Lol! I am glad you brought up the spectre of ' Appeasement' again, because A) It hasn't been mentioned nearly enough, and B) There is absolutely no parallel. This is a phrase and parallel being thrown around by people who have never studied history, and deal with it in sound-bite form... Appeasement was the term given to the Franco/British actions leading up to, and highlighted by the Munich Pact, and orchestrated primarily by von Ribbentrop. They had absolutely nothing to do with allowing Hitler to do anything in his own country; by that time only the hard-line hawks were still calling for the Germans to hold to the Treaty of Versailles, and even those later admitted that the Treaty was, as Churchill conceded, 'unworkable, insupportable, and impossible'. The actions which comprise 'Appeasement' were agreeing to the annexation of Austria, certain border states around Germany, and finally, and most criminally, agreeing to the 'livingspace' Hitler said Germany needed, when, in an incredible betrayal, the Franco-British agreed to hand over to Germany the outer western part of Czechoslovakia...incidentally the fortified part. And they did this without the Czechs having a say, and informed them of it after the Munich session was conveined. There was not at that time, nor ever would have been,a consideration of invasion on the grounds that Hitler was doing X to the Jews ( people didn't know and largely didn't care) the re-armament ( was considered inevitable anyways) or least of all the political situation ( Hitler was Time magazine's Man of the Year, and the toast of European diplomatic circles for what he had managed to do to the heretofor destroyed German economy and industrial machine )...and the reasons why such internal issues would never have been considered were very simple : A) Internal issues were not considered within the dictates of foreign powers...THAT was what Versailles had tried to do, to the everlasting shame of those who wrote it...and B) Appeasment wasn't even necessary until Hitler started being aggressive...ie invading other countries contrary to the wishes of the world... So unless the Germans, French, and Russians are considering 'appeasing' Iraq by rubber-stamping their invasion of Saudi Arabia, or wherever, ther is no parallel whatsoever...in fact, if you look at it, there is only one country in the world right now demanding to be appeased by obtaining approval to invade another country contrary to the will of most of the world... P.S....Neville would have sounded better...
What? No mention of the paper? C'mon, everyone should know you wrote a stellar paper on von Ribbentrop! Although I'm sure your specific distinction may have merit, aren't you really just defining out the point? Generally 'appeasement' is used to describe a softline policy towards a nation or leader in order the stave off more hardline actions, or the necessity thereof. It is not just a term used by 'pop historians.' You can find it referenced as such in all manner of political analysis. For example, in the 80s there was much talk about the 'Finlandization of Europe,' in reference to the 'appeasement toward the USSR.' And wouldn't it be correct to say that the 'appeasement' policy toward Germany started when Hitler rolled his army into the 'demilitarized' zone on the French border? Wasn't this directed on actions 'within' Germany? You are making HUGE assumptions. The so-called 'Final Solution' didn't start until '42, so you are misrepresenting history on this one. Although the plight of the Jews was certainly not of interest to most of the world's powers, it is not the same to say had Hitler started the literal genocide that came later, no action would have been taken. Interesting. Is that why the German Army staff was against Hitler's move into the demilitarized zone, fearing French and British action? Rearmament generally might have been considered inevitable, but certainly lack of hardline response on Hitler's provocation encouraged him to continue to push the French and British resolve, which he subsequently did. Peace at all costs in that case cost quite a lot. Again there is no parallel with the US. This is not a war of annexation. The appeasement parallel is on point in its geo-political usage as it pertains to maintaining a softline at all costs mentality when dealing with a strongman. And potentially being in a situation, again, where action is not taken until the strongman is too powerful to easily stop.
Will's article was wierd. A strange story about tickets and husbands and wives which he tries to ties into Germany and France. Ungraterful scoundrels they and other members of the UN insist in having a say in whether a war should be fought under UN auspices. We have the troops that are making the inspections more effective, so they have no right to input on whether we go to war with UN approval. He then says: Should the United States yield to the United Nations? The question makes no sense. The United States practically invented the United Nations. Franklin D. Roosevelt coined its name. The U.N. charter was drafted and debated here. We host the organization's headquarters and fund the lion's share of its budget. Other members are important, but the United Nations needs us a lot more than we need it. So he is a UN hater. Nothing unusual about that in Texas. America uber alles! Go it alone! Who needs anyone else! We're the super power! Screw international law! We are international law!
Glynch no matter how sarcastic you are being....there is truth in this statement. Why should we let international law dictate our countries agenda? DD
America is number 1. So what's your point? We aren't alone, as last time I checked there were other nations in agreement with us. And International Law is hardly a settled document of do's and don'ts. This would be no more illegitimate than intervening in Bosnia or Kosovo, and probably less so.
