The Candidates
Bruce Ramsey, a SeattleTimes editor, in an attempt to chastise Bush’s “appeasement” speech, and give Barack Obama some breathing room, throws off this gem:
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.
Let’s just assume Ramsey is right (he’s not) and that Adolph Hiter’s initial expansions were, within the context of their time, quite reasonable and sane. What precisely does this suggest? Surely not what Ramsey thinks it does. The problem with appeasement isn’t that the demands of the appeased are manifestly unreasonable; indeed, appeasement essentially requires that some group of people say “huh, that’s not such a bad trade off for peace”. No one ever supposed that even Chamberlain would have gone for appeasement had Hitler instead said, “look, just give me the British Isles, and I’ll leave everyone else alone. Scouts honor”. Just as no one ever supposed that even Barack Obama would bend over backwards if Ahmadinejad said, “Just let me have 8 or 9 nukes, and I’ll be quiet and leave Israel alone. Promise.” The appeased ALWAYS start off with some action or demand that the folks they’re trying to fool might consider “reasonable”. That’s the point.
And the difficulty is, that even supposing Chamberlain might reasonably say, “Surely, the world can do without a little Sudetenland freedom and a little Austrian independence, if it gains us peace? Surely, Surely?”, he can’t say this when speaking of Adolf Hitler. The problem with appeasement isn’t that the demands are manifestly unreasonable, but that the actors are manifestly untrustworthy. And this isn’t just hindsight as Ramsey wants us to believe. It’s true enough that Neville Chamberlain didn’t realize that Hitler would try to conquer Europe after being appeased (obviously). But, there were plenty of folks who did. And they figured this out, because they’d heard what Hitler had said and wrote, and they’d pay close attention to his actions as Fuhrer. They recalled passages like this in Mein Kampf:
In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism.
Winston Churchhill certainly recognized Hitler’s plans, insisting after Munich:
We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat…you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude…we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road…we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting”. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
Chamberlain of course was quite ignorant of this, because he so desperately wanted to do some appeasing, that he ascribed the best of intentions and motives to a murderous thug, and papered over the warning signs. Predictably, Ramsey then goes on to call for diplomatic contact Hamas since, after all, the Palestinians have legitimate demands. But, negotiating with Hamas or even Iran is mistaken in quite the same way as the Munich Conference was mistaken; because Hamas and Ahmadinejad have proven themselves unreliable and untrustworthy actors, through their words and through their actions. And they shouldn’t be trusted to act in good faith, without serious and meaningful concessions, BEFORE negotiation officially begins. One wonders if Ramsey is purposely caricaturing himself here.
And it comes down to this; in 1938, not everyone had access to Mein Kampf. What Hitler had been saying for a decade was, if not quite a secret, certainly not broadcast to every nation in Europe. One can almost forgive Chamberlain his lack of curiosity, and his eagerness to whitewash the few widely known and disturbing facts of Hitler’s regime. What excuse does Ramsey have? Or Barack Obama? Hamas’s violence, it’s radicalism, it’s unwillingness to see Israel exist under any borders, isn’t exactly hidden. And Ahmadinejad’s repeated references to Israel as a “one-bomb state” or a “stinking corpse”; his gleeful desire to see it “wiped off the map” ,are a matter of public record. Indeed, we seem to be having a debate, incredibly enough, on whether he means it; on whether the long train of terrorism and brutality, of lies and deception, of hatred towards Israel and towards the US, whether any or all of these things are sufficient to let us conclude “perhaps these folks can’t be dealt with in good faith”. Not even Neville would have been up for that.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
This is a fantastic piece, Matthew.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Matthew,
Congrats on yet another R4′08 link in RCP’s Best of the Blogs!
May 17th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Great column, Matthew. You nailed it. Barack Obama is a starry-eyed amateur and a closet black militant to boot. God help us if we have to depend on him and his kind to face down Iran over their nuclear ambitions.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I can’t seem to find anywhere that Obama talks about negotiating with Hamas. However, McCain has clearly advocated negotiating with Hamas.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Tom wrote: “McCain has clearly advocated negotiating with Hamas.
Quite the contrary, McCain has never advocated negotiations with Hamas without preconditions. Any dealings with the elected terrorist organization were contingent on Hamas renouncing violence and recognizing Israel’s right to exist; no different than his position today.
Here is the relevant excerpt from McCain’s interview with Jamie Rubin that you either never saw (thanks to biased, unprofessional reporting by the Washington Post) or have chosen to conveniently ignore:
Rubin: Should the US be dealing with the new reality through normal diplomatic contact to get the job done for the United States?
McCain: I think the US should take a step back and see what they do when they form the government, see what their policies are and see the ways in which we can engage with them and if there aren’t any then there may be a hiatus but I think part of the relationship will be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the US acts.”
And, as we all know, ever since Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in the summer of 2005, the Palestinian terrorists have remained as committed as ever to obiterating the Jewish state, having fired more than 4,000 Qassam rockets and mortars into Israel; indiscriminately hitting homes, schools and synagogues, murdering 15 Israelis and injuring hundreds of others. Hamas has also fired dozens of Iranian-made Katyusha rockets at Ashkelon from more than 10 miles away, damaging homes and hospitals. To this day, the Iranian-backed terrorist group continues to smuggle massive amounts of weapons through tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Talking or even negotiating with someone is not the same as appeasment. This entire argument is based upon a strawman because the comparisons between Chamberlain and Obama are based upon the faulty premise that having open dialogues with our enemies is the same as appeasing them. Chamberlain didn’t err by talking with Adolf Hitler; he erred by giving into his demands.
Were John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush also all appeasers. After all, all three kept open dialogues with the Soviet Empire, which was every bit as evil of a regime as Iran is today. Richard Nixon also opened up dialogue with China, and as we all know from the Iran Contra scandal, Ronald Reagan’s administration actively negotiated with Iran. Similarly, George W. Bush has negotiated with Kadafe in Libya, and Kim Jong Il in North Korea. Although McCain is now criticizing Obama for being endorsed by Hamas (something Obama obviously had no more control over than McCain being endorsed by the KKK), just a couple of years ago, he actually told reporters that he would establish diplomatic relationships with Hamas.
This ridiculous claim being made by the Republicans is just their last desperate attempt to once again trick the American public into voting for them out of fear! Well thankfully, this time the American public is not going to be fooled again; and we are voting for hope over fear!
May 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
The Company He Keeps: Obama Hangs With Hezbollah’s Iranian Agent Imam
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/003764print.html
May 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
‘Talking or even negotiating with someone is not the same as appeasment.’
This talking point jumped the shark yesterday. Stop using it, it’s been refuted already. The repubs are STILL laughing at the stupidity of this line of reasoning. You talk with equals. You negotiate with tyrants, murderers, and thugs with tank divisions, carrier battlegroups, a nuclear arsenal, and possible Israeli victory as your cards. You DO NOT say you will talk with such ghouls, just because. Worse, you DO NOT let this perception sit unchallenged if you plan to run for president. He’s not running for Illinois Governor, he’s running for President of the United States.
Worse, he’s taken this weakness and focused it on himself with a bright, laser-like, halogen spotlight a la President Bush’s speech. This is not the example of an intelligent leader, or a brave one. We will need both (and more) to deal with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon/Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al Qeada, the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR . . .
May 18th, 2008 at 7:11 am
FOUR MORE YEARS OF CARTER
Like Carter’s recent trip to Hamas & Pelosi’s trip to Syria, Obama want to talk to state supporters of terrorism without preconditions. This is effectively appeasement when the talking is done by an inept President of the United States who has absolutely no experience in foreign relations, absolutely no leadership experience and absolutely no diplomatic experience and absolutely no sign of good judgment. Obama wants to emulate Jimmy Carter’s presidency, when the USA was held hostage by the Iranians until Reagan became President.
Obama supporters like to extrapolate Obama’s 2002 anti-Iraqi War political speech that he made to an anti-war group as the only sign of his good judgment. They also fail to acknowledge that Obama behaved like a deer in the headlights in the CBS debate where for the first time the media asked him tough questions. Can you visualize his reaction if he were meeting with the leaders of N. Korea, Iran, Venzueala, etc.
Remember that Kruschev put missiles in Cuba because he thought JFK was weak. If Obama meets with these leaders, he may cede Michigan to Iran and Florida to Venzueala because he doesn’t believe those states really count.
McCain is right, Obama is reckless, lacks strength & judgment. If Obama is elected it will be FOUR MORE YEARS OF CARTER. Le Baron