect of the French Maginot Line�which were logistically important to the German Army for the invasion of France.
Following your logic, Mexico would be right in invading/annexing all of our predominantly Hispanic areas, except Florida which should naturally go to Cuba.
Posted by Christopher Taylor
9:07 PM, May 17, 2008
Heh, so now he's editing the story so it doesn't seem like he was crazy. Want the original text he replaced the 2nd paragraph with? Here it is, in context with the first:
"Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to �negotiate with terrorists and radicals� is �appeasement.� The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. 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.
What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe 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."
Now, let's see if this gets posted or if the comments editor buries it.
Posted by Black Eagle
1:09 AM, May 18, 2008
What kind of mush-brained phoney revisionist "history-buff" do we have working in the Seattle times these days. Reading a lot of Noam Chomsky, Eh? Factually, there were many conservatives in France and Britain warning over and over that Hitler could never be "satisfied" and that his claims to "only wanting" this or that small thing, were bogus and fake, with the design to grab more and more power into his hands until such time that it would be ten times more difficult to do anything about stopping him. And that's exactly what happened, by the appeasement policies, especially of the likes of Chamberlain. But anyone who actually listened to Hitler's speeches could readily have determined what a pathological liar the man was, that he was never going to be satisfied without the whole of Europe in his hands... and not even then! Obama is cut from the same thread-bare cloth, and we should see him exactly for how McCain recently described -- a weak and dangerous appeaser, who by his own writings has declared that he will "stand with the Muslims" in any conflict. Bush was correct about history, but his statements could just as easily have been directed at Israeli President Olmert, who chronically allows his own people to be sniped and missiled to death, one by one, or by the score. Regarding the Democratic Party responses, Shakespeare has a quote to offer "methinks thou protesteth too much".
Posted by Clint
6:22 AM, May 19, 2008
The fact that you'd minimize and actually attempt to rationalize Hitler's evil in the defense of ANY man, regardless of whether it's Barack Obama, shows how truly deluded you are.
Posted by rocinante
8:00 AM, May 19, 2008
"This would make a nice entry on Stormfront."
Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.
Bruce, while you're at it, how about an editorial on how justified the Japanese were in their actions.
After all, the Japanese were bringing order and security to the chaotic Chinese mainland and Korea; we forced them to go to war with our oil and steel embargoes. Right?
Hello, Bruce? Are you there?
Posted by eh
8:25 AM, May 19, 2008
What Bush said in the Knesset is like one of those silent whistles. Only real appeasers hear their name being called.
Posted by Patrick J
8:52 AM, May 19, 2008
I think you could have insulated yourself from some of the reflexive "are you crazy?" responses if you'd elaborated on "not unreasonable." Hitler's 'claim' on ethnic & linguistic Germans is indeed unreasonable by most standards today and would have been unreasonable 100 years ago. But in the post-WWI world of 1938, it unfortunately wasn't unreasonable. It was the policy of the day.
Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire had been reshaped by the victorious Alliance to carve out ethnic and linguistic enclaves which had never existed before or hadn't existed in centuries: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Baltic Republics, Finland. Hitler was unfortunately just following the same dubious logic that had been applied in the short-sighted creation of Czechoslovakia et al, when he claimed that Germans within other countries had a 'right' to be part of Germany, etc. It was hard to deny the legitimacy of his claim on the Sudentenland from Czechoslovakia when Czechoslovakia itself had been formed using the exact same rationale, and when Alsace-Lorraine had been transferred from German to French control after WWI for the same reason.
Posted by Bubba
11:58 AM, May 19, 2008
Anyone who threatens to wipe out a people, a nation, a religion in the manner of the Iranian President's threat to Israel qualifies to be described as a potential Hitler. Just because Bush is unpopular doesn't mean that he doesn't get it right sometimes. Obama and company should hang their heads in shame trying to make political points based on Bush and not understand the evil of Iran's ruler.
Posted by jpmzo
8:29 PM, May 19, 2008
The main hole in the author's hypothesis is that at least one visionary of that time, of the Munich Conference, saw the folly of Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time." His name was Winston Churchill and I'd wager he wan't alone in his mistrust of Derr Fuher.
Posted by Mark Thompson
8:30 PM, May 19, 2008
Appeasement, I suppose by the mention of the very word, we are meant to conjure images of Hitler in a self-congratulatory smirk walking away from a conference table in Munich in 1938.
Prime Minister Chamberlain really had no real military alternative to the signing of the treaty at Munich, primarily because of one simple fact, that most people either don't know, or that many politically motivated - but perhaps otherwise informed - pundits choose to ignore.
Chancellor Hitler's Wermacht and to a much greater extent Luftwaffe had already been battle tested - notably at Gurinica and other sights in Spain offering help to his buddy Franco.
So it's important to understand the history that gets missed or forgotten.
The fact is that the RAF had NO significant modern fighters as of the signing at Munich, and that had hostilities been engaged in 1938 rather than 19 months later, Britain would have LOST and the Europe would have certainly looked like some out-take from Fatherland.
Youtube : /watch?v=Zzcqf6ycHzw
The RAF consisted almost entirely of surplus BIPLANES from WW 1, (most over 20 years old at the time).
They would have been the first line defense and the only guard against German air superiority, over England, fighting against Focke-Wulf 152's, Dorniers and Junkers Ju 87or Stukka bombers/fighters.
The Battle of Britain was won by the thinnest of margins ONLY because that England had RADAR and sufficient planes.
Confirmation of this fact is that the first stops of the Prime Minister was to the Parliment and Ministry of War / Admiralty to argue for the development of the Spitfire and other advanced aircraft. 18 months later no more than 15 Spitfires were available when the Battle of Britain started.
I don't know about you, but this line of rhetoric lost it's appeal a long long time ago.
Furthermore, tot the specific point on whether appeasement is ever a good strategy in diplomatic relationships.
The United States presently engages in at least 3 forms of appeasement with other current world powers. It has prominently featured in successful diplomatic and military strategies for most of human history.
Most notably in the prevention of general war in Europe in 1890 in a peace brokered by Prussian Chancellor Bismark, who was an undeniable military & political genius.
To the point however, the US currently engages at LEAST 3 major appeasement strategies
1. China - There are 1.5 billion people living off the economic benefits of an economy about 10% larger than California's as untenable as that may be, we still give respectful political relations and trade status to communist China because it serves our interests that stability and some degree of prosperity last as long as possible before that pot boils over.
2. Saudi Arabia - The US fully supports military, industrial and financial support of radicalized fanatical theocrats of the SAME nation whose citizens were predominantly responsible for events of 9/11 furthermore we tolerate and indulge the outlandish & despotic fetish culture on the part of the extended ruling families, overt sponsorship of terrorism are really only a problem if they don't have 20% of the planet's oil reserves.
If there is a better example of appeasement of bad behavior in US or human history - please enlighten me.
3. Russia - Our once formidable adversary, is still dangerous, and if it were it not for some 20,000 nuclear weapons, and untold quantities of biotoxins, radioactive materials and military hardware, I can assure you that Russian mafia plutocracy would not be tolerated in nearly as generous a fashion as it currently is.
4. Other countries, there are at least a 1/2 dozen other countries where we would probably prefer a different government or trade arrangement but we aren't invading
them or treating them particularly poorly.
I recommend the
"Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" - by Paul Kennedy and "On the Origins of War: And the Preservation of Peace" - Donald Kagan
Mr. Kagan's excellent analysis of Thermopolae and the First World War is absolutely first rate and just underscores the need of neocons to stay in their ivory towers.
Posted by patriot
12:51 AM, May 20, 2008
millions died because the world appeased Hitler dureing his march across Europe. Let him conquer one more nation and then he would be satisfied. It wasn't until he wanted England that we finally had the balls to say "enough is enough".
Now we have a nation that repeatedly has claimed they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Obama wants to have discussions with them? All thisdoes is give them credability... and yes, it is appeasement, just like in '39.
Posted by Fen
5:05 AM, May 20, 2008
I'm happy that editors can post on the net and reveal how "educated" our information brokers are. It helps me understand how Mary Mapes could be considered "brilliant" by her peers.
You really need to catch up with a copy of Manchester's Last Lion, Vol 2. And try to refrain from speaking about appeasement until you've finished reading it.
Posted by JRS
6:54 AM, May 20, 2008
I don't know what Bruce Ramsey has read about the Munich Conference of 1938, but what I read in a few minutes on Wikipedia tells a different story. I love his phrase in parenthesis "though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way." Of course the real reason he wrote this piece of garbage, is his undying love to see Obama elected, no matter the consequence.
But I will also say this; I'm voting a straight democrat ticket with Obama at the top for the first time in my 35 years of voting.
The reason; I want democrats in the super majority so they can destroy this country totally, then we will start anew. Here's a few facts.
We are 9.3 trillion dollars in debt with a budget this year of 3.1 trillion. We pay 500 billion in interest a year on the debt, with it growing annually. That is almost as much as we spend for the defense of this country. We spent 1.2 trillion on Social Security and Medicare last year, with it projected to continue spiraling skywards out of control. Medicare this year will spend out more than it takes in. SS will before or by 2017.
Half of the 9.3 trillion is held by the Government in the form of IOU's in the SS "lockbox", not cash. The government holds bonds that cover the debt, but guess who issued the bonds; the government. Now where will the government get the money to repay these bonds; future taxes on the populace.
Who holds the rest of our debt? Oversea investors. Now with the dollar at all time lows, oil and precious metals (gold, silver and platinum) at all time highs and a trade deficit near record highs, I can see in the near future these investors looking elsewhere to invest in safer markets. Would you buy bonds from someone who held this kind of debt and paid 1/6 of its budget on interest payments alone? And when that happens, America will be bankrupt. It will be like Germany after WW1, when the German Mark became worthless. One million Marks at that time wouldn't buy you a loaf of bread, but a cart of firewood did.
With all the new social programs that Obama plans to enact, at the cost of hundreds and hundreds of billions more, I can see the crises happening before 2012.
Posted by John
8:02 AM, May 20, 2008
For all those decrying this posting, use your head! This is clearly satire, exposing the pitfalls of unconditional diplomacy.
Posted by John M
11:38 AM, May 21, 2008
Churchill predicted that negotiating with Hitler was a fool's errand and was widely criticized by appeasement-minded people such as yourself. Negotiating with Der Fuhrer only made sense if you could ignore those like Churchill and believe fully in your own abilities to talk down a truly evil man.
Posted by chazi
6:37 PM, May 22, 2008
When you say that France and Britain were not superpowers, you display your abysmal ignorance of history. They were, in fact, THE superpowers in the world in the 30s. The US was still viewed as immature and naive and in no way a leading power.
But far worse, your refusal to recognize the similarities of modern despots to Hitler evidences your inability or refusal to learn from history. And we all know the consequences of that.
Posted by TC
1:53 PM, May 23, 2008
I think that a reasonable argument can be made that both parties in the Israel-Palestine fiasco are essentially terrorist racist hate-states. Maybe we shouldn't negotiate with either of so as not to be complicit in crimes committed in their ugly barbaric territorial war.
The only distinctions people can make have to based on circular arguments and the use of language identical to that used by the Nazis. "We must murder and dispossess our neighbors to do justice to the memories of our great nation, and ensure that our ideals survive."
Why appease either of them? As far as I can see, neither group will be satisfied until it has thoroughly ethnically, religiously and ideologically cleansed the disputed territory.
Who should we worry about appeasing?
Posted by TC
2:03 PM, May 23, 2008
Also, why are all you neocons reading a Seattle daily paper? Don't your dailies in Idaho and Arkansas have anything good in them?
Jul 30, 08 - 03:22 PM
Should puppies be banned?
Jul 30, 08 - 01:01 AM
Jul 29, 08 - 05:55 PM
Notes on Finland
Jul 28, 08 - 01:30 AM
Jul 27, 08 - 12:00 AM
Summertime and the fishing is perplexing
Achenblog by Joel Achenbach
Postman On Politics