Thursday, May 15, 2008

The Myth of Appeasement: A Right Wing Fantasy, brought to you today by George W. Bush and John McCain.

I'm really starting to get tired of trying to find euphemisms to describe Republicans.
Right wingers have their own places to go in order to validate their faith in the fantasy land that they inhabit.
Fox News, WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, just to name a few. Plus they have the whole right wing blogosphere, that does nothing but parrot the official line. Dumbasses.

The Dumbass-in-Chief, while addressing the Knesset in Israel, showed us all just how important a knowledge and understanding of history is. He showed us by his absolute lack of it.
Bush said, in an obvious attempt to discredit Barack Obama,
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if
some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in
1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to
Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this
what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly
discredited by history.
Not wanting to be outdone in the ignorance of history contest, John McCain jumped right in to agree with Bush.
Senator John McCain, who has been critical of President Bush on the
and other policies this week, on Thursday morning wholeheartedly
endorsed Mr. Bush’s veiled rebuke in the Israeli Knesset of Senator Barack Obama that talking to “terrorists and radicals'’ was no different than appeasing
Hitler and the Nazis.

Unfortunately, for Bush, McCain and the rest of the Right, history does not agree with their versions of appeasement, at least, according to the U.S. Army's Stratigic Studies Institute.

Dr. Jeffrey Record takes a fresh look at appeasement within the
context of the political and military environments in which British
and French leaders operated during the 1930s. He examines the
nature of appeasement, the factors underlying Anglo-French policies
toward Hitler from 1933 to 1939, and the reasons for the failure of
those policies. He finds that Anglo-French security choices were
neither simple nor obvious, that hindsight has distorted judgments
on those choices, that Hitler remains without equal as a state threat,
and that invocations of the Munich analogy should always be closely
If you don't trust the Army, which is usually the wise thing to do, here's a couple of others.
Everyone seems to forget that appeasement was our national policy toward the Soviet Union.

Fog Fact No. 3: Sometimes “appeasement” works well; it was American policy
for 50 years.

After the Second World War the Soviet Union annexed the Baltic states,
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, part of East Prussia and part of Slovakia. Then,
mostly through rigged elections, it turned Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
Romania and Bulgaria into puppet states and used military force, when necessary,
to maintain that status.

Neither the United States — nor anyone else — seriously challenged any
of that.

In 1938 Great Britian was no where near being able, militarily, to get into a war with most modern and strongest military power in Europe.
Britain was not in a position to project military power east of
the Rhine;
the Royal Navy was preoccupied with the Italian and
Japanese threats; and
the Royal Air Force was in the middle of
rearming. Moreover, as Richard
Overy points out, Chamberlain had
been prime minister for only a year, and
he was “understandably not
prepared to crown that period by deliberately
courting a war that all
his military advisers warned him would destroy the

Britain was not even in a position to contribute to the ground
defense of France and the Low Countries. The British army had
no defined
strategic role in the 1930s outside of home and imperial
defense, and it was
not until after Munich that the Chamberlain
government reintroduced
conscription and concluded that a
continental commitment for the British
army was unavoidable.
France wasn't much better off.

Yet as General Maurice Gamelin, the Chief of the French
General Staff,
confessed after Germany’s military reoccupation of
the Rhineland in 1936,
“The idea of sending a French expeditionary
corps into the Rhineland, even
in a more or less symbolic form, is
unrealistic. . . . our military system
does not give us this possibility.Our active army is only the nucleus of the
mobilized national army. . . . None of our units are capable of being placed
instantly on a complete war footing.”

If you would like to really get into the appeasement debate, I would suggest, Appeasement and Rearmament: Britain, 1936-1939 by James Levy.
Oh yeah, and that Senator whose quote Bush used was a Republican.

And here's another right wing dumbass, radio talk-show host Kevin James showing that a knowledge of history is not required by the Right Wing Propaganda Machine.


1 comment:

  1. If the ignoramuses win, it will be due to 2 reasons:
    1. the ignorant Repulsicans who worship the king and all the corruption he stands for
    2. they've stolen the election again, because we Dems are too weak-spined to speak up or take action.
    3. the police are usually under the thumb of the Repulsicans and will arrest us or prevent us from videotaping the elections.


I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it.

John Stuart Mill (May 20 1806 – May 8 1873)