Hitler, Hitler Everywhere

Is it really so implausible that during Chuck Hagel's term in the Senate, from 1996 to the present day, he feels the United States has not encountered any genuinely Hitleresque dictators on the world stage?

Well, Senator Hagel has supported unconstitutional actions by the White House, and has voted for legislation granting the Executive vast new powers to fight the Existential War on Terror. And again, he even filibustered a nonbinding resolution that would have merely scolded the President about his Iraq policies. So his deeds have been those of someone who thinks that Giant Robotic Muslim Hitler is threatening us like we've never been threatened before. With his deeds in hand, I pay no attention to his rhetoric. What a pity that he gets hammered from the Right for his empty words, even as those on the Left resolutely forget all the lessons "Maverick" McCain should have taught them.

Matt, I assume you've probably read it, but if not I strongly recommend Jeffrey Record's "Making War, Thinking History". Good book. I reckon you'd probably appreciate it.

I was thinking about the Munich analogy recently, and realized that, for it to be applicable since WWII, there had to be some post-WWII dictators who the US should have preemptively deposed and didn't. There, you know, aren't any. Would the world be a better place if we had gotten rid of Nasser in the '50s? Or Khomeini in '79? Or (insert any other dictator)?

Ledeen accusing people of appeasement? You mean the same Ledeen that has written about Italian Fascism sympathetically and helped arrange Israeli arms deliveries to Iran in the mid-80s? Why does anyone think that that man has a shred of credibility on anything? If we have been, as some Conservative commentators have asserted, been at war with Iran since 1979, then isn't Michael Ledeen's actions in the Iran-Contra scandal worse than appeasement?

Seeing how often Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler is used by many self-described conservatives to attack those who advocate diplomacy (be it with Iran, Syria, or between Israelis and Palestinians), I think people should be reminded that in the late 1930s it was by and large conservatives in America who supported appeasement (and opposed the U.S. going to war against Germany).

In fact, it was the Left (or perhaps the far-Left) in this country that were the most vocal in opposing the fascist threat, and many young Americans went to Spain to fight against Hitler's ally Franco, who benefitted greatly from Germany's assistant during Spain's Civil War.

I understand that the point of reminding people of Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler is to (disingenuously) invoke the memory of a terrible and costly mistake. I just think that it is important to remember that when the time came to stand up to this uniquely (and quite obvioulsly by the late-1930s) horrific leader during this unique time in history, it was the conservatives leaders of this country who by and large failed to do so.

The suggestion that we should make recourse to strategies that, allegedly, would have, in retrospect, have been optimal for coping with Hitler as our regular basis for dealing with foreign leaders who don't eagerly submit to American hegemonic aspirations is daft.

Actually, we did just that in the Cold War. The Truman strategy, which won the Cold War in the long run even as Reagan gets credited for that victory, was based very much on how we should have contained rather than appeased Hitler. FWIW, Hitler probably wouldn't have lasted if we managed to contain him and prevent him from carrying out his, so to speak, campaign promises (e.g. remilitarizing the Rhineland).

The problem is not the Godwin's law violations by the right, but that they completely misunderstand WWII, which was a case of too much, too late. There were many things that could have been done which would have averted both WWII and the Holocaust -- and that lesson was not lost on the wise people of Truman's admin, but it is lost on the neo-con wankers who claim the mantle of Truman (and whose intellectual forebearers criticized Truman for being soft on the commies in the same tones that they criticize us liberals for being soft in the war on terror).

At the very least, as the late, great Molly Ivins pointed out about one possible suggestion about what we woulda/coulda/shoulda done with Hitler: if we assisinated Hitler, then the more organized/competent Speer would have been in charge -- and would that have been what we wanted?

I understand that the point of reminding people of Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler is to (disingenuously) invoke the memory of a terrible and costly mistake. - Emes

Of course, the flaws in their reasoning include not only the partisan flaw you point out, but treating the situation as if the only alternatives are total war and Chamberlain-esque appeasement and acting as if those who oppose a hot flight into total war are the equivalent of Chamberlain. Haven't these people heard of, e.g., "containment"?

Oh yes ... that was a liberal idea thought up by "fellow travelers" in the State Department and promulgated by a partisan Democratic President -- so I guess it doesn't count as far as the neo-cons are concerned.

*

Minipundit, regarding deposing dictators: see my (badly quoted) reference to what Molly Ivins said about whether deposing Hitler itself would have really been a good idea.

Actually, Hess would have been in charge, as deputy leader of the party.

And can I say I get really rather annoyed with Americans denigrating Chamberlain as soft on Hitler? At least Chamberlain declared war in 1939. The US waited until the entire European continent was overrun, and if not for Pearl Harbor they'd be waiting yet.

Re: "Actually, we did just that in the Cold War. The Truman strategy, which won the Cold War in the long run even as Reagan gets credited for that victory, was based very much on how we should have contained rather than appeased Hitler."

Yeah, its great how we contained Stalin and kept him from gaining control of Eastern Europe. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had instead appeased him, and let him get Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania,... ?

Adolf Hitler is the patron saint of foreign policy conservatism. Whenever they're of a mind to bomb someone or something, they ritualistically invoke St. Hitler.

And can I say I get really rather annoyed with Americans denigrating Chamberlain as soft on Hitler? At least Chamberlain declared war in 1939. The US waited until the entire European continent was overrun, and if not for Pearl Harbor they'd be waiting yet.

Of course, Hitler was an imminent threat to Britain, but was never an imminent threat to the US. (Indeed, Hitler was not an imminent threat even when we declared war in 1941.) Be that as it may, we certainly should have gotten involved in WWII in 1939 - a preemptive attack on Hitler would have saved many, many lives.

(BTW, speaking of "Hitler, Hitler Everywhere - let's recall that Matthew found Hitler in John McCain's website.)

"Yeah, its great how we contained Stalin and kept him from gaining control of Eastern Europe. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had instead appeased him, and let him get Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania,... ?"

He was already there when the Cold War started. If you are in the middle of WWII, you don't start all-out fighting the Cold War against your largest ally in the war. When we "appeased" Stalin, we were recognizing that the Red Army already controlled Eastern Europe. Both sides had been exhausted from fighting the Germans and the Japanese. Europe and Japan had to be rebuilt. How were we supposed to force out the Red Army at that time? We could barely fight to a stalemate in Korea and our side in the Chinese Civil War, despite strong US support, could not win. Were we supposed to nuke Moscow? Because that's what it would probably take.

"Be that as it may, we certainly should have gotten involved in WWII in 1939 - a preemptive attack on Hitler would have saved many, many lives.

(BTW, speaking of "Hitler, Hitler Everywhere - let's recall that Matthew found Hitler in John McCain's website.)"

I think that it may have been more moral to go in in 1939, but what people forget is that back then Germany had a rather big friend next door called the Soviet Union. We would have been fighting the Germans, the Japanese, the Soviets and the Italians all at the same time. Under such conditions, I could see the fascist Estado Novo in Brazil possibly backing the Axis as well instead of us.

There is also a difference between saying random dictator _________ is Hitler and noticing fascistic, kitschy aesthetics throughout something like John McCain's website. The music sounds like something from the Triumph of the Will. Pointing out the name Joy Division, for instance, is fascistic is not the same thing as expecting Joy Division to invade Poland.

Matthew,

Modern conservative foreign policy in the US doesn't allow for any shades of gray that might distinguish a Hitler from, say, a Chavez. They love the WWII analogies because that war, in hindsight, seems so clear cut, good vs. evil-- and not only that, but provided and still provides a proud feeling of victory. They desparately want that kind of clarity and confidence today, so badly that they apply it to even the most messy situations, in the hopes that the mere will for the "grand struggle" will be enough to make everything right with the world again.

Political realists are even more dangerous to this kind of wishful thinking than the actual enemy is. It's easy to portray the enemy as Hitler and onesself as Churchill. Realists, on the other hand, aren't so easily categorized. They shatter the dream, breaking character in the WWII re-enactment by bringing up all sorts of messy truths. In order to maintain the theatre, they are assigned the role of "Chamberlains" and dismissed-- along with their alleged "facts".

The actual facts on the ground and merits of various solutions are irrelevant to this mindset. The most important thing is keeping up the psychology of the grand struggle, Light vs. darkness, war to end all wars. It's pretty harmless to see in a columnist, but much sadder to see in people who are actually controlling policy.

Chief Hitler appeasers in modern politics are the Pat Buchanans who preferred Hitler to Stalin. And has said so loudly.

The fact that France and England had been bled white and were shadows of themselves militarily in 1938 doesn't get ever mentioned. We're not in that position: we've not only never been bled, we're the expansionist bully on the block!

Would the world be a better place if we had gotten rid of Nasser in the '50s? Or Khomeini in '79? Or (insert any other dictator)?

Mossadegh in the '50s? But of course, he wasn't a dictator. And also...

Bushco renders "daft" wholly inadequate as an adjective when discussing their policies.

Reality man,

You are saying that we didn't appease Stalin, because he was already in Eastern Europe when the Cold War started. Ok. According to this strange bit of logic, Chamberlain never actually appeased Hitler because Hitler was already in Checkoslavakia when WW II started.

-----------

"Would the world be a better place if we had gotten rid of Nasser in the '50s? Or Khomeini in '79? Or (insert any other dictator)?"

How about Bush in 2002?

It´s so nice to have access to such a perch, and to be able to attack viciously people who disagree with you.
I wanna try it too:
"Ledeen. So far as I know, he never met a anti-arab idea he didn't want America to spouse."

Indeed, Hitler was not an imminent threat even when we declared war in 1941.

When who declared war?

When who declared war?

When we declared war.

I mean, does a declaration of war by Hitler automatically constitute an imminent/i> threat? I understand that Hitler declared war first. So what? What about his declaration of war made anything imminent?

Spell-Checkoslavakia.

Re Al and washerdryer

What these gentlemen are forgetting is that the US was effectively at war with Germany long before 12/7/40. Remember LendLease. Remember the 50 destroyers sent to Great Britain for bases in British territories in the Atlantic. Remember US warships convoying merchant ships to Great Britain in US waters. Remember the German sinking of the US destroyer Reuben James.

"There were many things that could have been done which would have averted both WWII and the Holocaust"

Starting with: appeasing the Kaiser and not fighting WWI.

All of these counterfactuals about what we should have done are forgetting that a) the US Army pre-WW2 was smaller than Romania's army, and b) the US public was much more isolationist. As far as what UK & France should have done, they assumed they'd crush Germany in a shooting war... the fall of France was a big surprise.

"I think that it may have been more moral to go in in 1939, but what people forget is that back then Germany had a rather big friend next door called the Soviet Union. We would have been fighting the Germans, the Japanese, the Soviets and the Italians all at the same time. Under such conditions, I could see the fascist Estado Novo in Brazil possibly backing the Axis as well instead of us."

"All of these counterfactuals about what we should have done are forgetting that a) the US Army pre-WW2 was smaller than Romania's army, and b) the US public was much more isolationist. As far as what UK & France should have done, they assumed they'd crush Germany in a shooting war... the fall of France was a big surprise."

These are the salient points. The appeasement critique of Chamberlain and of the US pre-1941 is actually Matt's Green Lantern theory at work. It's all about will, with no thought of capabilities. Hitler built a powerful war machine that could overrun most armies (see, e.g., the French, and even the British before the US and the Soviets got involved). The US and Britain needed to buy time to ramp up their own militaries. Even after that occurred, it took 3 years of fighting the Axis on several fronts with several huge militaries to defeat the Germans. Sure, there was a moral case for confronting Hitler earlier, but you know, had we done it, we might have lost.

I think this is wrong. Chamberlain basically ended up giving Checko...however-that-country-is-spelled to Hitler, at a time when his military was not very strong. He would have had a pretty hard time defeating that country militarily. This was before he had the alliance with the Soviets. Its now widely believed to have been a serious strategic mistake for Chamberlain to do this.

That does not mean appeasment is bad in general, or even that it was a bad choice given what he knew at the time. With hindsight, the conventional opinion is that it was a very bad thing in this case.

Someone needs to tell Ledeen that "appeaser" is so 2003

"I think this is wrong. Chamberlain basically ended up giving Checko...however-that-country-is-spelled to Hitler, at a time when his military was not very strong. He would have had a pretty hard time defeating that country militarily."

That's not the question. The question is whether the BRITISH army was strong enough to defeat the Germans at that time.

This whole Hitler Appeasement thing really bugs me. The appeasors of Hitler throughout the 30s were on the right. The upper classes in Britain and France saw Hitler and the Nazis as a firewall against the spread of Communism. The people in the U.S. who opposed entry of the U.S. into the war were all on the right: Lindberg, Ford, the America First crowd. As Lindberg said, criticizing the Democrats: "When they say "the defense of England" they really meant "defeat of Germany." He really didn't want Germany defeated.

Re previous comment.

I meant 12/7/41!

Hagel is going to announce his future plans on Monday at 10:00am CST. I'm hoping he announces he's running for President.

"You are saying that we didn't appease Stalin, because he was already in Eastern Europe when the Cold War started. Ok. According to this strange bit of logic, Chamberlain never actually appeased Hitler because Hitler was already in Checkoslavakia when WW II started."

Hitler unilaterally invaded part of Czeckoslovakia. Since the part that Hitler invaded was dominated by pan-Germans, there was the hope that he would stop at German-dominated areas, which would adhere to the norms of the time (one state for an entire nation). Instead, he invaded the rest of the country after Munich and we did nothing, which is closer to real appeasement. When he invaded Poland, France and Britain declared war. The scale of the issue a part of one small European nation-state or an entire, diverse regions recently ravaged by war and genocide, make it an apples and oranged comparison. Stalin's movements into Easter Europe were in part 1) reinforcing the pre-existing Russian empire and 2) moving against Hitler. We wanted, in fact needed, 2 to happen to beat Hitler. Once Hitler was gone, we simply lacked the capability in any real sense to take on Stalin without laying waste to Eastern Europe (destroying the village to save it) or unilaterally nuking Moscow. At the time of Munich, it was possible that in a 2-on-1 fight, Britain and France could definitively find victory over Germany. Choosing not to do this is really the only thing that can count as appeasement. Such a situation did not exist after WWII. Unless ideas are connected to capabilities, they are utopian and worthless, which is exactly all that talk we should have marched onto Moscow is. Shrinking from a fight you can win and should fight is appeasement and it is the only thing that is appeasement. Deciding to not commit suicide is not appeasement.

"foreign leaders who don't eagerly submit to American hegemonic aspirations"

Is that what we're calling Saddam and Kim-Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs these days?

Sorry -- I agree with the merits of this post, so that's probably an unfair dig. But still, let's not get too sympathetic about foreign dictators just because Dubya also doesn't like them. If nothing else, it's bad politics.

Reality man,

Ok, fair enough. With a nuanced definition of appeasement, you've got a good argument. Still, I think the record is clear that the US and UK could have tried harder to prevent Stalin from taking political control of Eastern Europe short of the measures you suggest. I'm not arguing with their policy - I think they made the right choices for the most part.

Regarding Munich, I think an important point is that Chekoslovakia had strong defenses, so one of the problems was that they basically gave it away without getting anything in return (since Hitler, it turned out, was incredibly reckless). My understanding is that the relative strength of the Allies was much greater than Germany at the time of Munich (factoring in Chekoslovakia on their side), then it was afterwards.

Re Dilan Espar

The notion that the German military machine was powerful in 1938 at the time of the Munich conference is seriously in error. In Walter Goerlitzes' book, "A History of the German General Staff," it is shown that, in fact, the German Army was in no condition to engage in a war against Britain and France in 1938. Furthermore, the author found evidence that the German General Staff was well aware of this fact and that Hitler was bluffing and that they were planning a coup should the latters' bluff be called by Chamberlain.

SLC:

"In Walter Goerlitzes' book, "A History of the German General Staff," it is shown that, in fact, the German Army was in no condition to engage in a war against Britain and France in 1938."

Exactly what condition was the BRITISH army in? Germany, at the very least, had been militarizing for five years. Plus, Stalin would have at the very least stayed neutral and might have even fought with the Germans. The British would have lost World War II, under any scenario, without several years of militarization, as well as the help of the Americans AND Soviets.

Again, before you go off half-cocked about appeasement, show me how Chamberlain was ACTUALLY going to beat the Germans if he hadn't made the deal in Munich.

Sohbet
almanya sohbet
izmir sohbet
msn sohbet
Sohbet odaları
Chat
chat siteleri
free CHAT
sohbet siteleri

- Alt Linkler - * sohbet *

Kelebek Sohbet
Liselikızlar
ingiltere Sohbet
islam sohbet
islamkent
Arkadaş
Dost Chat
Chat Sohbet
Reklam ver
Avrupa Chat
Yazılı Sohbet
Yazgülü
Bolsohbet
izmir sohbet
Hollanda sohbet
cinsel sohbet
sohpet
sohbet.com
msn sohbet
mynet sohbet
cet
camchat
chatavenue
chatline

- Alt Linkler - * Chat *

maynet
camchat
chatavenue
chatline
seslichat

- Yeniler -

Gurbet
Sevgi
Ask
antalya sohbet
sex sohbet
girl

- Amsalak Linkler -

Komik Videolar
Komik vidiyolar
bedava Videolar

her hangi bir sorun oldugunda pm atınız ...

- Bglog - * webmaster blog *

webmaster
komik blog
komik
komik Resimler
komik yazılar
komik videolar
komik fıkralar

- Sohbet5.Net -

Sohbet
chat

girl

hosting

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Thanks...

Sağır Oda Fan Club
Türk
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
youtube video
forum
downloads
Haberler
küresel ısınma
dizi izle

thanks...

grr

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Cutlerrr :P

thank you

Thank you.

thankss

thanks

thanks for this post

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

thanksss

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye
chat
magazin
chat
Sohbet
tuzcuoğlu

thanks ;)

thanks ;)

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
sex
porno
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

mirc