Posted on 05/16/2008 8:20:57 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey, in an effort to defend Barack Obama against President Bushs appeasement speech, actually ends up defending Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, and the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria): Bush, and His Use of Appeasement.
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.
We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germanys eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years beforeand 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 their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Dont give anyone an excuse to start one.
Wow.
Wonderful...History is so fascinating...
See this :
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
And a review:
**********************************
By | Kat Bakhu (Albuquerque, NM United States) - See all my reviews |
Great Find....
I agree. Bloodshed to preserve the fundamental tenets of Freedom and Liberty will happen in this nation within a couple of decades, IMO.
Bush, and His Use of "Appeasement" ("Hitler's demands were not unreasonable"-Barf Alert)
In the liberal mind everyone (except conservatives) are victims. This relieves guilt and allows them justify themselves by always seeking a “victim” to throw other people’s (usually) money at, or protest for. According to them, man is not sinful by nature, and thus spanking a child must be outlawed, and no war is ever just and necesary, and the one attacked is the victim - unless it is the Pentagon. Public decency laws ar unnecessary, and James Dobson is implicated in the murder of Matthew Shepherd. The real God of the Bible, and any moral authority that seeks to uphold His moral laws, are made to be malevolent.
This is nothing new, as it comes from the devil, the original perpetrator of the “liberal” victim mentality, who basically told Eve she was a victim of a conspiracy by God to keep something from her for no good reason (Gn. 3:1-5). And for which the devil recommended rebellion against God’s good and beneficial law.
He has had many apostles:
The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion (Karl Marx)
I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above. (Karl Marx)
The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain, till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed. See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me. (Karl Marx)
With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the fact of the world and see the collapse of this pygmy giant. Then will I wander god-like and victorious through the ruins of the world. And giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator. (Karl Marx)
He looks like a natural....
.
Good graphic Phil -
Ya wanna re-post this one, Inc, old pal? ............. FRegards
Enjoy and pass this around.
This T-shirt could be a powerful election campaign tool
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/05/spread-word.html
you owe me a new keyboard
Think of the factual ignorance that it takes to make these statement.
“Impeach Bush” and “Worse than Hitler” signs.
Think of the factual ignorance that it takes to make these statement.”
Which one the Hitler one? True, Bush is no Adolph. I heard a comedian once say that the only reason the real Hitler was able to sneak into power was because everyone was calling everyone else “Hitler” and no one noticed the real McCoy sneak in right under their noses.
And, should the unthinkable ever happen, the first words out of their mouths will be, "See? We TOLD you to work harder at appeasing them!"
unfreaking believable!!!
An earlier poster mentioned Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism and I highly recommend it. He does a wonderful job of tying together much of the common DNA the European Fascists and NAZI's had with the American Progressive movement.
Yes, as soon as you mentioned it I knew you were right. Just orderd the book from Amazon and will give it a read.
Yeah, that’s a statement alright!
“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. Dont give anyone an excuse to start one.”
What the author fails to grasp is that giving Hitler “a slice of Czechoslovakia: was the “excuse to start one.” A war that is. The Sudatenland was the key to Poland. This land was fortified and mountainous. It was the cork in the bottle which once removed Czechoslovakia became undefensible clearing the way for Hitler to take over the entire land. And, the loss of Czechoslovakia opened up the entire southern border of Poland making it’s defeat inevitable. No, the place to stop Hitler was in the Sudatenland.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.