I think the Britain-Polish agreement was too little too late - the Non Aggression Pact stirrings showed that Molotov and Stalin weren't going to take the bait - they would work out a bilateral agreement with their bitter ideological enemy no matter what to avoid war -- there was a lot Britain could do to push Germany out of Poland -- Britain was more concerned with hanging onto its own colonial possessions and checking German power than any real concern over Poland -- another weak and problematic state carved out by Versailles -- Hitler's biggest gift to Britain and France was Operation Barbarossa, June 22, 1941, when he could no longer contain his anti-communism and contempt for the Slavs to invade the Soviet Unions -- 20 million dead Soviet citizens later -- and Poland is whole again, but under Soviet domination for a generation.
George W. Bush and "Appeasement"
George W. Bush's remarks before the Israeli Knesset, where he charged Barack Obama with "Appeasement" for seeking diplomatic alternatives to war with Iran shows that despite his abysmal approval ratings and lame duck status he is going to insert himself into the politics of 2008. That might be a good thing for the Democrats.
Obama's call for negotiations with Iran has been welcomed by governments throughout the world and follows the advice of the conservative "Iraq Study Group" headed by Lee Hamilton and James Baker. How that stance constitutes "Appeasement" of any nation or any leader is anybody's guess.
I am so sick of hearing the "Appeasement" argument trotted out whenever some right-wing blowhard wants to sound "tough" and dismiss diplomacy no matter how badly the historical context screams out for it. Lyndon Johnson used "Appeasement" to justify standing "tough" in Vietnam with disastrous results. Now Bush repeated this old canard to try to politically isolate anyone who doesn't see the world through his jaundiced eyes. John McCain naturally agrees with Bush and vowed never to talk to U.S. adversaries unless they totally capitulate to U.S. demands ahead of time.
Like the old comic strip character, "Pogo," said during the Vietnam War: "We have seen the enemy, and it is us."
During the last week of September 1938, when the leaders of two democracies, Edouard Daladier of France and Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, met in Munich with two fascist dictators, Benito Mussolini of Italy and Adolf Hitler of Germany, the goal was to push Hitler east. Hitler's intentions were clear. He sought "Lebensraum" in Eastern Europe and considered the Slavs an inferior race to his own and the Bolsheviks the biggest single threat to Western Civilization. Hitler wished to absorb into the German Reich the largely German-speaking Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, a nation carved out by the Versailles Treaty after Germany's defeat in World War One. The hyper-nationalist, flag-waving, right-wing Nazi regime in Berlin never accepted Czechoslovakia's legitimacy.
Hitler's call for seizing the Sudetenland was THE classic "stab-in-the-back" argument: the civilian diplomats who "betrayed" Germany at the end of WWI were all left-liberal "traitors" who sold out the nation at Versailles. (We hear the same argument from our own right-wing revisionists of the Vietnam War.) All Hitler was doing, in his view, was restoring what rightfully belonged to Germany.
Severely weakened by the Great Depression and in no position to make military threats, Chamberlain and Daladier hoped to push Hitler's ambitions eastward. The one unifying belief all four leaders shared was their fanatical hatred of the Soviet Union and anything remotely related to International Communism. A strong and well-armed Nazi regime in Central Europe, they believed, was a necessary buffer to Soviet power. And with their own domestic economic crises and their labor unions going communist, France and England focused their attention not on the threat of fascism but on the growing influence of the Soviet Union. (Their positions on the Spanish Civil War bear this fact out.)
France and England hoped Germany would spark a shooting war with the Soviet Union and then they could sit back and watch the fascists and communists tear each other apart. It didn't work out that way.
If Chamberlain and Daladier could negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini, why couldn't they also talk to Josef Stalin? Stalin was interested in resurrecting some form of the old "Triple Entente" alliance system that attempted to box in Germany in the years leading up to World War One. It might have been a long shot, but had France and England been open to including Russia in the negotiations Germany might have been stuck with an instant two-front war if it invaded any of its neighbors, east or west. German power might have been checked. As it turned out, after June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union ended up being allied with France and England anyway (and with the United States after December 7, 1941), so maybe the whole damn bloody thing could have been avoided with some creative diplomacy. That's the real lesson of "Appeasement" and it is the opposite of what the Right Wing says it is.
I'm only pointing out that there was a historical context to the 1938 Munich deal that gets lost in the din of contemporary saber rattlers.
This piece of 20th Century "history," wholly denuded of its context, has been the most abused "lesson" of World War Two. Those who want to use military violence always justify their actions by smearing those who oppose them as "Appeasers." Every U.S. president since Harry Truman has used this argument in one form or another.
But "history" also shows quite clearly that sometimes negotiations and diplomacy are much smarter and far less dangerous avenues of settling international disputes than always reflexively reaching for the guns and the cruise missiles.
What's needed in the Middle East is a comprehensive Non-Aggression Pact that includes all of the major players: the EU, Russia, Israel, Iran, Muslim states outside the region, the United States, the Arab League, etc. The region must be a nuclear-free zone and any act of military aggression must be outlawed by mutual security agreements, and not dictated by the United States, which under Bush has lost its credibility as an honest broker. The US must redeploy its troops out of Iraq and some kind of just settlement must be negotiated between Israel and Palestine. More wars and attacks and concrete walls and occupations and bombings and terrorist attacks and targeted assassinations and check points are doomed to failure. Negotiations and diplomacy must take over where military violence has failed.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A quibble perhaps. I think that Chamberlain and Deladier were in a position to "make threats" Carrying through with them would have proved difficult but not impossible. Certainly their overriding concern lay further east and with the particular ramifications thereof. They were definitely in a poor (class or geopolitical) position to ally with the Soviet Union. It was in their interests to step back and hope (hope rarely being a useful political program) Hitler maintained his eastern focus. In the effect their wishes all but came true. With eventually politically disastrous effects for them but more humanly disastrous effects for everyone else.
"Severely weakened by the Great Depression and in no position to make military threats, Chamberlain and Daladier hoped to push Hitler's ambitions eastward.
France and England hoped Germany would spark a shooting war with the Soviet Union and then they could sit back and watch the fascists and communists tear each other apart. "
I don't think so. The pact between Britain and Poland generated just after ensured British involvement if the Germans went any further eastward. To get to the Russians, Germany had to go over Poland. Argument over.
It was more that Chamberlain could see the German point of view which gave him a pretext to give in. Sudetanland was an overwhelmingly German-speaking and cultural region in a post-WW1cobbled-together state. Czechoslavakia as an entity didn't play big with the Western powers.
The closest parallel is USUK appeasement of Israeli agression.
Israel? really? What about the appeasement of the Saudis? The Saudis poured billions of dollars into the wahabi sect that attacked on 9/11. Still do. Did Chamberlain kiss and hold hands with Hitler too? The Saudis then got Bush to attack Iraq, the only competitive oil source. Think how mind bogglingly wealthy the Saudis are getting thanks to 9/11 and Bush.
I think I understand why Bush would say this. He knows that in any sort of discussion with anyone, ally or enemy, he is so ill-equipped intellectualy and verbally that he is going to end up losing everything. For Bush, conversation EQUALS appeasement, because he has no idea how to formulate and link ideas in a logical or persuasive manner. In his mind, WAR = WIN, TALK = LOSE.
Ironically, in his administration, WAR = LOSE has been the reality.
On the up side, he's just making it easier and easier for Obama and the rest of the Dem party to open a serious can of whoop-ass on the GOP come November.
The appeasement spewing from Bush's lips like a thick syrup was directed at radical fundamentalists, the nationalist socialist war party, and the remaining kooks at home. In that, he showed his solidarity like a good comrade, while people on both sides of the Atlantic cringed before the specter of a full-blown fascist standing before them. The aberration was real. They knew what it was.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/t_equals.html
It had the monumental chutzpah to unblinkingly infer that anyone, particularly any real American, is a fascist appeaser. Stunning socialist behavior.
Fighting a preemptive "war for peace" that never seems to reach an end point, is the game. A game we should just stop playing. Aggression represents neither country's majority or true character and renders two close allies with a dirty brush. We're better than that.
Controlled chaos for profit is the scam. For Bush's part, the timeless protections racket formula is the perfect solution. Create fear and reap the reward. The machine is expensive to run but profits are high, as our nation's infrastructure, effete health apparatus, and declining solvency can attest. It never seems to run out of political fuel and enthusiasm.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/auntie_christi_juggles.html
Just some thoughts. What is important is stopping the continued capitulation to the fear and control people. That's not freedom, only enslavement. Here's to linking up and a far better future for everyone.
Great, thoughtful comments, I've found this appeasement history is often abused so much I had to respond. The bi-lateral Russo-German Non Aggression Pact of 1939 was the ultimate response to Chamberlain's gamble -- Molotov and Stalin really had no choice. The Soviets' goal after Munich was to make sure that if Russia went to war with Germany, France and England would be pulled in first so they couldn't sit back and watch Germany destroy the Soviet Union -- as it turned out the US, France, and England were in an alliance with the Soviets against Germany in any case -- so I think the case for diplomacy is quite clear -- also, France and England really tipped their hands with their support of Franco in Spain years before Munich.
Always good to keep in mind the Anglo diplomatic 'mission' to the Soviet Union prior to the '39 pact.
I expect Dems are secretly rejoicing over Bush's injecting himself into the political season, throwing these big juicy snowballs they can smack him back in the head with. Obama won't let the knuckle dragging Gops say anything without aggressively responding in a way that is civil but devastating. If Bush and McCain were trying to throw the election, they could not be doing a better job. Either that or they are more clueless than "anyone could have imagined."
HuffPost's Pick
Excellent lesson Mr. Palermo. That whole appeasement argument, where we are supposed to think about the horrors of the holocaust, gets trotted out whenever someone wants to justify violence and are fearful that negotiations may actually bring about a peaceful (and unprofitable) resolution to the conflict. I never really understood the motivation of Chamberlain and Daladier in that situation, but just took it on face value that it wasn't the way to go, but I definitely have the benefit of seeing where it led. Interesting that we in the West saw communism and lefty liberalism as a bigger threat than Fascism. Corporate fascism is alive and well and how dare we negotiate with the enemy, we might accidentally resolve a conflict peacefully.
Mr. Palermo,
Your summation of the Hitler - Chamberlain events is an excellent short history. It would be good for people to actually understand the nuance of events. (Hell, it's not even nuance. It's just nuance because few people ever read history beyond the -mostly nonsense- they learn in high school or hear from the media.) Folks most often take a Manichean view. It's simple. Doesn't require thinking or reading. And you get to pick a side that doesn't conflict with your "world" view.
Thanks.
Bush and his minions, including McCain and Lieberman keep pushing the theme that Iran is supplying armaments to Iraqi militants, but Olberman reported the other night that over 20,000 bomb fragments and other armaments have been examined by US official investigators and we have found NO, that;s NO evidence of any Iranian armaments. This is not being reported anywhere else that I have seen myself or I'd post a link to the study. What we do hear over and over again from the "military advisers" (paid shills) and the administration is that Iran is supplying the Iraqi dissidents. Again, NO proof at all. We got this same crap before the Iraq debacle. They don't want to talk because maybe their lies will be exposed.
If Olberman says it,it must be true.I say we leave Iran alone, they are not doing anything. We might be able to help them with their nuclear problem in exchange for cheaper oil.
The only nuclear problem the Iranians have (beyond waste disposal - like all countries) is the U.S. (hence some E.U. and Israel problems) They have the natural resources and the scientific resources for production and implementation of nuclear generation of electrical power.
We should help Iran find alternatives to oil and nuclear, just like the rest of us. NO NUKES!
Chris Matthews has a great answer for that. Wonder if we could get him to interview the President on the same topic?
Honestly, I don't see the problem. The Democrats have been appeasing Nazi Bush for years! Obama's promise of amnesty ("reconciliation") rather than justice for all the administration's many crimes just proves Bush's point.
Thank you. I hadn't considered the events (of pre-WW2) from that perspective before. Interesting.
Columbine, V Tech, etc.... compared to what Bush said:
___
If we could have only seen some signs earlier of the deep dark anger of these young men, perhaps these travesties might not have occurred. This is the truth.
Bush' comments yesterday are basically a slap in the face to counseling and watchdogs in general, regardless of foreign affairs.
There is no difference in comparing the autrocious behavior of Iran, etc... than to the disturbed young men that killed many innocent lives on American soil.
Are we to not try to look for signs and try to counsel these kids? Isn't this what Obama is basically stating in his stance on attempting to come to some accord with our foreign enemies?
We see the signs of horror in Iran etc... and are supposed to not even attempt to intervene, while on the other hand we say if only we knew to instances such as the violence at Columbine and Virginia Tech.
Obama is not saying that meeting with our enemies will always achieve accord, but if you don't offer to reach out your hand??? It is not as if Obama is taking military action or sanctions off the table. He is just saying that he is going to sit behind the desk in the oval office with a red phone and a bomb button and nothing else.
He is just saying that he is NOT going to sit behind the desk in the oval office with a red phone and a bomb button and nothing else.
What is the "autrocious (sic) behavior of Iran"? I don't approve of how the governing bodies treat much of their citizenry, but that's an internal matter to be addressed by the people of Iran. What is the "autrocious (sic) behavior of Iran" on an international basis?
All you have to do is look at the comments that the Iranian president made on his visit to the U.S. I am not blanketing the Iranian civilians as a whole.
Where do you get your understanding of his comments? I'm unable to read or write Farsi but I'm able to find interpretations that have a more compelling understanding than such as is promulgated by the media and usual suspects.
I did not think you were "blanketing the Iranian civilians as a whole". I was just curious as to the idea of 'atrocious'.
Bush's comment was referring to Jimmy Carter's visit with Hamas. Not everything is about YOU, Mr. Obama.
Bush's comment was meant as another attack on anyone who questions his delusional world veiw. His ignorance and arrogance will stand in history as a warning of how delicate an ideal Democracy is. Anyone who thinks a President ignoring the veiws of 82% of the people is anything less than a direct attack on that democracy needs their eyes surgically opened! Government of, by, and for the people was instituted for a reason, the Bush administration openly defies that credo, they are the embodiment of the wrongs our founders sought to right! Seldom in the history of the institutions of mankind has there been leadership so blatently in violation of the peoles will, with such blatent disregard for the tenants on which it's Nation was founded. These people, with their made in China flagpins, are the biggest threat We the Peoplwe have faced in decades, they are the enemy and should be given no quarter!
"...of the people, by the people, for the people,...". Of course you have to define "the people". At that point (Gettysburg Address) black people were still 3/5th of a person (for census purposes) and women were similarly chattel. Fortunately the constitution is amendable though minds are often less so.
Actually, that makes it a little worse IMHO. Now Bush sounds insane instead of just ignorant. How exactly could Carter appease Hamas?
When Bush equates talking with an adversary or enemy to appeasement, what he's really saying is that he doesn't trust himself not to give away the store -- that if he meets with Ahmedinejad, he'll somehow be tricked or hypnotized into making all sorts of harmful concessions. Which in Bush's case might in fact be true. But not in the case of a leader who is not a mental midget -- someone with intelligence and real toughness, like Barack Obama.
ever see the Dave Caghpelle skit where he wonders if Bush would give a way the store during ngotiations so he can leave the meetign to get high?
No but it sounds perfect. Someone should resurrect it.
this what we get when we put a cowboy in in the whit house
The only people truly against opening dialogues with Iran, North Korea, etc. are the CHICKENHAWKS. Notice how these people talk WAR and VIOLENCE at the drop of a hat, but none of them are--or have been--in UNIFORM. BULLIES and COWARDS fill the ranks of the Republican Party and the way to diminish their influence is TO STAND UP TO THESE BULLIES AND COWARDS AND SHOW THEY FOR WHAT THEY ARE!
The only people truly against opening dialogues with Iran, North Korea, etc. at the CHICKENHAWKS. Notice how these people talk WAR and VIOLENCE at the drop of a hat, but none of them are--or have been--in UNIFORM. BULLIES and COWARDS fill the ranks of the Republican Party and the way to diminish their influence is TO STAND UP TO THESE BULLIES AND COWARDS AND SHOW THEY FOR WHAT THEY ARE!
Furthermore, the appeasement policies of England and France in the late days before WWII were reasonable attempts to make Hitler happy, until he started to INVADE OTHER COUNTRIES!!! Tell me, excepting only Iraq during the 1980s, when has Iran EVER tried to invade and take over other countries??? Oh, I'm sorry, that's the US!!
You talk with your enemies but you dont cave in to them.Thats what France and Great Britain did and it was Iraq that invaded Iran I believed that Iran has not attacked another country in over 200 years.
The Iran - Iraq war in the 80s, moreover, was a USSR - USA war by proxy.
I would disagree that is was a proxy war - though both the USSR & USA had certain interests. (In fact, both the USSR & USA supported both sides at various times and occasionally found themselves on the same side.) It was a fully homegrown war. Politically, economically and ideologically. A narrower political focus from the Iraqi side. A wider ideological focus from the Irani side. That's a little brief but should point someone to more understanding.
Posted May 16, 2008 | 12:27 AM (EST)