Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
They like to call themselves “realists,” but their proper name is “appeasers.” They follow in the hollow footsteps of Neville Chamberlain, who signed an agreement with Hitler, believing it signalled “peace in our time.” But it only encouraged the Fuhrer to believe that there was no will in the West to resist the onslaught of Nazi terror, and thus hastened the onset of the Second World War. As Churchill darkly told Chamberlain upon his return to London, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”
A group of today’s appeasers sent a letter to President-elect Obama just before the Inauguration (so that it was apparently drafted during the Gaza fighting), calling on him to negotiate with Hamas. Others, such as the British Government, are undertaking negotiations with Hezbollah. Vice President Joe Biden wants talks with the Taliban. The pro-Israel Washington Institute wants to tone down the language we use, recommending we stop using phrases like “war on terror,” “global insurgency,” even “the Muslim world.” The president himself wants talks with Iran, as do numerous columnists, such as the New York Times’s Roger Cohen. Secretary of State Clinton has dispatched diplomats to Damascus to talk to Bashar Assad.
The rationale for this surge in talks was provided in a recent issue of Newsweek, whose cover was in Islamic green, with a title in both Arabic and English: “Radical Islam is a Fact. Get Used to It.” The lead essay was produced by Fareed Zakaria, and called for a more “sophisticated approach” to the Islamic world. Zakaria argued that many of the radical Islamist groups are not part of a unified global movement against the West, that they had “local” grievances, and that these grievances could be dealt with one by one, presumably leading the groups to make peace with us.
The top “local grievance” is invariably the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, General Scowcroft, one of the artisans of the failed policies of the George H.W. Bush Administration (the one that confessed failure to grasp “the vision thing”), and one of the signatories of the letter to Obama, blandly remarked “I see no reason not to talk to Hamas.”
Fareed Zakaria is a graduate of Harvard University. Joseph S. Nye’s emphasis on soft power seems to dominate the thinking of those associated with the vastly overrated Ivy League academic institutions. Violent responses toward those intent on murdering our citizens are tacitly deemed of little value. Hard power policies will supposedly always backfire and only make our foes even angrier. Also, America’s past racist and imperialist behavior is deserving of “blowback.” It’s ultimately our fault that we are being relentlessly attacked.
I have long described Zakaria and his ilk as dishonest quasi-pacifists. These individuals may concede that there are times when violence is justified—but they normally raise the bar so high that their views, on a practical level, are often indistinguishable from outright pacifism.
“that they had “local” grievances, and that these grievances could be dealt with one by one, presumably leading the groups to make peace with us.”
I wonder what the difference between settling local grievances and selling out local democrats and civil libertarians will be… or whether there is a difference?
As long as the arrogant and frankly out of touch persist in their erroneous ways, they will continue to try to put square pegs into round holes.
The softliners were wrong then, they are wrong today, and I don’t see that changing for the future.
For they would thunder against being the recipient of worst of the deformed souls of the Sons of Allah, but they
say, “tsk ‘tsk” when others suffer that blight.
George Orwell was so right in the phrase, “All are equal, but some are more equal than others” in describing
where they are coming from.
Oh let’s stop being a bunch of mean-spirited warmongers;let’s give peace a chance,all the Taliban wants is a bailout and a foto op with the O’hole,and the lovely Michelle;and the kingdom of love and peace will descend upon the earth.
Whether we liked his politics or not, we have to give old Winnie credit. When it came to turning an elegant phrase he could give Obama lessons. And Churchill did it without an autocue.
Great article. Your point about violent movements and ideologies losing support after they’re defeated on the battlefield is spot on. I’m an avid reader of history and time and time again I’ve noted that all kinds of uprising, insurgencies, ideologies, etc, rise or fall in large part due to how well they perform on the battlefield against their enemies. When a violent movement gets under way and is defeated in just a single military battle people quickly lose interest in whatever the cause is they’re fighting for and would rather carry on with their normal lives rather than join a group or movement and die for nothing. But when those violent movements are allowed to succeed… more and more admirers join in on the fight and fill their ranks in DROVES. That’s why I’ve always believed it’s EXTREMELY important to win in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and in Israel). As well as ANYWHERE in the world these violent Islamists try to spread their evil. This lesson can’t be emphasized enough. Leftists would do themselves and the world a big favor by learning it.
A subversive would be happy to leave the enemies of America alone (i.e.,free to grow more powerful and more dangerous).
A subversive would be happy to see large cuts in America’s Defense budget.
A subversive would be happy to see the American People disarmed.
A subversive.
But Obama is an honorable man.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
And apologies to W.S.
What motivates an appeaser? Fear. Fear of confrontation, fear of getting hurt, fear of being wrong, fear of fortitude, fear of decision.
Fear is also the motivation of a bully. If one does not stand up to the psychic fears of the bully, the bully will escalate his belligerence until you are crushed for being even more cowardly than he is.
The appeaser is not quite a coward. The coward will turn and run away; the appeaser will stand his ground, knees shaking with wet stains running down his pants. If Mr. Obama is an appeaser, we’ll know soon enough.
The appeasers these days are different than in the past. Those who wish to classify terrorism as a crime instead of an act of war are following a George Soros New World Order socialism/Marxism play book.
National boundaries are obsolete, and war gets in the way of the free flow of goods, and services. Plus, getting a hand full of regional currency’s cuts down costs to change from one currency to another.
There is one thing in common with today’s appeasers and WWII appeasers. They both wear pink panties, and love the UN.
Zero is not Chamberlain. Chamberlain was only hopelessly naive. And a wuss. Zero is doing his agenda deliberately, with malice aforethought, as it is much easier to enact his socialist utopia if people are desperate.
Do we have a Churchill on the horizon? ‘Cause we could sure use his NOW. I’m afraid 2010 will be too late.
I agree with the author about current appeasers but I don’t think Chamberlain is getting a fair shake. If someone could point me to any statement by Churchill after he became Prime Minister that criticized Chamberlain’s conduct I would appreciate it. Chamberlain was buying time on the advice of his military leaders and Churchill knew that. Chamberlain knew he would be ridiculed and criticized forever, but he did it anyway. That was moral courage and self sacrifice of the greatest order. How many people would be willingly to do that?
Pastor Warren, at the Saddleback Forum, asked the question, “Does Evil exist?” This is the nature of the problem. Most people cannot envision the sheer malevolence of some others. Unless confronted with overwhelming graphic evidence, they refuse to believe. Even then, they recoil from believing, because they simply don’t want to believe.
Until our leaders, and then our people, are educated as to the vile nature of Islam, our people will never be willing to do what is necessary. Sadly, it will take another horrific attack upon us to change the people’s attitudes about this (and simultaneously rid us of this administration).
Wow. Another column in which Ledeen calls the less militant among us “appeasers.”
Yawn.
Mike, you need a new shtick.
I wrote a short letter to Obama today and mailed it to the WH. Asking not to engage with the regime.
Re: Robin at #12 “Chamberlain knew he would be ridiculed and criticized forever, but he did it anyway. That was moral courage and self sacrifice of the greatest order.”
What!? When Chamberlain came back from Munich, proclaiming he had secured “…peace in our time.” he was hailed as a hero by everyone from the Times to the cheering throngs that packed the streets to greet him. The anti-appeasement faction in in Britain was a very small and unpopular one throughout the 30s. Being identified with it was career suicide for a Member of Parliment.
A good recent book on this topic is “Troublesome Young Men: the rebels who brought Churchill to power and helped save England” by Lynne Olson, 2007.
As to Churchill not criticizing Chamberlain when he had replaced him as Prime Minister; I would suggest that Churchill, then trying to hold together a unity government in a country fighting for its survival, was smart enough not to pick unnecessary fights by futile complaints about his predecessor’s policies.
If you are trying to make the point that Chamberlain sincerely believed that his appeasement policy was the best one for his country, I would certainly agree with you.
Of course, being sincerely wrong does not make one any less wrong.
Good piece, although I would certainly argue that there has been no victory whatsoever in Afghanistan and to suggest there has been is a significant stretch.
While things have turned significantly in Iraq, victory may not be the best description either, particularly when the Constitution put in place cannot contradict Islamic sharia law – that is a victory for no one but the Islamists.
Finally, was communism wiped out all together? Or did it survive to reappear in China and elsewhere?
What did Napoleon say about defeating your enemy completely lest they return to defeat you? (can’t recall the exact quote)
ohn F. MacMichael wrote:
Man, they sure don’t make politicians like they used to… *sigh*
“Radical Islam” has been in existence as long as Islam itself- Google “Hashashin” and/or “Hasan ibn-Sabah”, respectively the al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden of the Islamic “golden age”. (Like their modern-day successors, most of their victims were Muslims.) And Islamist fanatics of this stripe have always “dealt with” the “modernist urges” of other Muslims very simply; by killing them to frighten the rest of their coreligionists away from such “apostasy”.
Expecting this generation’s group of primitivists to be any different is to expect them to violate the basic tenets of their faith as they interpret same. This is not going to happen, period.
As for their definition of “local grievances”, these all seem to boil down to their deep resentment of two facts of the modern world;
1. The existence of non-Muslims as anything other than second-class citizens in a world they rule.
2. Their even deeper resentment of the existence of Jews in general and Israel in particular, at all.
Exactly how these “grievances” can be “dealt with locally” by “giving them what they want” without tremendous cost in lives to our side is not entirely clear.
Fighting these fanatic elements is not going to be an easy or cheap process. It’s just going to be less expensive and damaging in the long run that trying to reach a “rapprochement’” with them. For the West, and for Islam, both.
And trying to “reason” with “moderate elements” of the fanatics is unlikely to work, either. They come from an extremely insular, primitivist, and mystically-motivated branch of a culture noted for all three factors generally.
The worst mistake you can make in dealing with someone from such a “hothouse” culture is to believe that their definition of “sane, rational behavior” is going to be the same as yours. In fact, you may find that you do not even have a common frame of reference.
And by the time you realize this, it may already be too late. Ask Neville Chamberlain.
clear ether
eon
Yes, and let’s add a few more names to the dishonorable list of Islamist Appeasers:
Islamic Republic of Charlie Rose; Haji-yeh Khanoum Christine Ammanpour of CNN; Jimmy Bin-Carter; Robert Gates(yellow Bob); Condi mullah-lover Rice; Ayatollah Jack Straw of UK; Hojjat-el-Islam George Soros; Charles Al-Moyers of PBS; NBC News; Senator Shiekh Kerry; and, and , and the list goes on, filled with all the dishonorables and the usual suspects!
I’m quite certain Mr. Churchill got it, but do we?
Mr. Malone wrote: Until our leaders, and then our people, are educated as to the vile nature of Islam, our people will never be willing to do what is necessary.
It is not going to happen. I equate the terrorist situation to that of self-defense issues, because I’ve learned that not too many people are willing to pull the trigger. The general population abhors the mere idea of killing another human being for any reason. The politicians are even worse, because their motivation is based on selfish factors. Thus the appeasers rule.
Our military is magnificent; it could win this war on radical Islam in a
flashbang. Cops could do their job, the border could be sealed, etc. Why is nothing being done?Today I blogged about Danish Jews and Muslims launching a “Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – Not in Our City! Campaign. I don’t get it, I really don’t.
The enemy will never surrender, so we will be defeated.
“Islamic Republic of Charlie Rose?” Okay, I laughed. I love the show, but sometimes watch it in disbelief. I often can’t believe it’s taped in New York, the same town that hosted 9/11.
The Charlie Rose Show has no special effects budget, but his episodes often stray from reality. Charlie hosts so many scary and absurd theories, he’s becoming the Art Bell of the political set.
I wish Rose would pull some working class New Yorkers off a truck and have them at his table. Or bring a couple Americans in from Afghanistan, the bearded “operators” known only as “Chris” or “John.” These guys know a lot about “International Relations” and they never had Zbignew Brzezinski as a mentor…
eon
Kudos. Thanks.
There cannot be enforceable agreements with Islam militants, Syria, Iran, Hamas and any others of the same stripe. Diplomacy to them means deception or any other means to advance what they see as their objective, i.e., the humiliation and/or defeat of the United States of Ammerica. The Obama administration, and all its discredited has beens, is being dangerously cavalier with the safety of the nation it is constitutionally bound to “support and defend”. The President took the oath of office but he is unwilling, or perhaps unable to execute it due to timidity or lack of understanding of the gravity of the circumstances. He is a reflection of Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
@Robin,
There was nothing heroic or brave about Chamberlain’s willingness to please his Nazi hosts in Munich. Willingly annexing Sudetenland was no victory for diplomacy nor was it very smart. His entire approach to the crisis was fantastical at best and only emboldened Nazi Germany to proceed on the path to another world war and at blitzkrieg speed.
How his actions can remotely be viewed as brave and proper, especially considering the ultimate consequences and costs that followed is beyond mind boggling. Chamberlain was an incompetent fool who in denial could not even recognize the face of evil whilst being in the same room with it – he was a tragic, helpless figure and pathetically so.
The only befitting respect left for 20th century’s most famous mangina is to name a spineless jellyfish in memory of him and his woeful deeds.
In a nutshell: dogs. When two dogs confront each other, they lower their heads, take stock of the other, and the non-alpha seems to figure out, instinctively, that the other dog is the alpha. He then cowers, lowers his ears, and wags his tail to show that he’s a friendly sort of dog (an “appeaser” if you will) so the other dog won’t bite him. He will also “present” himself for inspection.
Gotta tell ya… I don’t like feeling as though America is NOT the alpha dog here.
Appeasement was justified by the interaction between the factors of poorly equipped military that had to provide a good defense
for all the British territories ,anti-war mindset,economic circumstances that pointed to the avoidance of a large scale conflict.
Chamberlain was not naive ,the policy developed to buy time for an ill prepared Britain to rearm.
I have one word that is the answer to the entire discussion, for all sides involved. But this word is utterly mystifying to the Western intellectual and policy elites, due to their intellectual sloth and pride. As long as they refuse to read the Islamic scriptures (Qur’an), traditions (ahadith), and life and deeds of the prophet (Sira) they will forever be stumped by and defeated by the forces of jihad.
The word is HUDNA.
Look it up.
Don’t be so hard on Fareed Zakaria. He is a thoughtful man, and his ideas are hard to politically pigeonhole. I don’t always agree with him either (and less so during the last 12 months), but he contributes to the debate without histrionics and silliness, and sometimes he gets it exactly right. For example, in his book “The Future of Freedom” (which is excellent), he gives a most scathing indictment of the liberal free-for-all that has devastated California politics. He won big points with me for that one.
The appeasers say radical Islam is not monolithic, emphasize differences among groups, believe we can divide and conquer, or rather divide and negotiate. Not true. Each group may have its own politics — but they all have the same ambition: jihad. More precisely, the caliphate.
The appeasers see only politics, and therefore differences. But it is what the jihadists have in common that is important and dangerous — and that is religion. And that is not negotiable. Or, in this case, rational.
#7 Blackwater
You are on to something about the psychology and theology of Islam. When Muhammad left Mecca with about 10 followers, that was all he had to account for years of work trying to convince people he was a special, definitive prophet of Al Illah. He took his ten followers (true dopes that they were) and went into exile in Medina (Yathrib), which was primarily a Jewish town surrounded by Jewish tribes. Arabs were the folks on the outs there. The Jews were powerful and prosperous.
Muhammad was clearly desperate at this point. He was a loser leading around a bunch of losers going nowhere. So, he decided to get bold and he had his sock puppet Al Illah communicate to him that he and his merry band should raid the caravans. So, Muhammad began to gather more recruits as his more militant tactics seemed TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF AL ILLAH. Military victory, loot, and female slaves were the proof of the existence of Al Illah, and that Muhammad was a legitimate “prophet.”
This is the key to understanding the power of Islam.
Its the combination of carrot and stick that work. Defeating the Russians in Afghanistan did nothing because there was no post war support, we used the stick and refused to place carrot on the table. Out of the error in Afghanistan grew Osama bin laden and the Taliban and Al Queda. We inadvertantly empowered the people we now fight the same region.
Its a pretty broad brush being painted on this thread regarding Islam, and if we are going to trace success of a religion to military conquests it will be argued Christianity succeeded when Constantine saw a Cross in a vision before he won the battle of Saxa Rubra and decreed state support for the new movement in Rome, military victory securing the new Christian movement.
History is a great teacher, yet we continue making the same ignorant mistakes again and again. This current banking crisis is no differnet than what led to the great depression; credit bubble caused by banking deregulation. Somehow we cannot get it thru our heads that allowing banks to run amok is a bad thing for the economy, and so we commit the same errors over and again.
History teaches religious wars will never cease, they have been raging for Five thousand years and will rage another Five thousand. Islam and Christianity will come to a tipping point, one will win over the other, and be replaced with a Belief System that will rise and challenge the Status Quo again. This has been our history thousands of years Before Islam and Christianity existed, and will be our history thousands of years after we pass through this world.
This is because we dont learn.
Apples, and Pears Alex.
What wrongs men did in the name of Christianty, or Islam 1700 years ago, or 1500 years ago can not be used to justify the increase in Islamic terror these past 35 years.
Reguardless of how you might feel towards religion Alex, Christianty can be traced to a man of peace, and love. Islam can be traced to a man of war.
That is the brush Islam is painted with.
Among intelligent people, any assertion prefaced with, “It’s just like Hitler all over again!”produces tolerant laughter. History does not repeat, ever. There are so many vast, fundamental changes between 1930s Europe and the contemporary multipolar world that no such analogy is possible. So why so many Hitler analogies? Ignorance and paranoia. Ignorant people only know, or think they know, a few moments from history, and alas, the eve of WW II is one of them. The shock value of a reborn Hitler adds spice to these childish fantasies.
Leatherneck
I can see why you identify with the Marines, it goes your brutal ignorant macho demeanor.
Since no one is offering any of these groups a piece of some country and none of them are a direct threat to us, why not try some diplomacy. I know that patience and reason are an anathema to the fascist retards here but you can’t have fun little wars all the time.
Around here, it’s always 1938 at Munich and all the bad guys are Hitler with strong countries behind them. Wonder how many people here realize that Chamberlain was not only a Tory, English Conservative, but Churchill succeeded him based on the failure of the Norweigan campaign; which was one of Churchill’s many military ideas that failed.
Leatherneck #27;
I am not justifying anything, pointing out that nothing will change because we are unable to change our mindframe, and think the same way regarding religious beliefs as we did five thousand years ago.
If we wish to trace beginnings they start with the children of Abraham, from one sprang Islam, the other Christianity. And if we live as the man of peace and love taught, where did Christ teach to kill those that dont believe as he taught..?
We cannot have it both ways.
Funny but not only has Obama increased the troop levels and fighting in Afghanistan but he pretty much followed the Bush timetable in Iraq, as well as kept Gates as Sec. of Defense. Yet so many con-tards(Palin admirers) here still are calling him the same garbage that they threw at him last fall, If what they said was true last fall, then we would be a koranic nation by now and Rosey O’Donald would be Sec Def
And Ledeen’s solution to the problem of Islamism is….um, VICTORY! FIGHTFIGHTFIGHT!
What this really means anybody’s guess- since his list of Enemies of Civilization is long and grows longer by the week- he speaks darkly of the “the terror masters in Tehran, Damascus, Islamabad and Riyadh”
should we invade Iran?
Syria?
Pakistan, a nuclear armed country?
Saudi Arabia????
When he can come up with something that resembles a plan, then we can talk.
Alex,
Who is murdering in the name of Christ? I see, and read a lot about those murdering in the name of allah.
Let me start.
Appeasement works. You get a pease of this and a pease of that.
Horace
It took some time for some of us to see the real messiah. Let me bow down to the image of the holy one on my computer.
Leatherneck,
If “Alex” thinks that Islam sprang forth as one of the children of Abraham, then there is nothing more to be said to such a person, given the astronomical error that it is. Islam is not and never was an Abrahamic faith, and I can prove it, but no proof I offer will be acceptable to such as “Alex.” I know the type, and it’s a waste of time and bandwidth. I’ve been around these kinds of pseudo-intellectual claims in academia and out of it. I’ve seen it hundreds of times, and it’s best we move on from these people. What’s more, they don’t even have a depth of knowledge about either Islam or Christianity, and it’s embarrassing for them when this is exposed. These people are a lost cause. It’s not our job to help them find their way when they don’t want to be found.
I know rather a bit about history, and more than just the outbreak of WWII, yet to me the present feels very much what the 1930s must have felt like, to judge by my reading. That includes a lot of people who are willing to sell out their Jewish neighbors.
On the matter of appeasement I think it is true that Chamberlain gets a bit of a bum rap. Of course he did not have the foresight of Churchill to recognize that Hitler was someone who could not be appeased. The key to statesmanship is to be able to tell who is unappeaseable and who is appeaseable. Very few people seem able to do that.
Chamberlain can be exonerated on at least two counts. 1. He did not know how it would all turn out. 2. He thought that he was preventing another war like the Great War, and that nothing could be worse than such a war. We know how it turned out, so we have no excuse for such delusions as our contemporary “realists” and liberals have. On the second matter, we do know now that there was something worse than the Great War. The new war included genocide and far more mass murder than the previous one. Our enemies explicitly propose to continue the job Hitler started. and they look forward to the destruction of the USA. How many times will they have to say these things and act on them before the “realists” and the liberals will believe them?
As for Islam, I do not generally lump all Muslims together. One of the problems today is that we are undergoing a global version of a recurring pattern in Islamic history. That is a “purifying” sect arises and conquers the more civilized regions to bring purification and true Islam to the backsliding city dwellers. These originate in tribal, backward regions, generally in the desert. In some ways the Abbassid takeover of the Caliphate from the Ummayyads was of this character.
More familiar to Westerners are the Almoravids and Almohades who invaded Spain in the 11th and 12th Centuries. They were exactly this sort of sect. Once the Almoravides had conquered Spain they succumbed to the vices and fleshpots of civilization, and the Almohades came in to purify the descenents of the previous purifiers. There are other examples of this, both Shi’a and Sunni. Ibn Khaldun, the famous historian from Tunis, identified this pattern in the 14th Century.
Today we see a similar thing going on with the Wahhabism coming out of Saudi Arabia. In today’s world the Saudis are buying up Islam with oil money instead of fighting, but the aim is the same, to purify Islam and establish the Saudis as the top cats. In its wake has come the terrorism, previously encouraged by the USSR in its fight against the West and now taken over by radical Islam as its preferred tactics.
Radical Islam finds many sympathisers in the West because it is now the only power that is fighting against capitalism and America, the twin hated institutions for what remains of the International Left. That was the reason Carlos the Jackal, that old Commie terrorist, converted to Islam while in prison in the mid-90s. This is another long, twilight struggle, but too many seem too enervated and too focussed on bicycle helmet regulations or some other political trivia to pay attention and fight back.
Shef Rogers:
1. World leader talking about the eradication of the Jewish race
2. Appeasement of killers, racists, and those who think they are superior
3. Recession on a worldwide basis
4. Violence and AntiSemitism in all countries on the rise
5. Incredibly naive man in charge of the most powerful country in the world
Which period of time am I talking about?
History DOES repeat itself because people are too stupid to realize that they learn nothing from what has happened before.
Fred # 41.
Put your proof on the table son, hopefully your source is the Bible..?
Christ reveled in theological discussions. Learning, understand and discussing the bible and its teachings should not be oppressed or labled as “acedemia”.
Re JH Spyker #14: In your comment you express so succinctly one of the limitations of human psychology. Bored by the repetitive Ledeen, you claim we should all yawn. The need for variety, for novelty, seems a driving force in your cerebral life. You will get your wish for adrenalin.
You will sit up very straight if Mr. Ledeen turns out to be right. When there are “no-go zones” in America as there are in Britain and Belgium, Holland and France, you will take careful notice that there will be places in America where you are no longer welcome on the streets. When you are treated as a second-class citizen in the country you could not bother to defend, you will take careful notice. When you must limit your words, your humor, your reason, your Constitutional rights, you will take careful notice. Life will not be boring then.
Appeasement couldn’t work because it only emboldened Hitler. His first gambit was to take back the Ruhr (or was it the Rhine) valley from the French. His army marched in and without one shot, the French retreated. He was appeased with the hope that it would end there. Emboldened now his next tangle with appeasement was the Sudentan Land of Czechoslovakia. Again appeasement was tried. Czechoslovakia was ready to fight but the French and British traded for peace. I think a week later Czechoslovakia itself was divided up by Germany and Poland. The next round had to do with the port of Danzig in Poland. Due to a show of force, Danzig was surrendered to Germany. Everybody knows about the September surprise in 1939 that started World War II as Poland was dismembered by the Nazi war machine.
Reality was this, Hitler could have been easily stopped when he marched into the Ruhr (or was it the Rhine, I honestly can’t remember) valley. He ordered his army to do it against the advice of his generals. The generals knew at the time that they were no match to the French forces. Had the French stood their ground, the generals would have deposed Hitler. They were in no mood for another war such as WWI.
In 1939, even after war had been declared, the French refused to take the intiative and hid behind their Maginot Line. The French were mentally unable to fight. They were capable, had a good army, had equipment which in some cases were superior to the Germans. They were mentally not ready to take the war to the Germans.
Today we see a direct parallel with our liberal friends. They are looking for appeasement. They will negotiate. Negotiation is a sign of weakness to the world of Islam. They will negotiate and negotiate. Each time they will ask for more. Look at the negotiations between Arafat and Israel as a model. To the Islamic mind negotiation is only a softer way to arrive at the same goal, that is domination. They will use whatever works when they can.
Our liberal friends are unable to mentally confront what is so obiviously in front of them. They will put everything on the table. They will give up Iraq. Eventually they will pull us out of Afganistan. They’re ready to give the land of Israel to the Islamic wolves.
Do you think that will appease them?
Alex,
Show me where in the Qur’an God is called “love.” Show me where in the Qur’an you find The Golden Rule. The Father of Jesus is in no way Muhammad’s Al Illah (“Allah”). Their qualities and their agency are at loggerheads. Yahweh is not “Allah.” The Father of Jesus would not ever issue the injunction that according to Muhammad was “Allah’s” last “revelation to the prophet.” Surah 9:5 Look it up. I’m not going to cite it for you. I’ll make you work for it.
Anyway, it’s not important what I think in the matter. If your mind is made up in this matter, then that’s fine by me. You don’t need my advice or my counsel. You have it figured out.
They were mentally not ready to take the war to the Germans
you could say that
while German youth was indoctrinated in troops, a revenging spirit energising them, the french youth was going to the beach, riding on their new bicycle and enjoying pic-nics and vacations.
what I wrote elsewhere, a bit of the same vein :
http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/286654.html
It doesn’t help you to rewrite history, with “if” you can rebuilt the twin-towers int the night.
Now these were facts, the reading of them depends on the intentions that you have, it is easy to condamn, most of your books witness that big Chruchill had nuts and that ours were busy in futilities.
Well not quit, you have to replace yourself in the context. Socialists and communists lead the state, and big Stalin was friend with Germany, so, if germany wanted to move on her proxy neighbourgs, that wasn’t the commies business to get angry at him, Oncle Stalin, said no worry, it’s not our war, wait until I tell you to go.
Plus, the same generation already made the most terrible war only 20 year ago, thus found unbelievable that it should prepare to go into it once more…
and on and on and on
so to say, that it is a bit silly to compare the incomparables
this actual dilemn hasn’t the same geopolitical configuration, this isn’t a proxy neighbour decision like it would have been wished in the thirties, now it’s a decision that requests a “gobal” adhesion, no one state can interven alone now, even if you had still the former administration, it wouldn’t dare to go alone too, besides, Bush had the opportunity to make it last year, but he didn’t, what happened to his martial profil ?
This was an outstanding article. Thank you Mr. Ledeen. I featured the link to this story on my blog. I think wise people understand that the “terrorists” view stength and military opposition as the only true deterrent. When the terrorists are defeated in battle it makes them weak and less willing to fight the next time around.
#7 Blackwater’s comment was the “icing on the cake.” I hope you don’t mind that I requoted you in my story. Too good to not spread the word. [smile]
http://seeingright.com/now-that-the-doves-are-running-the-show
Oscar
you can past the evening with these videos, “Weekend at Zuycoote”, see if no french fought in Belgium, the brave British gave up and retreat, OK strategically, to stay in the norm.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=Week-end+%C3%A0+Zuydcoote&aq=f
One word always comes to mind when I watch Fareed Zakaria: Naive. He seems to genuinely believe that Obama will fix the economy, that Iran can be negotiated with, that Russia has too much to lose by being aggressive, that global warming can be fixed without harming the economy, etc etc. Somebody’s got to come along and tell this guy that there’s no santa claus.
BTW I am offended at the use of the term realist to describe Pollyanna pacifists. A realist is someone who faces reality, and the reality is that peace is best achieved through strength. If appealing to other people’s kindness and mercy made you strong and kept you safe, then Tibet would be a world superpower, the US would still be a British colony with high taxes on tea, and cops would carry flowers and candy rather than Glocks and Tasers.
35 Horace Wells
As usual, the libs can’t disagree or argue their ideas without namecalling.
#41 fred: Ishmael, son of Abraham and the Egyptian maidservant Hagar. Genesis 16:10 – “The angel added, ‘I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count.’ The angel of the Lord also said to her: ‘You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.’”
Believe it or not, the very God of Jesus is also Allah. Don’t confuse His holiness with the twisted thinking of man, who corrupted God’s perfection for their own pursuits.
Why do you think Islam is so bent on destroying all things Israel and Jewish and all things Christian?
… and by the way, whether one believes in God or Jesus or Allah or no one at all, it’s a good idea to brush up on this ancient history, as it is the birth of Islam.
Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland with 3 battalions of troops. It was a token force, but huge symbolically. It made him, politically. France could have slapped him back with impunity and continued to enforce the peace treaty. Later came the Anschluss (merger) with Austria.
Hitler made demands for the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia). The Czechs wanted to fight, but their formal allies bailed on them, conceding the Sudetenland. “Peace in our time” at their ally’s expense. Sensing weakness, Hitler moved into the Sudetenland… and never stopped. The country was partitioned. Germany got Bohemia and Moravia. Slovakia was made nominally independent, but completely dependent on Germany. Parts of Moravia and Slovakia went to Hungary. If they had not conceded the Sudetenland, the Allies could have stopped Hitler cold.
6 Months later Hitler is demanding the return of Danzig. Poland refuses. Germany declares war and WWII begins. Again, Hitler didn’t believe the Allies would intervene. He thought they would cave again. But Poland was stubborn, and there was a new man in London. He was wrong, and finally his evil was crushed.
But it never needed to be fought. These movements need to be crushed while they’re weak. One mustn’t allow these weeds to flourish in one’s garden. Because they delayed, some 30M(?) people died.
The key event in our time was the invasion of Georgia last year. The USA could have stopped that with little more then a set of balls. One B2 and the tunnel is closed, which means the Georgians can do as they will with the So……ER, Russian invaders. Nobody in the White house had any, so the Russians got away with it.
That makes them think they will be able to do it again. I think they are correct. A nation is either willing to wage war or it isn’t. the exact issue is unimportant. Read “The Prince”.
Obama’s secret letter to Medvedev looks to me as if it is a run-up to the equivalent of the Munich Agreement of 1938, when Chamberlain sold out Checkloslovakia to HItler for “peace for our time”. From what I have read, the Munich Agreement was very popular with the British public at the time. How foolish to repeat such a costly error.
George W. Bush’s vision was to spread democracy in the Islamic world bringing freedom and prosperity to them, and peace to us.
Obama’s vision is to make friends with tyrants, thereby supporting tyranny, keeping citizens of Muslim nations under the Islamic jackboot, keeping them impoverished and radicalized, and at war with us.
Allahu Akbar, Appeaser-in-Chief.
Why do you think Islam is so bent on destroying all things Israel and Jewish and all things Christian?
Because I have read the Koran.
When I am unfortunate enough to catch fareed and his Something 360 show on Saturday afternoon, and am even more unofrtunate to be hypnotized by the dazzling display of cunning, political harlotry, and sheer Leninist impudence – begod, I am astounded that CNN does not instantly draw a wrecking crew of lynching patriots to crush the media temples and all their horrible anxiety. Zaraiah is a pimp. His show exists to provide a forum to further the demoralization of naive Americans. The last episode I saw he had that Something Khan Pakistani on, the former cricket champion, whatever the f*ck that is, who spewed nothing but garbage at my living room for a half hour. God it was insulting. There is no hole in hell hot enough for this trash.
Marc, since Wilson, the ante form of UN existed, America didn’t want to be left apart of the evolution of WW1 aftermaths, ie regards on the partitions of the counties in Europe and Ottoman empire, I don’t remind that Roosvelt raised his voice against Germany too
Marie Claude
That “if” you talk about was real. Hitler was elected to become chancellor only with the vote of Hindenberg’s party. That was the military. They thought that they could him Hitler in rein. After the march into the Ruhr, they lost their voice and Hitler lost his vulnerability. They were ready to depose him up to that point.
Marie
As for Belgium, it was the soft flank Hitler was hoping for. There was no Maginot line to hide behind. The French couldn’t mass enough troops and fire power to match the Germans. They were unable to stop the Blitz Krieg. The French had better tanks but never massed them to counter the attack. Instead those tanks were in a support role for their infantry units. France didn’t know how to coordinate air support with ground attacks.
yes Oscar, this was the old smart class of Germany, but Hindenburg as a military had no clue how to solve the economy mess, plus he was very old, he already made 2 wars, 1870 and 1914, he couldn’t face 20th century problems, he died in 1934. One could say that these events were written somewhere, that this “evil” was no hazard, that this is part of humanity history, that achieves a merry-go-round tour, that regularly get the same stakes
What motivates an appeaser? Fear.
Many of the appeaser mentality (e.g. Zakaria, former world bank president Wolfensen & others) are motivated by a sense that they are more enlightened in their views of the workings and motives of man and the workings of the planet.
From their soft and protected aeries, they feel themselves qualified to lecture the rest of us as to the best course of action, or, rather, inaction.
They spend endless days in meeting and confabulations with their fellow ideological brethern (and sisteren), writing & elaborating on their “higher” notions.
In truth, however, as Mr. Ledeen mentions, the argument that Allah favors violent jihad & making Islam dominant throughout the Earth and the mujahideen are God’s holy warriors is central to the radical Islamist cosmology. (OhmyGod, what is Allah saying when he shakes the Earth and thousands upon thousands of Muslims die ? How can one of our glorious bombmakers blow off his own hands ? How can the glorious Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or the venerable Sheikh Rahman be rotting in the hands of the infidels ? Why is Allah allowing these things to happen ?)
Defeat, physical defeat, and a sense that Allah is smiling unfavorably on their endeavors…are what give pause to Radical Islamists.
While our sundry Ivory Tower élitists seem only to understand their own egoistic pontifications.
“Radical Islam is a Fact. Get Used to It.” The only rational comeback is, “Killing radical Islamists is a fact. Get used to it!”
The Brits are a bunch of loony lefties and cannot admit that Islam is bad. There is no good Islam, there is no moderate Islam. It is all bad.
I don’t think Michael Ledeen will ever be happy unless the Unitd States is in perpetual total war.
As for Belgium, it was the soft flank Hitler was hoping for. There was no Maginot line to hide behind. The French couldn’t mass enough troops and fire power to match the Germans. They were unable to stop the Blitz Krieg.
In Fact this flank wasn’t considered as the serious one, just good fror making some exercises for the tommies and the lesser part of the french army, that was relegated on the Maginot line, so the troops were not well aware of what they had to endure ; events show that this was the decisive batle, and the chiefs had not the appropriate skills for making instant decisions, there were too many hesitations.
an excellent explanation of the stakes (in french, though you might find the translation with the author’s name)
http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Histoire/His0004-OperationSarre.html
The French had better tanks but never massed them to counter the attack. Instead those tanks were in a support role for their infantry units. France didn’t know how to coordinate air support with ground attacks.
yes, it’s what is said, the problem was that they never trained for such operations but only for small unities attacks, plus they also had no training to make it with planes and infantry
One could say that they had beautiful toys that they fear to break, or old car that they sort out for rallyes
#27 “Chamberlain was not naive ,the policy developed to buy time for an ill prepared Britain to rearm.”
Bullsh1t! This was a big lie spread by the left to fend off their accountability for the 300 million that died between 1939 and 1947.
The post war evidence shows that the Allies were better off in a comparison of military strength in the mid 30′s then they were in ’39. The weapons used to over run the west were built AFTER Munich. The troops raised and trained AFTER Munich. Find a copy of “Total War” by Calvocoressi and Wint. They are both Socialists writing on the economic and political history of WW2 ( the entire war, from 1931 to 1946). They are a little weak on the Asian theater, since the Japanese didn’t keep the quality of records the Germans did.
Munich was in September, 1938. Within a year the war it was signed to stop was in full force. So, de facto, the treaty was a failure. Or are you claiming that the “peace in our time” was MEANT to last only a year?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
No the treaty was a failure. When France was invaded in 1940, 2/3 or the tanks the Germans were equiped with were either made in Czechoslovakia or after Munich. No Munich and Germany doesn’t have the armore to do a blitzkrieg in ’40.
Same with hte fighters that were used. The Bf-109 E didn’t go operational umtil just before the start of hostilities. The D model was not as good as the Allied fighters it face, while the E was better.
Hitler ran a bluff, just like the Mad Dog Mullahs are doing today. Just like Chamberlain, Bush came up short in the testicles department.
Remember, Military force is a PART of diplomacy. Any diplomat that won’t use that military force when appropriate, isn’t playing with a full deck.
Marie
There are transitions in warfare. The Civil war in the US is a good example. Soldiers rifles were accurate to 300 yards, yet commanders marched their units onto the battlefield as if they were on parade. WWI smokeless gun powder is still another example. Now an enemy could shoot at you and not be spotted. Others: aircraft, tanks, submarines. There was a guy, let me think who wrote a book on how to fight a modern war, oh yes Charles DeGaul. The Germans read his book, the French didn’t. The French didn’t mass their tanks but kept them as infantry support weapons.
typos_R_us
In the line of armor, the Germans had the pkw I which was a machine gun equiped tank, light crude but fast. They also had the pkw II which was a heavier tank armed with a 20mm cannon and a revolving turrent. Add to this mix the Skoda tank which was captured in numbers in Cezchoslovakia. This tank was superior to anything the Germans had. The Germans had lots of tanks and knew how to mass them for an attack.
As for aircraft, yes there was a limited number of bf 109s, however they had a good number or 110s, and the Stuka at the time was also used as an air superiority weapon. Their main strength was in their two engine bombers which destroyed a majority of the enemy’s planes on the ground.
Oscar, yes, Charles de Gaulle in 1932 wrote “Le fil de l’épée”, in 1934 “Vers l’armée de métier”, where he exposed his ideas on the importance of the chiefs education, on the armored and combined-arms warfare within the general staff, on the ability to take initiatives and dare “hardi” offensives, on a professional army within the conscription… unfortunately, his discourses were too innovative and his ton was quit rebellous for the old army staff of Hindenburg’s age too. In the opposite, in Germany, Heiz Guderian had the whole latitude to develop what De Gaulle and two British, Basil Liddell Hart and J. F. C. Fuller wrote about a modern army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian
Great Answer my Marie!
“I don’t think Michael Ledeen will ever be happy unless the Unitd States is in perpetual total war.”
One of the nastiest and most untrue statements I’ve read here at PJM since I’ve been a participant. Mr. Ledeen has an interest in Iran because he genuinely likes Iranians and he has an informed, quite thorough grasp of the nature of the Islamic regime in Tehran. The person who typed those words cannot hold a candle to Mr. Ledeen’s grasp of these things. I’ve been reading Ledeen for seven years, and I can say that he is not in favor of a full-out, total war of devastation against Iran. In fact, until recently, he has advocated helping and arming the opposition inside that country. Now, he fully appreciates what a nuclear armed Mullahocracy means – and ultimately what this is going to lead to. Unless, of course, Pat J prefers to surrender to the regime and allow them to blow their enemies to kingdom come. Ledeen has argued that once Iran gets the bomb, which they now have (or within just a couple of months of it), the world becomes a much more dangerous place. It also means that if Iran launches on Israel, Israel goes to the Jericho Option and hundreds of hydrogen bombs fall on Iran’s population centers, effectively annihilating the Islamic Republic. Tens of millions dead in Iran. Israel destroyed and millions dead, including the Left’s cherished Paleosimians around Israel.
Besides being blatantly mean, that statement was breathlessly stupid.
Appeasement
It reminds me of the battered housewife who will do anything to hang on to her brutal husband. The other end of this is that the brutal husband never knows when he’s gone too far.
Oh England, I moan for you fair England.
The land that stood alone against the Nazi onslaught
still able to gesture with its middle finger
though battered and bruised.
Hold high your Union Jack
and beat your drums.
Hold high your noble heads
be stout in your step.
You will rise again though slandered right now
Oh England, oh England be strong, be strong
Excuse me for my ramblings.
This sort of policymakers is totally a colorblind. They have been forgotten the enormous impact of President Reagan’s denunciation the Soviet Union as an evil empire, at that time they didn’t convinced in that warning speeches toward evil empire, the colorblind policymakers had considered it an dangerous speeches. They never believed in power of good and evil. But eventually President Reagan and his team of Right-Wingers brought Americans to the most perfect possible triumph in the Cold War; it was a victory without shedding bloods.
I agree with Mr. Thomson (# 1) “These individuals may concede that there are times when violence is justified”. Yes, Fareed Zakaria and his ilk in the west such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations org (CAIR), they in the US are jihadists but by another flavor.
I ask them and ask the humiliating policymakers in the US, those who looking forward to do real peace with the Muslim terrorist groups that strongly believe and deeply in every word of the message of Allah “The Koran”.
Do you really believe in peace with the terrorist organizations that its emblem “martyrdom and sword” or jihad and sword, simply “terror”?
Do you really believe in peace with Leaders who swore to jihad in the name of Allah against the Zionists and Crusaders?
The Message from Allah to humanity includes a lot of Scorn and hatred verses toward Non-Muslims, the Koran specifically addresses those who don’t believe in Muhammad “Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhist, as follow are just a several verses.
Surah Nr. 001 AL-FATTEHA (THE OPENING, THE KEY) is Allah’s gift to Muslims to establish contact with Him through the five daily Contact Prayers (7 Verses), everyday is repeated by Muslims, at least 18 times daily:
Chapter 001 “Surah” /Verse 007 AL-FATIHA (THE OPENING, THE KEY)
[The path of those whom you blessed (favored); not of those who have deserved wrath (namely, the Jews), and nor of those who are astray (namely, the Christians)] – (The path of those whom Thou has favored), the Religion of those whom You have blessed with the Religion and who are the followers of Moses, before the blessings of Allah deserted them, in that He shaded them with a white cloud and sent down on them honey and quails when they were in the wilderness. It is also said that (the path of those whom Thou has favored) refers to the prophets. (Not of those who earn your anger), not the religion of the Jews who earned your anger and has humiliated them, whom you forsook and whose hearts you did not protect until they became complaisant. (Nor of those who go astray), nor the religion of the Christians who erred from Islam.
Chapter 005 “Surah” /Verse 060 AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE FEAST)
[Let me tell you who are worse in the sight of Allah: (Worse is he) those who are condemned by Allah after incurring His wrath until He made them (as despicable as) monkeys and pigs (whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon), and he who served the Satan "Shaitan"; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path]
Chapter 005 “Surah” /Verse 051 AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE FEAST)
[O you who believe! do not take Jews and Christians as allies (as friends); these are allies (friends) of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them (one) of them. Lo! Allah guided not wrongdoing folk]
Chapter 008 “Surah” /Verse 060 AL-ANFAL (SPOILS OF WAR, BOOTY)
[Make ready your strength to the utmost of your power against them (You shall prepare for them all the force and cavalry you can muster "mobilize" against them), and of horses tethered (including steeds of war) the enemies that thereby ye may dismay the enemies of Allah and your enemies" to strike terror terribly into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies" by murdering them, namely, the disbelievers. besides others who are not known to you, namely, the hypocrites or the Jews and non-Muslims; whom ye may not know, but Allah knows them. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah will be repaid to you generously, and ye shall not be treated unjustly (and ye will not be wronged) your reward will not be diminished]
Chapter 004 “Surah” /Verse 089 AN-NISA (WOMEN)
[They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends (do not take friends from among them, namely Jews, Christians, non-Muslims, and today include tolerant Muslims); unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of Allah (flee in the way of Allah). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them; and (in any case) you shall not accept them as friends (do not take any of them as a patron), or allies (and choose neither friend nor helper from among them)]
Chapter 008 “Surah” /Verse 039 AL-ANFAL (SPOILS OF WAR, BOOTY)
[You shall fight them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah. If they refrain from aggression, then Allah is fully Seer of everything they do]
Chapter 061 “Surah” /Verse 004 AS-SAFF (THE RANKS, BATTLE ARRAY)
[Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way (His cause in ranks), as if they were a solid structure (like the bricks in one wall)]
The Prophet Muhammad’s Hadith, Narrated Abu Huraira:
[Allah's Apostle said; The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him]
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini believed in Muslim unity and solidarity and the export of Islamic revolution throughout the world, he said: Islam is a religion that wants to rule the world; it has done so before and eventually will rule it again.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, say: the message of the Islamic Revolution is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. Have no doubt. Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.
The radical Moslems say:
We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again! The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Europe and the entire world!
Allah commanded us to spread this religion worldwide.
They address their people, saying:
You will take over the USA!
You will take over the UK!
You will take over Europe!
You will defeat them all!
You will get victory!
You will take over Iraq and over entire the region!
We trust in Allah!
What makes Allah happy?
Allah is happy when Non-Muslims get killed; annihilate the infidels and the polytheists!
# 66. Pat J: I think Allah will be happy when YOU get killed by radical Muslims. The radical Muslims will ever be happy when a lot of Americans and Jews get killed. The evil tyrannical regimes in the Middle East ever will be happy when millions of Jews and Americans get killed.
So, I do NOT think Dr. Ledeen will ever be happy unless the United States is in perpetual total war as you pointed. I believe that Dr. Ledeen will ever be happy when the Middle East gets without tyrannical regimes and without fundamentalist Islam. It is THE SAME HAPPY DESIRE wants it millions of people in the Middle East, we will be SO MUCH HAPPY WITHOUT THEM, then the world will be safer.
I address the humiliating defeat makers, please do NOT talk to the extremist radicals groups that created by tyranny regimes in the Middle East, such as “Hizbollah, Al-Mahdi army “Al-Sader”, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Al-Aqsa, Al-Qaeda, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Fateh.” If you going to talk with the terror masters, I think you lack to wisdom and insight, and you do not see farthest of your nose. You are the US-communists, Communism remains communism, but the United States of America is the mother of Capitalism and Liberty, and the US remains the only Benevolent Empire on the earth.
JUST WILL-POWER AND A BIT AND A BIT AND A BIT OF COURAGE!!!
It’s really a mathematical question.All we need to know is the population of Japan before and after the war,to figure out what percentage of the pop. had to be made casualties before they decided to UNconditionally surrender.I know the lilly sister annie’s don’t want to hear this but the U.S. and Isreal could tear ass all the way to China.But that’s the Marine in me talking,like Horass pointed out.For Horass’s edification Allahu Akhbar = Banzai prophet = emporer martyr = kamekazi
my father is a distinguished scholar who, for many years taught in the islamic world, his views on the nature of islam were not liked by the mullahs. his area of study was art. he had to leave because of death threats. he is still in hiding, due to fatwa.( i may be misspelling) this is the face of islam. free discussion is not a part of it, even in what would seem to be a benign subject such as art. this is because islam is a conflation. there will be no forthcoming islamic martin luther. we in the west have always been in the “house of war”. there is no appeasement. do not forget that the last time the west stopped the jihad it was at the gates of vienna. september 11, 1683. we must do it again. i am not sorry if i offend. our very lives are at stake…..
some bad news
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=88491§ionid=351020202
@ 75. fred:
“Mr. Ledeen has an interest in Iran because he genuinely likes Iranians and he has an informed, quite thorough grasp of the nature of the Islamic regime in Tehran.”
You’re joking right? Ledeen has blamed Iran for such things as the Embassy Bombings in Kenya and even considers Al Quada a front for Tehran. He advocates regime change and revolution in Iran. I wonder though. Has he ever been to Iran? Does he speak Persian? Does he really have a grasp of Iranian politics or Iranian elections?
But I think I know where you’re going. This is one of the same arguments for the War in Iraq. Invading a country to help issue in Democracy. This Machiavellian mentality is only going to get a lot of people killed. Ledeen, like John Bolton, is a warmonger. And he’s rather prefer other people do the fighting.
#82. Pat J:
And your rancid mentality prefers the people in the Middle East remaining extremely backwards, and to live with backwater in all scopes.
It’s shame on you to bless the corrupt despotized regimes.
What make your mentality ever happy? I think when the people in Middle East massacre by that criminal regimes, when that regimes impoverish them, and oppressing them.
Do you be happy, if the people in the Middle East remain under the control of the extreme fundamentalists puritanical clerics?
People in the Middle East are despised by those regimes.
I would like to inform you and inform those policy makers who shamefully running to embrace tyranny leaders (traitor, imbecile, infidel and a criminal) thus they describe everyone has aspiration for freedom and the modern civilization, and demanding his right as a very modest right of “freedom of speech and expression”, and eager to be a part of the civilized free world. In this case, he will be sentenced as traitor criminal under Syrian law, in death or a life imprisonment under ruthless torture fatally. Yes thus they treat us!
There are millions of people in the Middle East wants decent life and a peaceful future without tyrannical regimes, and without extremist fundamentalist Islam, they want practice a real freedom and democracy like your. Therefore, I implore you to feel in suffering of the oppressed people even if a bit, even if a bit PLEASE.
Necessity has no law, the War it was legal, and it was for people good. It is our moral duty to fight them, because the only acceptable end is the governments of the people are much better than the criminal tyrannical leaders. Today Iraqis are living with freedom and democracy. Dr. Ledeen is one of those who bring sunshine into the lives of oppressed people. We need more war to bring down them!!!
So, Dr. Ledeen is MUCH worthy of respect. At least, support The Freedom and Democracy in Muslim World so that the World will be safer, or SILENCE IS GOLD.
Michael Lonie:
On your apology of Chamberlain, it should be said that he was an honorable man.
He was distrustful of airplanes, had never being in one in his life, but had the courage to fly to Germany twice to appease the Fuhrer.
What Chamberlain got out of his visits and running, can be summarized in a statement by the Fuhrer to his accomplices (Ribbentrop, Goering, Goebbels): “I had seen them in Munich, they are little worms.”
Hitler only respected, and was afraid of, one single European leader: Winston Churchill. The day he was elected Prime Minister was doom and gloom in the Reich Chancellery.
Appeasement does not work unless its causes are known, and its causes are usually misunderstood. Islam wants to conquer, a peaceful Islam is an oxymoron. Can Fareed Zakaria understand that? I doubt it.
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM (if you want peace, prepare for war).
Let us unite to erase the scourge of Islam and its fascist ideology!
A long and tortured Death to the Islamic Republic of Terror in Iran!
Vote for it!
Marie Claude
Don’t believe everything you read. If you want to believe everything you read believe this. I am over six feet tall with the body of a Greek god, hansom beyond belief.
I was sure you were Zeus the father, nevermind, the essential is to believe you’re a smart person
umm, I found this new unbelievable too, but as it sems to come from a serious source, I wanted that someone like check it for me
#21 — Our military is magnificent; it could win this war on radical Islam in a flash bang. Cops could do their job, the border could be sealed, etc. Why is nothing being done?
Keeping them bottled and busy seems to work. Iraq seems to be turning out OK. Perhaps Obama doesn’t wish to appease so much as misdirect. Perhaps he’s not fully understood. Containment was a strategy that worked with the USSR, and those guys had a big military. Muslims don’t have a military that can threaten the decimation of the US.
But then again *we* have WMD’s that we’re using daily: ipods, jeans, rock music, and coca cola. Air dropping 50 million ipods in Iran does a great deal more in the long term than arming anyone.
So who’s really taking the long term view here? The war mongers, or the containment crowd?
This might make good reading for some of you…
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/osama-bin-elvis/print
Say what you want about Hitler, but the fact is that ANY German leader had a moral right seek the unification of Sudetenland with Germany. Same for the Danzig Free State. These were entirely German areas that wanted to be united with the Reich. I personally believe that if Poland had agreed to the Rippentrop ultimatum, a way to protect the Jews of Poland might have been found.
Marie Claude
Israel’s demise has been predicted since 1948. Each prediction seems more dire than the last. This doesn’t mean that the information supplied isn’t true. Every word may be true and so was every prediction before this. Every time it seems that Israel missed the big one, they survive against all odds. Ultimately the Arabs might win, they only have to win once. The price they will pay will be akin to a Phyrric victory, it will cost them everything. Only the Iranians, and the Palestinians seem to be that fanatic or stupid. Once Israel sees that it has no future, it will truly become very dangerous. It will dole out as much punishment as it possibly can and without mercy. All the massacres that the Arabs have wailed about will only be a predictor of their future.
Appeasement and the Jew is nothing new. It was a form of survival. Maybe if we give up this or that, they’ll leave us alone. Most of the time it worked. Its those exceptions are glaring. Its a long list of exceptions: the Crusaders of Europe first victims, Spain 1390′s, Spain 1492, Portugal 1493, the Cossacks/Chemelsky, the pogroms of Poland and Russia, finally the Shoah. Appeasement ended in the Warsaw ghetto and Sobibor and a thousand other places. It ended anywhere a Jew was able to pick up a rifle. Unfortunately the lesson learned earlier has been forgotten. The new left wing, intellectual, elitist is here blinded by liberalism. Yes, many of them are Jewish. They are spouting nothing new, its the same old mantra adapted for today.
Good night folks.
Oscar, dunno where we go, it’s going to be not so nice for our grandchildren
Who among Iranians denies the fact that this regime has indeed has come a long long way. In first few years of the revolution, Khomeini and his gang considered Iranian Norooz almost like devil worshiping! (Happy New Year to ALL Iranians!). Yet, year after year, Iranians made sure their Persian New Year is more traditional and exciting than it was before. Iranian people WON this war, and yes, Iranians Jews, and other minorities were in this front as well, by celebrating their Iranian heritage.
Now after 30 years, the same power holders rush to broadcast their Iranian New Year congratulations to Iranians. So this regime has been changing as fast as they could and to my amazement still they are doing that.
So it is irresponsible not to recognize such facts, while knowing they have a long way to go. I can say, thanks to Iranian people persistence, and the Iranian Jews, and Iranian minorities, ALL of these combined together have not allowed this regime to be what it wanted to be in the last 30 years. It doesn’t matter what Ahmadinejad says. He is not Iran and majority of people know this.
I now believe change takes time, and it cannot be expedited by cruise missiles. It is no wonder that regime is so afraid of velvet revolution; since they know their time is coming one grain sand at a time. They know it’s coming and they know Hussein Obama is much more damaging to them than W.
Now my question is what has Israel has done to diminish the influence of Iran? What have they done with Syria? NOTHING! ZERO. What have they done with complying and RESPECTING the very same deals they have signed with Palestinians? NOTHING, ZERO! Ahmadinejad just talk, but when Israel goes against it promises and keep building in OCCUPIED lands, does anyone think it is rocket science to ignore such FACTS on the ground? So Israel has done excellent to keep Iran fueling its enemies by its own obligations.
I think keep-comparing Iran to the Third Reich is almost declaring your thinking is basically burned-out and you are out of new ideas.
#82 Pat J:
“Has he ever been to Iran?” (regarding Ledeen)
FYI: Yes, he’s been to Iran, at least once in the autmn of 1995.
One of the most objectionable things about the notion that the West should attend to the local grievances of radical Islamist groups(even if we buy the notion these diverse groups don’t share goals and funds and train together) is that we should sentence the populations of these areas to rule by these brutal religious fanatics. And it’s ironic that people like Zakaria, who complained that Bush had a devil may care attitude to other nations, see nothing wrong with negotiating the subjugation of millions of people in other countries to the rule of full blown sharia law.
It’s not rocket science to think that Shimon Prez did send his Persian New Year message, AFTER he learned about Obama’s message to make Obama’s message less important. And Perez validated my point that Israel is truly in support of Islamic Republic by asking Iranians to topple their regime in the message!!!
It is no wonder that Jewish reporter (IF right wing Jews don’t challenge his circumcision’s authenticity) Roger Cohen is smart enough to come out and write this article:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/22/opinion/edcohen.php
So in case of Israel, I now seriously question their true benefit for their own nation, and how they will be able to make their country better and acceptable. It is sad to see how the right wing there has taken over the country, just like what is happening in Iran. I always knew the DEEP HIDDEN bond between the right-wing Israel and right-wing Iranian faction. They are in it together.
I just read this interesting article posted by Kam Zarrabi, and I find it very interesting how he twisted the words here and there and came up with this interesting response to President, Shimon Peres Iranian New Year message:
“Finally, in response to the Israeli President, Shimon Peres, who so shrewdly piggybacked his own Norooz greetings to the Iranian people with that of President Obama, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, not Ayatollah Khamene’i, should have replied: We understand very well your gesture of goodwill toward the Iranian people, hoping that they would rise up against their regime and establish a more progressive and friendly society conducive to a peaceful and constructive relationship with their neighbors and the region. Likewise, I, as well as the large Jewish community of Iran, the largest in the Middle East outside of Israel, similarly wish that the progressive, intelligent and peace-loving people of Israel would topple the radical rightwing Zionist regime that continue to bring mayhem and devastation to the region as well as to the honorable Israeli people, and replace it with peace-loving, fair and honest leaders that your ancient civilization deserves.
Needless to say, the Israeli President’s message to the Iranian people was not only a rather amateurish redundancy, it was a counterproductive gesture by a senior politician whose diplomatic skills are quickly fading with the onset of senility. To the Israeli leadership’s surprise, the White House was clearly displeased with that incidence.”
The whole article is here:
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/mar/1279.html
I have found this a most interesting article and blog. As a casual viewer, I would like to add my $.50 worth. The policy of appeasement in Britain prior to World War II was very much a product of war fatigue from the war was supposed to end all wars – WWI.
One can argue that the Versailles Treaty of 1919 was imposed on a defeated Germany, especially by President Wilson. Interestingly, the US did not join the war until it had been under way for nearly 2 years. The German people resented the settlement and gave Hitler the idea of the stab in the back, which he exploited to the full in mobilizing his people.
In Britain, a series of budgets had left the country defenseless and while Chamberlain must bear a great deal of the responsibility, he was not on his own. Powerful influences in the UK and the US fault they could deal with Hitler – sounds all too familiar!
The basic problem confronting the German army was that Hitler had erected a monstrous military machine to rival it in the form of the SS. Nevertheless, every German soldier from the lowest ranks to the highest swore an oath of allegiance to Der Fuhrer and there was considerable reluctance to renege on the oath and plan for overthrowing the leader. This does not excuse war crimes in any way but provides some insight into the German mentality of the time and the power exercised by Hitler.
Comment 70. typos_R_us: interested me greatly. The British did not have a tank to match anything the Germans put into the field even in 1941. In terms of aircraft, German fighters were superior to the British for quite a few years until the Brits discovered that German aircraft engines used fuel injection and not carburetors. Most models of the bf-109 were faster than the Spitfire but in turn, Britain was very short of Spitfires and the Hurricane was no match for anything except taking on the bombers and the bf-110.
One of Hitler’s worst mistakes was to declare that no new aircraft would be required to win World War II – documents show that he was quite confident with what they had, despite lacking a strategic bomber – a shortcoming that they never resolved. When the FW-190 came along, it provided a terrible shock for the RAF and the next range of British fighters used radial engines like the Focke Wulf. Once Albert Speer became the German minister for arms, the war was prolonged because of efficiencies and the attrition rate among the Luftwaffe was unsustainable but so too was that among the allies. Had the German jets been rolled out as fighters, Allied air superiority would have been overturned easily. Adolf Galland is well worth reading on the subject.
To get to the guts of the problem of appeasement with Islamic fundamentalists or jihadists, the West is collectively guilty once again of suspending their beliefs or disbeliefs. The Soviet communists never made any secret of their expansionist ideology; neither did Hitler but our elites and those with a vested interest chose to ignore the bleeding obvious. The same happened with Mao Zedong in China; Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Daniel Ortega and more recently Hugo Chavez – no one took them seriously. And we are not taking Islamic fundamentalism seriously either.
For the president of the United States to declare that he can deal with Iran and mother of elements of the Taliban ranks right up there with Jimmy Carter’s pronouncements on Iran and the Soviet Union. All Islam is militant and they argue amongst themselves only about strategies and tactics. It reeks of what Lenin said: “when the time comes to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.” Now we have appeasers of every stripe, from academics to diplomats and the clergy, or telling us we must have a dialogue with Islam.
As someone experienced in counterterrorist work, I can tell you it is a dialogue of the deaf: the only thing they want to discuss are the terms of our surrender. Don’t believe any of the rubbish that is written about great strides being made against Al Qaeda and its affiliates across the world. We are losing on the home front because we extend the freedoms of democracy to our enemies. On the Middle East and Asian battlefield, we haven’t hit them hard or often enough. Time is fast running out for us and to think that Samuel Huntington died in near penury last December. He saw it all coming but it appears that no one listened then or will listen now.
Just in case more than one person was confused, I have always said that elections in Iran are rigged, and that in any event Iranian presidents come and go, while the supreme leaders stays on and on. It’s Khamenei that matters, and the whole structure of the theocratic fascist state that Khomeini created. Unless that comes down, no ‘election’ is going to make much of a difference. IMHO.