Hitler, Appeasement, and the Munich Parallel

I'll have to review my opinion of the arrangement that Chamberlain and company made with Hitler before World War II's big kickoff.

Researching another post, I ran into "Retiring Hitler and 'Appeasement' from the National Security Debate" (Jeffrey Record, in Parameters (Summer 2008)), on the U.S. Army War College website. The part of the article I landed in, thanks to the search terms I was using, included this quote: "...when neoconservative critics of appeasement speak about how Hitler could and should have been stopped prior to 1939, they mean forcible regime change of the kind the United States launched against Saddam Hussein in 2003. But it is here that the neoconservatives and others who believe in the continuing validity of the Munich analogy enter the fantasy realm of historical counterfactualism...."

These days, wild claims about neocons fly around like redolent missiles in the monkey house. I wasn't impressed. Particularly that business about "counterfactualism."

There seemed to be interesting, and maybe useful, references in the article, so I kept skimming.

I still wasn't impressed. The author pointed out, accurately enough, that threats like Hitler's Germany aren't at all common. Hitler, Record points out, planned "...a German racial empire stretching from the English Channel to the Ural Mountains...."

Compared with what I understand to be Al Qaeda's goal, Hitler's proposed empire seems comparatively modest. I considered the possibility that the author thought that only nations could pose a threat to other nations.

Nope. Record seems to realize that Al Qaeda is a real threat, and could be "Hitlerian:"

"A potential threat of genuinely Hitlerian proportions could arise in the event that al Qaeda acquired deliverable nuclear or biological weapons. Like Hitler, al Qaeda is undeterrable and effectively unappeasable; all it lacks is Hitler’s destructive power. As a fanatical, elusive nonstate actor, it presents little in the way of decisive targets subject to effective retaliation, and its political objectives—the complete withdrawal of American power from the Muslim world and the destruction of existing Arab regimes as a precursor to the establishment of a single Islamic caliphate—are literally fantastic. Possession of weapons of mass destruction would render al Qaeda a far more dangerous threat than deterrable or weak enemy states. Though the differences between the German dictator and the Arab terrorist leader are obvious, the similarities are impressive. Hitler was a secular German state leader obsessed with race, while Osama bin Laden is an Arab nonstate actor obsessed with religion. Both are linked by bloodthirstiness, high intelligence, a totalitarian mindset, iron will, fanatical ideological motivation, political charisma, superb tactical skills, utter ruthlessness, and—above all—undeterrability. One distinction is that Hitler lacked the means to strike the American homeland, whereas bin Laden already has."

This is a far cry from the silly side of academia's usual antics, like

• Ward Churchill's "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: reflections on the consequences of U.S. imperial arrogance and criminality" - and his comparing "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" working in the World Trade Center on 9/11 as "little Eichmanns."
• Columbia's welcoming Iran's President Ahmadinejad, but pulling Minutemen founder Gilchrist's invitation to speak. Columbia banned Gilchrist because he has extremist views (he claims that people coming into this country should obey the law while doing so)

Record isn't blaming America for the War on Terror, he isn't excusing Al Qaeda, and he is, as far as I can tell, sticking to facts.

I think it's arguable that England and France wouldn't have been able to make Hitler change his mind by using military force. For starters, those countries, and the rest of Europe, had experienced hard times during the thirties, just like America.

And, if I remember my history correctly, the winning side in World War I had been so distressed by the conflict that they didn't ever want it to happen again: a reasonable desire. So they adopted the Wilsonian idea of disarmament: at best a debatable idea.

I'm not going to try to boil down an article of over 4,400 words in a blog post, but I think that Record may have a point.

However: "Retiring Hitler and 'appeasement' from the national security debate does not mean that the United States should negotiate with any and all enemies or that it should refrain from using force against all threats that are not Hitlerian in scope. The United States is a great power with occasionally threatened interests whose protection sometimes requires the threat of or actual use of force."

Barack Obama: That's Not a Temple, That's History

Any American presidential candidate's nomination acceptance speech is pretty big deal.

Barack Obama's speech, as the first black American presidential candidate, delivered on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, is a bigger deal than most.

Democratic National Convention organizers had arranged for their candidate's acceptance speech to be at INVESCO Field in Denver, Colorado. In front of a faux Greco-Roman temple facade.

That was before Obama wowed the crowd in Berlin. I'll get back to that later

An outdoor arena - and warmup acts that include Stevie Wonder, Sheryl Crowe, and Jennifer Hudson - makes the venue look a bit more like a rock concert than the Democratic party probably likes right now.

Then there's the backdrop. It looks like a Greek temple. Or the Lincoln Memorial. Or the White House.

The 'Greek temple' comparison has been used with the sort of enthusiasm that Obama's supporters had when criticizing McCain's inability to remember how many houses he owns. I'll get back to that later, too.

I'm not bothered by the backdrop, myself. Architects have been using the look of Ancient Greek - and Roman - temples for centuries when they want to evoke permanence, tradition, reliability, and stability. The Lincoln Memorial and the White House both have similar columns on them.

I'd say it's more likely that the Democratic party leaders had the Lincoln Memorial and/or the White House in mind, than a 'temple to Obama.'

Obama's Backdrop Doesn't Bother Me

In fact, for me it's a reminder of what this country is, and one of the reasons that it's endured so long.

The founding fathers studied the political systems used in countries and empires across thousands of years of history. They picked what they believed to be the best: the democracies used by some Greek city-states, and by Rome.

From that starting point, they made changes, drawing on the experiences of about 23 centuries.

Their first attempt, the Articles of Confederation, didn't work too well, but the Constitution has seen America through a major revolution, two global wars, Watergate, the Teapot Dome Scandal, and ongoing discussions of the gold standard, for 219 years.

Barack Obama's acceptance speech is a milestone in America's developing history, so I don't see a problem with a reminder of the ancient democracies of Greece and Rome.

In the news:

• "The columns...it's all a bit much, say conservatives"
  CNN (August 28, 2008)
  • "(CNN) -- The Temple of Obama. Barackopolis. Egobama. ..."
• "Gallup Poll Gives Obama Convention 'Bounce'"
  FOXNews (August 28, 2008)
• "Obama expected to address change in speech"
  CNN (August 28, 2008)
• "Barack Obama's Invesco stage is Greek temple by day, White House by night"
  New York Daily News (August 28, 2008)
• "The Media-Created Myth of 'Disunity' Among the Democrats"
  FOXNews Forum (August 28, 2008)
• "Obama reaches next milestone on symbolic anniversary"
  CNN (August 28, 2008)
• "Obama God! Democrats build a temple for Barack"
  MailOnline (UK) (August 28, 2008)

---

I said I'd get back to 'Obamaopolis,' and McCain's referral of the question 'how many houses do you own' to his staff.

McCain and the Houses Question

True enough: most people who own houses know how many they own. And McCain had been presenting himself as a 'regular guy.' If the criticism had been that McCain had too much money to understand what many people deal with, I'd have taken it a little more seriously.

But the focus has been on his not knowing exactly how many he owns.

Turns out, there seems to be some debate about that. The number that's going the rounds now is seven, but he may 'own' eight. That count includes

• All the apartments and homes owned by McCain's wife, Cindy
• Various family trusts for
  • Cindy and John McCain
  • Their children
  "Rezko Reality
  McCain misfires as he attacks Obama's home purchase
  (August 22, 2008)

I agree: McCain has more money than I do. So, I hope, does Mr. Obama. Having America run by people who are wealthier than I am has never bothered me. In fact, I'd just as soon have someone in the White House who does know how to make a good living.

Back to McCain referring the 'how many houses do you own' question to his staff: it looks like it's his wife who owns the real estate. McCain may have decided not to try calculating what percentage of his wife's holdings he could be said to "own" during an interview.

Barackopolis, a Celebrity Candidate, and Free Beer

That 200,000-strong crowd at Berlin's Tiergarten Park had to pay for their beer. True, the rock band Reamonn was performing, and so was reggae artist Patrice.

But the main draw seems to have been Obama, at least as much as the reggae, beer, and rock-and-roll. Reamonn's lead singer, Rea Garvey, seems to think so - and wrote in a blog that Obama was the event's focus.

So, an American presidential candidate can pack 'em in at a German rock fest. So what? I've never believed that being popular was a hindrance to being president.

America has had popular presidents before. To this day, there's a Kennedy Caddesi in Istanbul.


View Larger Map

Here's how I see it:

• The Republican party has a (presumptive) presidential candidate who has more money than most average Joes
• The Democratic party has a candidate who has lots of charisma - and is a fine orator

Neither of which has very much to do with which will make the better president.

I understand that elections involve a great deal of name-calling and irrational slogans. That's part of what makes them so colorful and exciting.

But, if you're an American, and plan to vote, do us all a favor. Before you cast your ballot, collect the facts and think.

You Think American Courts are Crazy Now?

This ties in with the war on terror, really.

First, some of this week's headlines:

American Courts in the News

"Judge Orders Whites Out Of Atlanta Court"

WSB - Atlanta (March 28, 2008) "ATLANTA -- Judge Marvin Arrington insists he's not a racist; despite ordering white lawyers out of his courtroom on Thursday." (The judge's black, and as a member of two other ethnic minorities, I think he had a point: check out the article. What I think is crazy here is why Judge Arrington has to defend himself.)

"Judge Somma rethinks his resignation"

UnionLeader.com (April 2, 2008)

"Boston — A judge who resigned after being caught driving drunk in New Hampshire while in drag says he's reconsidering his decision to quit.

"U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Somma said in a letter to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly posted Tuesday that an outpouring of support from judges, lawyers and others led him to reconsider"

Courts Around the World in the News

"Malaysian man gets double whammy divorce"

Idaho Statesman (April 1, 2008)

"KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — When Roslan Ngah took a second wife, he might have wondered if she would get along with his first.

"He need not have worried. The two women got on so well they decided to leave him at the same time.

"Faced with their united stand, Roslan, a 44-year-old Malaysian Muslim, divorced his two wives, aged 46 and 35, in an Islamic Shariah Court in northeastern Terengganu state on Tuesday, a lawyer said Wednesday.

"According to Islamic law, a woman can submit a request to leave her husband, but the pronouncement of divorce must come from the man or a court. Islam allows a man to have four wives."

"Man, woman stoned to death in Pakistan"

United Press International (April 2, 2008)

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan ... -- A man and a woman, sentenced to death by a Pakistani tribal court after being found guilty of adultery, reportedly were stoned to death by Taliban militants.

"The stoning was supposedly carried out Monday in the Khwezai-Baezai tribal area, Dawn newspaper reported. The area is part of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.

"It was first such reported incident of a stoning by the militants, who usually put the accused before firing squads, the report said."

So We Become Part of a Caliphate: So What?

According to some of the 'deep thinkers' I've known, governments everywhere (with the possible exception of the Worker's Paradise) are pretty much the same: unless maybe American government institutions are more racist and oppressive.

I haven't talked with them recently, but my guess is that some would say that it wouldn't make much difference, if the American Congress was replaced with a council of Ayatollahs, and the Supreme Court justices were replaced by scholars well-versed in Sharia law.

The others would know enough about the shallow end of Islamic law to know that they wouldn't like it. American courts have their faults: but they do, in general, give a little wiggle room for human nature; and don't regard what goes on in the back seat of a car as a capital offense.

It Can't Happen Here

Don't be so sure.

Quite a few leaders around the world seem to regard Chamberlain as the paragon of international diplomacy.

Negotiation is great, it has a place in diplomacy: and really good negotiators have a shot at a Nobel Peace Prize. Speaking of which, have you noticed that negotiators like Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize, but not Generals, many of whom actually ended wars?¹

I'm genuinely concerned that the next American president, and many members of Congress, may try to achieve "peace for our time," rather than peace.

As I said, negotiation is great: but there are people who regard negotiation as an opportunity to delay their enemy. The National Socialist German Workers Party made effective use of negotiation, and Europe's fervent desire for peace, in 1938.

Seven decades later, many leaders are as desperate for peace as Nevil Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, and others were. I hope that today's - and tomorrow's - negotiators learn the right lessons from history.

---

¹ To be fair, American Commander in Chiefs - Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter - got the prize: in 1906, 1919 and 2002, respectively.

U.S. Abandons Sanctions! Plans to Bomb Iran!

It's not too unlikely that we'll be seeing headlines like that tomorrow.

Fact is, Germany decided they were making too much money, trading with Iran, and refused to cooperate with sanctions. Since Germany is one of three key European players in the deal, sanctions are DOA.

The article I used as my reference was much more polite about it, but that's the gist.

So, with Germany giving a no-go on economic sanctions, and religious fanatics in the process of making nuclear weapons in Iran, U.S. officials are working out plans for what would probably be a week of bombing. Presumably, Iran would be left with a nuclear program that was either years before its pre-deconstruction status, or non-existent.

The White House "has just about had it with Iran," an unnamed foreign diplomat said. "They tried the diplomatic process. China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them.

"The Germans are wobbling …There are a number of people in the administration who do not want their legacy to be leaving behind an Iran that is nuclear armed, so they are looking at what are the alternatives? They are looking at other options," the diplomat said.

Of course, it may be that Iran, with a fabulous over-supply of oil, desperately needs all that nuclear material to fuel reactors, for peaceful civilian purposes.

Or, maybe if a Senate committee wrote a nice, polite note and sent it to, Iran would promise to leave us alone.

Personally, I wouldn't count on it.