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."

'Hitler Was Right,' and Other Wisdom from Iran

"Chairman of the Assembly of Experts:" Now that's an impressive title. You'd expect remarkable insights and wisdom to come from someone like that.

And, you'd be right.

Former president of Iran Hashemi Rafsanjani is Chairman of the Assembly of Experts these days. Last Friday, in a religious message, Rafsanjani said that former German chancellor Hitler had the right idea about the Jews in Europe.

Rafsanjani said that Jews made trouble for European governments because they "had a lot of property" and "controlled an empire of propaganda." According to the former Iranian president, the Nazis saved Europe from the 'evil of Zionism.'

I said "remarkable insights," not "true." And you have to admit that 'Hitler was right' is a pretty remarkable statement.

Now that Russian president Putin is patching up relations with Iran, I'm pretty sure that we'll soon hear about how wise it would be to talk with Iran's government. Maybe so, but I hope that our leaders will bear in mind what the people who run Iran believe.

For those so inclined, there's a video: "Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of the Iranian Assembly of Experts: Hitler Wanted to Expel Jews from Europe Because They Were a Pain in the Neck".

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred

Six Years Ago, Tomorrow: Remembering 9/11

Six years ago tomorrow, people died when New York's World Trade Center towers collapsed. More died when the Pentagon's walls were breached by an airliner, and the passengers and crew of Flight 93 stopped terrorists from completing their mission.

Not that other countries haven't had trouble with airliners. Take Korea, for example.

In 1978, Korean Air's Flight 902 strayed into what was then Soviet airspace. Soviet air defense identified the airliner as a Boeing 747, then they shot at the airliner. Two passengers died, and the Korean pilots were forced to land on a frozen lake.

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 got too close to Soviet territory in 1983. This time everyone on board died. The airliner was shot down by the a Soviet fighter. This attack may be understandable. The fighter pilot's commanders were under the impression that it was an American spy plane.

Contrast these little misunderstandings with Flight 85, on September 11, 2001. This account takes a while to tell, but I think it's worthwhile to recount, as an example of what kind of a country America is.

By the time the Korean Air flight was approaching American airspace, American air traffic control and the U.S. military were already tense. Two hijacked airliners had crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. Another set of hijackers had rammed an airliner into the Pentagon. Passengers and crew of another airliner stopped the hijackers in their plane, but died in the process.

Air controllers in America and Canada were in the process of getting hundreds of airborne vehicles to the ground, safely, in as little time as possible.

Meanwhile, over the Pacific, Korean Air Flight 85 was headed for Anchorage, on its way to New York City. The airliner started transmitting a coded signal (HJK) which warned air traffic control that there were hijackers on board. Korean Air officials said that it was all a misunderstanding.

Downtown Anchorage was evacuated, and American fighters armed with guns and live missiles intercepted the airliner.

An extreme response? Under the circumstances, no. Not at all. There was no way of knowing how many rogue airliners were still in the air.

The sensible thing to do would have been to shoot Korean Air 85 out of the air while it was still over the Pacific.

Especially since, when asked by air traffic controllers, the Korean pilots declared themselves hijacked. That is, "they set their transponder, which transmits information about the flight to radars, to the four-digit universal code for hijacked - 7500."

Americans aren't sensible, not that way. While the airliner kept transmitting the hijacker signal, air traffic controllers, working with U.S. and Canadian military, gave the pilots maneuvering instructions, which they followed.

Despite the "7500" signal and what was going on in the eastern part of the USA, it seemed possible that there really weren't hijackers on the airliner.

US and Canadian officials decided to have the plane land at an isolated spot: Whitehorse International Airport.

The 747 crew may have been surprised at being diverted to a small town in western Canada, and more surprised when armed RCMP troopers ordered them out of the plane. They apparently didn't know that they were transmitting a hijacking warning.

With a nation under attack by hijacked airliners, an airliner whose radio was yelling "I'm hijacked!" was brought to a safe landing.

I think it's a good idea to remember realities like that, when reading words of journalistic wisdom like "There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq" (Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist Seymour "My Lai" Hersh).

Back to 9/11.

Last year, I watched the president, the first lady, and a marine place a wreath of flowers on two pools of water in what New Yorkers called The Pit.

Bagpipers played while they walked from one pool to another, and as they walked away. Notes of "Oh Beautiful for Spacious Skies" bounced off walls of The Pit.

Those pools marked the World Trade Center tower footprints in lower Manhattan. The wreath-laying was the first memorial observance I noticed that year.

Finally, here are a few quotes that I can find comforting. It looks like folks weren't any more wise, or daft, in the past than they are now.

"The outcome of the war is in our hands; the outcome of words is in the council." (Homer (800 BC - 700 BC), in The Iliad

"Let him who desires peace prepare for war." Flavius Vegetius Renatus (about 375 AD), in De Rei Militari

"The name of peace is sweet, and the thing itself is beneficial, but there is a great difference between peace and servitude. Peace is freedom in tranquility, servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death." Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC), in Philippica

"My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds." Neville Chamberlain (1869–1940), in a speech at Downing Street, London, after his return from making the Munich Pact. September 30, 1938

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators" Neville Chamberlain, in a speech to the House of Commons, justifying his policy. October 6, 1938

"Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided." Senator William Borah, (1865-1940, Idaho's Progressive Republican "Lion of Idaho"), when he heard that Hitler had invaded Poland. September of 1939

Keith Ellison, Iraqi Sheikhs, and Islam's Image

Representative Keith Ellison's term in Congress will be historically important, no matter what he does. As the first Muslim elected to that body, he represents another step in the development of the United States of America as an open, free, society: one where a person's ancestral geography or religious beliefs does not determine what position that person holds.

After a relatively quiet first six months in office, Representative Ellison promises to make history through his own efforts.

Recently, Keith Ellison traveled to Iraq. I first read about his trip in the St. Cloud Times (July 31, 2007), where "Ellison meets Iraqi sheikhs" ran across the top of four of the paper's five front-page columns.

The sheikhs, who "oversee several hundred thousand congregants," had a very good reason for speaking with the only muslim among America's congressmen. "They were very upset and concerned that al-Qaeda is misrepresenting Islam," Ellison said in the AP article. "And they were talking to me about what I can possibly do to work with them to give a clearer, more accurate picture of what Islam is all about." (Emphasis is mine.)

Essentially the same story had appeared in the previous day's USA Today, Ellison returns from trip to Iraq. Ellison, referring to the sheikhs' request, said he would help. He was already involved in "a State Department outreach effort aimed at improving the image of the U.S. in the Muslim world."

The USA Today article included quite a bit that wasn't in the St. Cloud, Minnesota paper. Again quoting Representative Ellison, and the USA Today article: "The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."

Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.

This is a far cry from the Ellison who said, while meeting with the group Atheists for Human Rights, "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you." (Another Islamic Voice in the Debate)

There are politicians who say whatever they think the group they're with wants to say. If Representative Ellison is one of that sort, I suspect that he'll have a long career. If he doesn't have American journalists on his side, he at least seems to enjoy a certain immunity from journalistic curiosity.

News media in the States don't generally seem inclined to look closely to Mr. Ellison's background. That's according to M. Zuhdi Jasser, a contributing editor for the FSM (Family Security Matters) website: and a Muslim. I'm somewhat inclined to agree. Dr. Jasser gives details of Keith Ellison's connections and past that I'd consider to be newsworthy:

• Addressing the North American Imams Federation Congressman-elect Ellison. Dr. Jasser says the AIF is behind the lawsuit brought by the Minnesota Imams against U.S. Airways
• Ellison's campaign fund raisers involved Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) members. CAIR is a group identified by the Anti-Defamation League as founded by leaders of a Hamas affiliate
• Representative Ellison insists that his connection with Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam was limited to the Million Man March

Any or all of these could simply be the sort of elbow-rubbing that a good politician does.

I think it's a little odd that Mr. Ellison's connection with the colorful Louis Farrakhan, who was banned from the UK "on the grounds he expressed racist and anti-Semitic views" hasn't gotten more attention. Farrakhan, a man with colorful ideas and a talent for getting attention, combined with the first Muslim Congressman, is not intrinsically boring. In fact, it should be news. (Don't blame me for the remark about Mr. Farrakhan: I'm just quoting the BBC.)

However, for now I don't know what to think of Mr. Ellison. He may be a young man with little practical experience in public life, who needs to learn that being an American Congressional Representative is an important, high-profile position: and that he can't count on the cooperation of a selectively attentive press indefinitely.

I hope so. We don't need a reckless Representative with comparative immunity from press scrutiny right now. Representative Keith Ellison's official website seems well-organized, and should be a good place to see what he wants his image to be.

We do need people who are able to understand the many flavors of Islam that seem to exist, and to communicate that understanding to the rest of us.

I think it's going to be a long time before we discover whether Keith Ellison is one of those people.

Happily, we don't need to rely entirely on Representative Ellison and the press corps for information on his activities. So far, the Web has proven to be an excellent forum for ideas that the New York Times, broadcast networks, and other traditional information gatekeepers would just as soon be quietly ignored.

Keith Ellison posts:

• Keith Ellison, Iraqi Sheikhs, and Islam's Image (August 3, 2007)
• This Keith Ellison Story Might Take Off (July 27, 2007)
• Congressman Keith Ellison and Islam (July 22, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks (July 17, 2007)
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate (July 16, 2007)

As the first Islamic member of the American Congress, Representative Ellison deserves some attention. There may be more K.E. posts, given his colorful past associations and current talent for getting in the news.

This Keith Ellison Story Might Take Off

Keith Ellison, Minnesota Congressional representative since January of this year, earned fame of a sort by being the first Muslim voted into Congressional office. He earned fame of another sort by comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire in 1930s Germany.

Representative Keith Ellison really did say "On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: 'It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted." (Atheists applaud Ellison's views on Cheney, Libby, 9/11, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, July 8, 2007)

Representative Keith Ellison didn't say that President Bush is Hitler's grandson.

But, between people who hate President Bush, people trying to discredit Representative Ellison, and people who don't pay attention to what they read, I'm afraid that this will become a "news item" that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" has suppressed.

It's all a joke. "Bush is Hitler grandson say Minnesota Dem Keith Ellison" is the headline of an article with a format similar to that of a news story, with a stock photograph of the U.S. President.

Very convincing.

An astute observer might notice that the article's byline was "queen mudder," and that the hosting site was The Spoof!.

The Spoof! is, well, a spoof website. I can't do better, describing it, than to quote the Hitler's Grandson article's disclaimer, "All items on this website are fictitious. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental or is intended purely as a satire, parody or spoof."

With so many people willing to believe either the fictitious claim, or that Congressman Ellison followed up his Reichstag remarks with a weird claim like this, I'm afraid that we may have the birth of a conspiracy theory here.

Keith Ellison posts:

• Keith Ellison, Iraqi Sheikhs, and Islam's Image (August 3, 2007)
• This Keith Ellison Story Might Take Off (July 27, 2007)
• Congressman Keith Ellison and Islam (July 22, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks (July 17, 2007)
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate (July 16, 2007)

As the first Islamic member of the American Congress, Representative Ellison deserves some attention. There may be more K.E. posts, given his colorful past associations and current talent for getting in the news.

Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks

Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota is in the news again, or still. He says that people "misconstrued my remarks." Misconstrued?!

Let's look at what he said last Sunday.

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

(The Reichstag fire he's referring to is the 1933 blaze in the Reichstag building in Germany. The chancellor of Germany blamed Communists, who would have been running against his party in an upcoming election. The chancellor also asked for, and got, sweeping powers and authority: which he used to establish his party's position as the sole political power in Germany.)

Again: Misconstrued?!

"Do whatever he wanted"?

Hmm. Let's see what happened after the German chancellor got his powers.

"Truckloads of stormtroopers roared through the streets all over Germany, breaking into homes, rounding up victims and carting them off to [Brownshirt] barracks, where they were tortured and beaten." (William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," as quoted in Kersten's column.)

Odd. If something like that had happened after 9/11, I'd have thought it would have been on the news: at least in Reuters.

Now, Representative Ellison is telling whoever will listen what he really meant. Which, apparently, is that he doesn't agree with all of President Bush's policies, and that he thinks that Osama Bin Laden was really behind the 9/11 attacks.

Amazing: what a difference it makes, realizing that you're on camera.

Keith Ellison posts:

• Keith Ellison, Iraqi Sheikhs, and Islam's Image (August 3, 2007)
• This Keith Ellison Story Might Take Off (July 27, 2007)
• Congressman Keith Ellison and Islam (July 22, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks (July 17, 2007)
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate (July 16, 2007)

As the first Islamic member of the American Congress, Representative Ellison deserves some attention. There may be more K.E. posts, given his colorful past associations and current talent for getting in the news.

Another Islamic Voice in the Debate

This isn't helpful, in my opinion.

Congressman Keith Ellison, speaking to a gathering of atheists, said "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists," according to an article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "Atheists applaud Ellison's views on Cheney, Libby, 9/11"

So far, so good. The freedom to believe, or not believe, what you want is an important part of the freedom we enjoy in the States.

Congressman Ellison also said something that I don't think is helpful in Islamic/non-Islamic relations.

A direct quote from the Star-Tribune article would, I think, be better than my paraphrase.

"On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: 'It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you.' "
(Minneapolis Star-Tribune)

While Congressman Ellison did a fine job of implying that the U.S. blew up the Twin Towers without actually saying that this was the case, his meaning is quite clear.

I applaud Congressman Ellison's technical skill as a communicator, but believe that his remarks will, in the long run, not help the average non-Muslim see those of his faith in a positive light.

Keith Ellison posts:

• Keith Ellison, Iraqi Sheikhs, and Islam's Image (August 3, 2007)
• This Keith Ellison Story Might Take Off (July 27, 2007)
• Congressman Keith Ellison and Islam (July 22, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks (July 17, 2007)
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate (July 16, 2007)

As the first Islamic member of the American Congress, Representative Ellison deserves some attention. There may be more K.E. posts, given his colorful past associations and current talent for getting in the news.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.