Reviving the Spirit of Munich
September 28th, 2008 at 08:22pm Mark Noonan
Consider this a long-range, opening shot in an elitist attempt to justify an eventual Obama Administration foreign policy:
Quite apart from their unhappy consequences, all these invocations of Munich begin by rewriting history. Chamberlain was a democratic leader who knew that most of his people understandably did not want to go to war in 1938, only 20 years after another terrible war in which about three-quarters of a million British men had been killed.
Besides which, Chamberlain was far from alone in thinking that he was addressing a real grievance. The one accurate thing about Kagan’s quaint comparison is that the residents of the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia no more want to be ruled by Georgia today than the Sudeten Germans wanted to be ruled by the Czechs 70 years ago.
While it’s lamentably true that German resentment at “the slave treaty of Versailles” following World War I helped bring Hitler to power, there is another inconvenient truth: Between the wars, British and American liberals almost universally believed that the post-1918 settlement had been unjust. H.N. Brailsford, the leading leftist English commentator on foreign affairs, had written in 1920 that, of all the Versailles treaty’s redrawing of borders, “the worst offence was the subjection of over three million Germans to Czech rule.” Experience seemed to show that nationalism was the great force of the age and that it needed to be assuaged — or appeased, a word first used, it should be remembered, by those who advocated doing so.
To be sure, Churchill denounced the Munich agreement in a resonant speech: “This is only the first sip, the first bitter foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time.” But he was speaking as someone untroubled by any sympathy for national self-determination.
In other words, Munich wasn’t a bad deal, in and of itself…the Sudenten Germans were just going for national self-determination, Hitler’s Germany had a legitimate interest in the fate of the Sudentenland, Czechoslovakia had no business ruling the Sudentenland, Germans were justly outraged over the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles…later in the piece, the author also notes that Churchill was opposed to Indian independence, and thus didn’t have a leg to stand on when he argued that Britain must support democratic Czechoslovakia.
In all my time of reading on matters of history and politics, I’ve never seen a better example of pure, unadulterated, ignorant bullsh**.
The principles at stake in the Munich talks weren’t the fate of the Sudenten Germans, the Republic of Czechosolovakia, the validity of the Treaty of Versailles or, even, the worth of democracy and national self-determination - all of these were raised, by Hitler and those who wished to appease him, in order to cover up the fact that the issue was collective security against unprovoked aggression. It was felt, post-WWI, that had Imperial Germany been confronted with the entire anti-German coalition of 1918 in 1914, Germany would have been restrained from launching its war of aggression against France and Russia. The League of Nations was set up to commit all the powers concerned to come to the defense of any power or group of powers threatened by un-provoked attack. Churchill, at the conclusion of the Munich, was not so much aghast at the loss of Czechoslovakia (though, in a purely military sense, the loss of Czech military power and bases was a catastrophe for the Anglo-French alliance), but at the fact that Hitler was assured by the Anglo-French alliance that un-provoked aggression would not be thwarted. When Chamberlain, 9 months later, asserted that Britian would stand by Poland if she were attacked by Germany, Hitler justifiably considered this to be a worthless statement, and thus World War Two was assured.
What is wanted here? A justification for a surrender to Putin’s imperial ambitions and Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons and the export of Jihad designed to eventually destroy Israel. This will also be applied to any Chinese demand upon Taiwan and any continued nuclear blackmail by North Korea - and, indeed, any and all demands made upon the West, and the United States, by anyone who ranges himself against same. While Obama’s asinine statement that he’ll meet with tyrants without pre-conditions has caused consternation among the wise, people of the left are delighted with the idea - viewing the West in general, and the United States in particular, as the source of the world’s ills (just as apologists for tyrants in the 1930’s so identified the West in general and the British Empire in particular), the demands of tyrants - as long as they are anti-Western and especially anti-American - are entertained as legitimate voices which must be accommodated in the interests of peace and justice.
We must not un-learn the lesson of Munich - we must assert, always and everywhere, that un-provoked aggression will be met, and defeated, regardless of cost. And, no, what we did in Iraq wasn’t un-provoked aggression and any attempt here to equate liberating Iraq and selling out Czechoslovakia is the attempt of a fool - and a wicked fool, into the bargain. This is, unfortunately, which is being stored up for us and which will be unleashed under an Obama Administration - the elites of the world are desirous of a world in which the United States is weakened, tyrants strengthened and more and more of the decisions of the world are taken out of the hands of the people and placed in the hands of elites, who will travel to various Munichs around the world and slowly but surely sell us all into slavery, just so long as the elites can remain on top, and in extreme wealth and comfort.
They on the left have been slavering after this for ages, and in Obama they see their big chance - an ignorant man who will be easily manipulated into doing whatever the elite wishes to do. To imagine that Obama - who seems to not have an iota of foundation in world affairs and history - will be able to prevent well-informed elites from imposing on him a policy of appeasing tyrants is to hope against all available evidence. For the sake not just of the United States but of the people of the world - and especially those people of the world, our brothers and sisters, who labor under tyranny - we must prevent Obama from coming to power…he make for us a bitter cup of misery and eventual world war, and perhaps ultimate defeat. We can stop this by the mere fact of keeping him out of office - or we can allow it by mere fact of not working hard enough for victory.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Foreign Affairs, Kook Left, Republicans, United Nations, War on Terror
14 Comments
1. Leo Pusateri | September 28th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Mark–spot on, sir…Spot on.
2. neocon | September 28th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Very interesting read Mark.
My observation: In their desire to appease and make life fair for all, liberals are prepared to forsake all personal freedoms at the very least and ignorantly put their lives, and many others at risk at the very worst.
They would prefer to acquiesce to the desires of evil and oppression rather than battle for the more noble concepts of justice and freedom.
3. bongoman | September 28th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
No. Not unprovoked at all. ‘Pre-emptive’ is the word isn’t it?
4. Casper | September 28th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
“in Obama they see their big chance - an ignorant man who will be easily manipulated into doing whatever the elite wishes to do. To imagine that Obama - who seems to not have an iota of foundation in world affairs and history”
One of the mistakes that you and others on the right have made is claiming that Obama is ignorant, easily manipulated, and an empty suit. Yet, he held his own during a debate with one of smartest men in the senate on foreign affairs. People are starting to figure out that Obama is a lot smarter than they have been led to believe. The polls are shifting and I think a big part of it is because of the above.
5. js | September 28th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
while the muslims follow the teachings of a long dead warlord whose legacy created one of the largest and bloodiest kingdom this earth ever knew…that fell…finally…with the end of the ottoman empire…we bicker about illogic that the crafty musleman preys upon…to divide and conquer…from within….doing just as mohammad told them…waiting while they built strength enough to defeat us…our forefathers made these people stop raiding the shores of Europe, where they took slaves of honest people for centuries…just as they ended the piracy that choked world trade for just as long…while we struggle in confustion about what exactly is religious freedom…islam takes advantage of our ignorance…an ignorance not taught by our fathers, or thier fathers father…a lack of remembrance of things that have passed…of 1400 years of fighting against the theocracy called islam…
we are not the christian nation that england was when our forefathers declaired our freedom from thier theocracy…we are a nation of christians…that came together to praise God and seek His Justice…we are the children of the men and women who faught and died for that cause…and now…all that they gave to us is at peril…
no…i would not think that we aught to be fooled by such things that confuse our leaders in congress…or our justices in court…at the disgrace of our fathers…but looking into the media…today…we forgot the struggle they went through..we erased and re wrote the history that they lived…and we pass that lie down to our children…and our grand children…who just might kneel to allah five times a day…
it is time for all good men to do something…and finding out the truth about these things is the first step…knowledge is a terrible thing to waste…and a waste of time to fools…
6. js | September 28th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
uhh..and i…a…on there it is…on the telepromter…man..you guys are on your toes thanks…
ya…we got your number obama….
7. neocon | September 28th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Casper,
Ignorance and intelligence are not mutually exclusive concepts. One can be well educated but also ignorant.
Obama is more of a power hungry, personally obsessed empty suit. Hard to believe that someone with just 143 days of actual Senate experience would deem himself prepared to be President. Only the self indulgent personality would embark on such a mission.
8. Observer20 | September 28th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Casper,
Ignorant? Not quite. He’s quite book-smart, although I don’t think he understands how the world works. He can spout off figures and statistics like the best of them, I just don’t think he can connect the dots and use them to draw any serious conclusions.
Easily manipulated? That remains to be seen. The only thing I can comment on right now is that I believe he has a severe lack of judgment of others character.
Empty Suit? For the most part, yes. That’s what one comes off as when one doesn’t disclose any records of one’s past and starts running for POTUS after less than 200 days in Congress.
Held his own against McCain in the debates? Only for the first 30 minutes, and this is after he took off almost half a week to “study up” for those debates.
Perhaps Obama will continue to study up for half a week whenever he needs to do anything. Three days off to study for every two hours of work. Sounds like a winning plan.
9. Casper | September 28th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“Ignorance and intelligence are not mutually exclusive concepts. One can be well educated but also ignorant.”
I would agree to a certain degree. I know people who were very smart, know almost everything about a subject or two, but are clueless about everything else in the world. Yet I don’t see that with Obama. He seems to have an interest in a wide range of topics.
“Held his own against McCain in the debates? Only for the first 30 minutes, and this is after he took off almost half a week to “study up” for those debates.”
Really? I thought that McCain out debated Obama by a slim margin. Yet in most of the polls taken since then Obama clearly ahead. As for him studying up for half a week, think about this. If he was able to learn in a half a week, what it took McCain 26 years to learn, doesn’t that destroy your argument about him being an empty suit?
10. Eric T | September 28th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Here is a video that will help you see Obama in the way, you see Chamberlain appeasing in the article above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYpsj39hXD0
The author writes-
“the elites of the world are desirous of a world in which the United States is weakened, tyrants strengthened and more and more of the decisions of the world are taken out of the hands of the people and placed in the hands of elites, who will travel to various Munichs around the world and slowly but surely sell us all into slavery, just so long as the elites can remain on top, and in extreme wealth and comfort.”
You can see Obama’s record on Freedom is rather questionable, check out these clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hvhZgUhpCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76aW2LuQKe8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzr_nlTi7-8
11. Observer20 | September 28th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Casper,
“I thought that McCain out debated Obama by a slim margin.”
Define how you quantify out-debating by a slim margin. The way I see it, McCain beat Obama in every category except for the economy part at the beginning, where they were roughly tied. If someone out-debates you, they out-debate you. If someone makes their point more valid than your own, they trump your argument. An argument cannot be marginally trumped, and a victor cannot be marginalized in a debate. There is a winner and a loser, or it is a draw.
“Yet in most of the polls taken since then Obama clearly ahead.”
Just as we cannot rule out that these are caused by the debates, we too cannot rule out the probability that this is because of some other factors, which there are several. Obama’s recent small climb could be due to conservative campaign fatigue, or it could be due to the current economic mess and the perpetuated stereotype that Obama knows what he’s doing as far as economy, or any other number of factors. I’m going to bet it has more to do with the economy than anything.
“As for him studying up for half a week, think about this. If he was able to learn in a half a week, what it took McCain 26 years to learn, doesn’t that destroy your argument about him being an empty suit?”
No. Let’s examine your exclamation piece by piece. When you say, “If he was able to learn in a half a week,” define what he learned. Anything new? No, he simply went over his official position and solidified his position by citing certain sources that supported his position. Keep in mind that in most campaigns they have a specific position on most issues long before the general debates occur. Second, if he “learned” it so well, why couldn’t he defeat McCain?
“…what it took McCain 26 years to learn.” Again, please define “learn.” These are current events, and one must apply his knowledge and experience to issues. I believe McCain’s points were more valid on all foreign affairs issues, so obviously Obama did not “learn” the same lesson as McCain.
“doesn’t that destroy your argument about him being an empty suit?” No. Just because you can create feasible arguments that are defeated by your opponent does not disqualify you from the empty suit club. He still has no past and no experience, and improper judgment.
Now here’s my counter-question to you: If McCain can beat Obama at a debate without taking any days off when Obama’s supposed to be some Harvard genius but takes three days off, doesn’t that negate the notion that Obama is smart?
12. Casper | September 29th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Observer20,
I’m a little too tired to respond to all of your points, but I will hit on a couple.
“Define how you quantify out-debating by a slim margin”
I’ve judged debates on both the high school and college level. Both Obama and McCain made strong arguments. each also refuted several of the arguments made by the other. I do feel that Obama won on several of the points he made, as did McCain. Overall, I felt that McCain came ahead of Obama at the end.
“Yet in most of the polls taken since then Obama clearly ahead.”
The polls I was referring to were those taken after the debate and only dealing with the debate. The effects on the national polls won’t be known for another couple of days.
“If McCain can beat Obama at a debate without taking any days off when Obama’s supposed to be some Harvard genius but takes three days off, doesn’t that negate the notion that Obama is smart?”
First, it was my perception that McCain won. A lot of other people thought the opposite. Second, winning or losing a debate isn’t an indication of how smart a person is. I’m sure I could come up with a subject or two that I could out debate you. I’m also pretty sure you could come up with subjects that you could out debate me. Third, I never said Obama was a genius, only that he did a good job of debating an area that is considered a McCain strength.
13. William of Orange | September 29th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Casper, NeoCon, Observer, et al..
Gentlemen (and ladies, if present), we may have wandered off topic in discussing whether or not Obama held his own in the debate or not. While I personally agree with Observer20 — especially the point about Obama taking an entire week to prep for a two-hour debate and only turning in a C+ performance — I think Mark suggested that the WaPo article is the beginning of a series, an “astroturfing” for Senator Obama’s nascent presidency in which he will, I believe, fumble and flounder in Carteresque fashion.
Tangentially, a good friend and neighbor of English birth and education tells me that there was a revisionist effort in England to whitewash Chamberlain by saying he was just stalling for time because he felt that his country needed to prepare for the upcoming conflict. It seems that this attempt was roundly shouted down by those who pointed out that France and England were more than able to have taken on Hitler in the middle thirties but abdicated their responsibilities. This was specifically true if one considers that the British signed a separate agreement — the A.G.N.A. — in defiance of the Versailles Treaty in 1935 in an attempt to limit the tonnage of the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe began in 1933 with, essentially, some really gifted glider pilots.
But, alas, I have wandered off point as well. (History and the Internet do that to me.)
As I stated above, I think Mark is prescient in pointing this out as one of the early buds in the soon-to-be-flowering garden of apologia for The Clueless One.
14. Observer20 | September 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
William of Orange,
You’re right, it has strayed off topic, and I apologize for perpetuating it. However, I cannot leave a challenge unresponded.
Casper,
Instead of bothering with quotes I’ll just reply directly to each of your paragraphs in sequence.
First, I agree that they defeated each other on several key points. But, in my opinion, a victor is a victor is a victor, and that simply means he defused more of the opponents arguments or defended his own more soundly than his opponent. Realizing that it’s hard to quantify victory or rate of victory, I’m still going to say that the person shown more valid (in my opinion McCain) cannot win “marginally,” because it’s their arguments validity that is on the line here.
Second, I concede to your point about the polls. But it is not my habit to trust the opinions of other people, as I believe the average person is not firmly rooted in the facts of the matter. When we support a candidate, we staple ourselves to a bargain that claims that that candidate speaks the truth. However, each person’s individual interpretation of truth may not be equal, some leaving our tidbits that one might find inconsequential but another may find a huge judge of character. Therefore, I find it difficult to determine who won the debate based solely on opinion. We have to examine each argument objectively, look at the data supporting each position, hope the data is accurate, and make a definite conclusion.
Third, I never said you said Obama was a genius. When I address or direct an argument, I address or direct those arguments under the notion that that argument is supported by a sizeable population of people. Therefore, even if it’s not your opinion that he is a genius, I think that there is a large demographic of people that want to vote for Obama just because he is a Harvard-educated elite, thinking that entitles him to greater clarity on the issues. That he took so much time off of his campaign to study up for these debates, and is a harvard “genius,” and still couldn’t muster enough words to defeat McCain says to me he is not as insightful or resourceful as many Obama supporters claim he is.
Finally, that last rhetorical question was more to combat your rhetorical question of destroying the empty-suit argument. I believe that it didn’t destroy the empty suit argument. When one has a limited voting record and limited records of past, one has to go on a person’s qualities. Intelligence seems to be the quality that Obama supporters notice in spades. So undermining that quality is the primary directive of my position to marginalize him.