This is a not a new subject in the least and, consequently, the public domain is peppered with related discussions. In this sense it seems unnecessary that I would want to throw in my two cents worth. However, this is not as much as to feed my vainglorious pretensions but to alert some of my sparse reader audience to the frequent invocations of the Hitler appeasement analogy and its just as common misuse. Why should this be important?
If you do not care what Canada will do next in Afghanistan or whether the US will bomb Iran in the next few months then the utility of this opinion is pretty worthless. Otherwise just turn on your TV and count how many times Hitler appeasement will be invoked as a reason to either persist in our current and very fruitless military undertakings; or, worse, use a pre-emptive and unjustified force against somebody else. The scary part that this invocation works like a charm as I often observe even very smart media pundits becoming completely stumped when arguing for more peaceful stance in foreign relations and military interventions. I have even heard it flogged around as a valid argument for tougher anti-crime laws – what a tragic misuse of history! At this point some might laugh as to point out that this is just rhetoric. Not so hasty as such un-rebutted rhetoric has produced much public support that was necessary to unleash the most famous unjust war of our generation – Iraq.
Any delay in dealing with Saddam posed a “grave” threat in 2003 as the intransigent ghost of the Hitler chief nemesis Winston Churchill happened to be just as effective as false American intelligence claims. Hitler sells and sell him they did. They continue in the same tracks when either drumming public support for a potential anti-Iranian strike or for persisting in refusal to engage Taliban in any meaningful political process to stop madness known as the great Afghan democratic experiment. They use many arguments, real and phantom; they write opinions, pontificate on TV and bombard Internet. Among all this the Hitler appeasement analogy is the one that almost always goes unchecked making it a must in any hawk discourse.
Personally, I do not mind a well-reasoned argument but it is impossible unless we purge ourselves of many a myth with Hitler appeasement analogy stuck at the top of the list. However, if embarking on a difficult task of turn tables within the modern realm of second-long sound bites, considering the history itself sounds like a good option.
Hitler came to power in 1933 amidst much economic adversity and political jitters, two serious illnesses that imposed on the tired Weimar Republic and its octogenarian president, Mr. Hindenburg. Hitler was decisive and fast, forcefully advancing his agenda and claiming the effective control of the country within a matter of months. As earlier as 1934 he commenced a systematic military build-up in violation of then prevailing international agreements with the feeble Treaty of Versailles as the cornerstone, a perennial irritant to Germany. The ensuing international reaction was hardly adequate as the world was dealing with the devastating economic depression of the 1930s and was not in the mood to act decisively in the diplomatic or military sense. With country whipped up in patriotic fervour, Hitler, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, militarized the Rhineland in 1936. This was just the beginning. By 1938 Germany boasted the second largest world economy, the biggest and the most modern army; and a frenzied ideologue as its chief. Results did wait to follow. In March 1938, in violation of international laws and his own previous commitment, Hitler marched in and annexed Austria. Now his sights were set on Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia with substantial German population.
At this stage, the West could no longer sit and watch history rush by. Britain (Chamberlain), France (Daladier) and, to the lesser extent, the USA (FDR) sought an opportunity to check any further Nazi aggression by reasoning with old Adolf, trying to see if any compromise could be reached. They got together in September 1938 in Munich to hatch the infamous Munich Declaration. In it, the western leaders essentially left Czechoslovakia to the dogs, by acknowledging Hitler’s territorial Sudetenland demands and agreeing to a speedy transfer of these territories to the German Reich. As a result, Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the belief that Hitler’s ambitions could be thus checked, preventing any further aggression. Many in West rejoiced some were indignant and prophetic with Mr. Churchill topping the list.
He, at least this time, was completely correct in his fear as Hitler proceeded to not only occupy the Sudetenland but also invading the rest of Czechoslovakia, signalling a fateful beginning of what would lead to the most horrible war in the history of the human kind.
So what are characteristics of the Munich appeasement that could be clearly identified as to create an analogy? The most important one is the western mistake of compromising on the subject of the territorial demands. The other is the failure to spot an aggression amidst a military built up wrapped up in patriotic fervour that frequently identified the intended target. In my view, unless these characteristics are met, the use of the Hitler appeasement analogy is completely unjustified. This is not to say that it is never appropriate. However, when it comes to many current issues its pervasive and unqualified use creates nothing but misinformation and propaganda.
Iraq, of course, was the most blatant example. Saddam did not undertake any military build up, did not openly threaten anyone or laid any territorial claims in 2003. On the other hand, the USA undertook a military build-up, threatened and falsified. In my mind, here if anybody was playing Hitler it was the Bush administration.
How about Iran? Are they currently undertaking a military build-up? Answer is no as there is no credible proof to contradict their peaceful intentions vis-à-vis nuclear developments, and the rest of their military seems to be in a rather pitiful state. Do they use hostile rhetoric and identified targets? Well, their record here is mixed, as they can claim a right to “reciprocate” when faced with the sobriquet of “Axis of Evil” and in the view of their subsequent attempts to propose extensive peace terms to the US in 2003. On the other hand, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s latest verbal exercises clearly do not provide much comfort to his detractors. How about territorial claims? There are no claims to register besides the support for Iraqi Shea. However, this one is easily counterbalanced by the American support for MEK, an anti-Tehran group that is documented to have undertaken terror attacks within Iran.
How does all this compare to the American position in this growing conflict. Is there a military build up? Unquestionably, as evidenced by the Gulf presence of the large US Navy force that now includes three aircraft carriers. The overall US direct strike capacity has been steadily increasing just outside of the Iranian territorial forces as of late. Has the US threatened Iran or visa versa? While the Iranian record on the subject is vague, the US record is unequivocal and includes very open and very public musings of the current administration regarding the use of force. Does the US have territorial demands? No explicit ones other than openly looking for a regime change with a friendly government to follow.
The question is: can one truthfully play a Hitler appeasement analogy card in this situation? The answer should be NO for either side. Who is the bigger villain? It is up to you to decide…
If you do not care what Canada will do next in Afghanistan or whether the US will bomb Iran in the next few months then the utility of this opinion is pretty worthless. Otherwise just turn on your TV and count how many times Hitler appeasement will be invoked as a reason to either persist in our current and very fruitless military undertakings; or, worse, use a pre-emptive and unjustified force against somebody else. The scary part that this invocation works like a charm as I often observe even very smart media pundits becoming completely stumped when arguing for more peaceful stance in foreign relations and military interventions. I have even heard it flogged around as a valid argument for tougher anti-crime laws – what a tragic misuse of history! At this point some might laugh as to point out that this is just rhetoric. Not so hasty as such un-rebutted rhetoric has produced much public support that was necessary to unleash the most famous unjust war of our generation – Iraq.
Any delay in dealing with Saddam posed a “grave” threat in 2003 as the intransigent ghost of the Hitler chief nemesis Winston Churchill happened to be just as effective as false American intelligence claims. Hitler sells and sell him they did. They continue in the same tracks when either drumming public support for a potential anti-Iranian strike or for persisting in refusal to engage Taliban in any meaningful political process to stop madness known as the great Afghan democratic experiment. They use many arguments, real and phantom; they write opinions, pontificate on TV and bombard Internet. Among all this the Hitler appeasement analogy is the one that almost always goes unchecked making it a must in any hawk discourse.
Personally, I do not mind a well-reasoned argument but it is impossible unless we purge ourselves of many a myth with Hitler appeasement analogy stuck at the top of the list. However, if embarking on a difficult task of turn tables within the modern realm of second-long sound bites, considering the history itself sounds like a good option.
Hitler came to power in 1933 amidst much economic adversity and political jitters, two serious illnesses that imposed on the tired Weimar Republic and its octogenarian president, Mr. Hindenburg. Hitler was decisive and fast, forcefully advancing his agenda and claiming the effective control of the country within a matter of months. As earlier as 1934 he commenced a systematic military build-up in violation of then prevailing international agreements with the feeble Treaty of Versailles as the cornerstone, a perennial irritant to Germany. The ensuing international reaction was hardly adequate as the world was dealing with the devastating economic depression of the 1930s and was not in the mood to act decisively in the diplomatic or military sense. With country whipped up in patriotic fervour, Hitler, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, militarized the Rhineland in 1936. This was just the beginning. By 1938 Germany boasted the second largest world economy, the biggest and the most modern army; and a frenzied ideologue as its chief. Results did wait to follow. In March 1938, in violation of international laws and his own previous commitment, Hitler marched in and annexed Austria. Now his sights were set on Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia with substantial German population.
At this stage, the West could no longer sit and watch history rush by. Britain (Chamberlain), France (Daladier) and, to the lesser extent, the USA (FDR) sought an opportunity to check any further Nazi aggression by reasoning with old Adolf, trying to see if any compromise could be reached. They got together in September 1938 in Munich to hatch the infamous Munich Declaration. In it, the western leaders essentially left Czechoslovakia to the dogs, by acknowledging Hitler’s territorial Sudetenland demands and agreeing to a speedy transfer of these territories to the German Reich. As a result, Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the belief that Hitler’s ambitions could be thus checked, preventing any further aggression. Many in West rejoiced some were indignant and prophetic with Mr. Churchill topping the list.
He, at least this time, was completely correct in his fear as Hitler proceeded to not only occupy the Sudetenland but also invading the rest of Czechoslovakia, signalling a fateful beginning of what would lead to the most horrible war in the history of the human kind.
So what are characteristics of the Munich appeasement that could be clearly identified as to create an analogy? The most important one is the western mistake of compromising on the subject of the territorial demands. The other is the failure to spot an aggression amidst a military built up wrapped up in patriotic fervour that frequently identified the intended target. In my view, unless these characteristics are met, the use of the Hitler appeasement analogy is completely unjustified. This is not to say that it is never appropriate. However, when it comes to many current issues its pervasive and unqualified use creates nothing but misinformation and propaganda.
Iraq, of course, was the most blatant example. Saddam did not undertake any military build up, did not openly threaten anyone or laid any territorial claims in 2003. On the other hand, the USA undertook a military build-up, threatened and falsified. In my mind, here if anybody was playing Hitler it was the Bush administration.
How about Iran? Are they currently undertaking a military build-up? Answer is no as there is no credible proof to contradict their peaceful intentions vis-à-vis nuclear developments, and the rest of their military seems to be in a rather pitiful state. Do they use hostile rhetoric and identified targets? Well, their record here is mixed, as they can claim a right to “reciprocate” when faced with the sobriquet of “Axis of Evil” and in the view of their subsequent attempts to propose extensive peace terms to the US in 2003. On the other hand, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s latest verbal exercises clearly do not provide much comfort to his detractors. How about territorial claims? There are no claims to register besides the support for Iraqi Shea. However, this one is easily counterbalanced by the American support for MEK, an anti-Tehran group that is documented to have undertaken terror attacks within Iran.
How does all this compare to the American position in this growing conflict. Is there a military build up? Unquestionably, as evidenced by the Gulf presence of the large US Navy force that now includes three aircraft carriers. The overall US direct strike capacity has been steadily increasing just outside of the Iranian territorial forces as of late. Has the US threatened Iran or visa versa? While the Iranian record on the subject is vague, the US record is unequivocal and includes very open and very public musings of the current administration regarding the use of force. Does the US have territorial demands? No explicit ones other than openly looking for a regime change with a friendly government to follow.
The question is: can one truthfully play a Hitler appeasement analogy card in this situation? The answer should be NO for either side. Who is the bigger villain? It is up to you to decide…
