Appeasement 101

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0206/hanson021606.php3 ^ | Victor Davis Hanson

[mal]

It is easy to damn the 1930s appeasers of Hitler — such as Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain in England and Edouard Daladier in France — given what the Nazis ultimately did when unleashed. But history demands not merely recognizing the truth post facto, but also trying to reconstruct the rationale of something that now in hindsight seems inexplicable.

Appeasement in the 1930s was popular with the European public for a variety of reasons. All of them are instructive in our hesitation about stopping a nuclear Iran, or about defending the right of Western newspapers to print what they wish — or about fighting radical Islamism in general.

[Tzimisce]

How Would Mohammed Vote Racist Pig?

[HiTech RedNeck]

With his sword

[goldstategop]

It always gets more costly later on. The so-called "peace" movement is really dedicated to the destruction of the West because they weaken and undermine our resolve to face down and rid the world of evil.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[sachem longrifle]

Today's isolationist view America as the problem as opposed to 1930's isolationists who thought America was too great of a country to get involved in European affairs

[Ichneumon]

*Excellent* editorial.

Also I couldn't help but notice this passage:

At the time of the Ayatollah Khomeini's homicidal fatwa against Salman Rushdie, religious conservative commentators from Patrick Buchanan to New York's Cardinal O'Connor attacked Rushdie, rather than defended the Western right of free expression. Apparently, they felt such Islamic threats to supposed blasphemers might have positive repercussions in discouraging left-wing anti-Christian attacks as well.

Just a few days ago I heard Pat Buchanan take the very same position with regard to the "Mohammad cartoon" issue, in an interview on the Sean Hannity radio show.

Although he mumbled the expected homilies about how it was "of course wrong" for the Muslims to react by burning things down and threatening folks with death, his real outrage was reserved for the newspaper editors who could be so "stupid" as to even think of printing something that was "offensive to religion" and how they should have "known better" and just shut the hell up.

His explanation made it clear that he was more concerned about quelling similar "blasphemies" against Christianity, than he was about the issues of free speech, or the insanity of appeasing the "bow to us in every way or we will behead you" Islamic extremists. It was pathetic, and one of the stupidest things I had heard on the radio all week.

[PGalt]

Great article. Thanks for posting.

Don't expect the European Union to defend itself. Their constitution doesn't address freedom and inalienable, individual rights. Any lack of understanding of these concepts dooms appeasers to any philosophical gang and its enablers.

[libertylover]

Like the appeasement of the 1930s, opting for the easier choice will only guarantee a more costly one later on.

Obvious to most on this forum but worth repeating.

[Tolik]

...But deja vu pertains not just to us, but our enemies as well. Like the Nazi romance of a exalted ancient Volk, the Islamists hearken back to a mythical purity, free of decadence brought on by Western liberalism. Similarly, they feed off victimization — not just recent defeats, but centuries-old bitterness at the rise of the West. Their version of the stab-in-the-back Versailles Treaty is always the creation of Israel.

Just as Hitler concocted incidents such as the burning of the Reichstag to create outrage, Islamist leaders incite frenzy in their followers over a supposed flushed Koran at Guantanamo and several inflammatory cartoons, some of them never published by Danish newspapers at all.

Anti-Semitism, of course, is the mother's milk of fascism. It is always, they say, a small group of Jews — whether shadowy cabinet advisers and international bankers of the 1930s or the manipulative neoconservatives and Israeli leadership of the present — who alone stir up the trouble.

The point of the comparison is not to suggest that history simply repeats itself, but to learn why intelligent people delude themselves into embracing naive policies. After the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the furious reply of the radical Islamist world was to censor Western newspapers, along with Iran's accelerated efforts to get the bomb.

In response, either the West will continue to stand up now to these reoccurring post-Sept. 11 threats, or it will see the bullies' demands only increase as its own resistance weakens. Like the appeasement of the 1930s, opting for the easier choice will only guarantee a more costly one later on. .

Combined ping to two PING Lists

Victor Davis Hanson Ping !         Let me know if you want in or out. Links: FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson  His website: http://victorhanson.com/     NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp

Nailed It! Moral Clarity BUMP ! This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.

[G.Mason]

"Don't expect the European Union to defend itself. Their constitution doesn't address freedom and inalienable, individual rights ..."

Don't delude yourself.

Our Constitution becomes meaningless when "We The People" choose to ignore it.

[PGalt]

No argument with your statement.

[G.Mason]

My intent was not to be harsh, but simply realistic and something that I, and all of us, must think about.

[Malesherbes]

Yes, it's deja vu all over again. Europe seems to be reprating that "low, dishonest decade" of the 1930's.

[Earthdweller]

"How Would Mohammed Vote Racist Pig?"

Hahahaha!! You be a naughty noobie. Someones going to take this wrong and fry your tail.

[PeterPrinciple]

Exactly when did WWII begin? When German invaded Poland is when I usually think of. After that it took a few years before we were at war. Is 9-ll any different?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

He took the Sudatenland first, or it was given to him by the appeasers, and then he went into Poland so you tell me when it began. That is sort of like our situation today. Did the WoT begin when Osama declared war on us or on 9/11?

[Tolik]

The Appeasement officially ended with the invasion of Poland because Brits and French were obligated to enter the war by agreements with Poland. American isolationists were not convinced until after the Pearl Harbor.

But VDH is talking about all the years before that.

Let me take extra step: French and British could prevent the build up of the German military, they did have an advantage, but their advantage was never so overwhelming as ours now. Current historians are not kind to them for appeasements of 30th. Does anybody think the future historians will be any kinder to us?

[humint]

The point of the comparison is not to suggest that history simply repeats itself, but to learn why intelligent people delude themselves into embracing naive policies. After the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the furious reply of the radical Islamist world was to censor Western newspapers, along with Iran's accelerated efforts to get the bomb.

There is great skill and effort that goes into rejecting evidence of impending disaster. It could be argued, "priorities change" and that's why the architecture and mechanics of our defenses change. This is true and explains choices made under difficult circumstances, IE, the Cold War. To VDH’s point, beyond adjusting to the times, apologists are unusually consistent in doling out their apologies to outsiders, while simultaneously castigating their countrymen. It’s as if the apologist is assuming too much responsibility for the crisis in the face of the crisis. No! A democratic mind will never be responsible for the aggression of the fascist mind. The tough part is knowing when to stop trying to compromise when your entire world view is built on compromise. In a way, the end of the appeaser’s world comes at the same time the world that authorizes compromise, including appeasement, is saved.

This is a great commentary because it uses history as a tool, not to shift blame or credit for the sake of an agenda, but to help navigate the future. BTTT!

[ModelBreaker]

It always gets more costly later on.

This summarizes my thoughts on the war in Iraq and the first gulf war. We will fight Islam in a bloody battle now or later. If we wait, we will be fighting a nuclear armed caliphate. We would still win but at horrible cost.

[ModelBreaker]

His explanation made it clear that he was more concerned about quelling similar "blasphemies" against Christianity, than he was about the issues of free speech, or the insanity of appeasing the "bow to us in every way or we will behead you" Islamic extremists. It was pathetic, and one of the stupidest things I had heard on the radio all week.

I really don't worry about the anti-Christian stuff in the press. God can take care of himself. I feel sorry for the authors, not God.