Discussion for article #238928
Lindsey: Using a Hitler comparison is shameful, so…I’ll wait a couple of days to lurch farther to the right by using a Hitler comparison.
10 Likes
I’d love to see a picture of the Newsmax TV studio(s)…I bet Lindsey sat on his hanky.
3 Likes
Well, his Brad Pitt meme didn’t catch on, so he’s trying another one.
3 Likes
As usual, it’s way more complicated than what the Lindsey thinks, and most of the public for that matter, and is generally at odds with serious students of WWII history:
Historians often find themselves moving against popular opinion. In the case of Chamberlain, though, the gap between public perception and the historical record serves a political purpose. The story we’re told about Munich is one about the futility and foolishness of searching for peace. In American political debates, the words “appeasement” and “Munich” are used to bludgeon those who argue against war. But every war is not World War II, and every dictator is not Hitler. Should we really fault Chamberlain for postponing a potentially disastrous fight that his military advisers cautioned against, his allies weren’t ready for, and his people didn’t support? “People should try to put themselves into the position of the head of the British government in the 1930s,” Dutton says. “Would they have taken the apparently huge risk of a war [that] might mean Armageddon for a cause that nobody was really convinced in?” Chamberlain’s story is of a man who fought for peace as long as possible, and went to war only when it was the last available option. It’s not such a bad epitaph.
My emigré old dad, who served in the RAF during WWII told me much the same thing as this article when he heard “Munich” being used as a club by hawky politicians who wanted to kill other people’s children and spend other people’s money on wars.
11 Likes
THE AYaTOLLAY like BALAck INsaNE OHBummer FEEls COMPElled BY theIR ShareD SATANic MOSLem religION tO DestROY ISraeL aND aLL the DeMOcraCIEs. ANd LIBtards are JUST FIDDLING wHILE ROme BURns. HitLEr!!!1!!one!!!
7 Likes
Lindsey Graham: “The Munich deal would have made sense if Hitler just wanted German-speaking people under the German umbrella.”
“If you avoid politics, the Hitlers are a hoot! We don’t talk about his work. We just have a few laughs and play mixed doubles with the Goerings.”
2 Likes
Does Graham feel compelled by his party affiliation to attack the President and destroy democracies like ours? I say yes.
6 Likes
I GUEss YOU thINK thaT IF the GErmans WErEn’t UNder an UMBreLLA, THEN CHaIMBerlain wOULDn’t aPPEAse the NAzis? IT’s crazY TalK LIke thIS that WILL haVE THe aYATOLLAY make JEws TaKE sHOWErs.
5 Likes
Hey, when your sugar-daddy is Sheldon Adelson YOU WILL attack any and all diplomacy attempts with any “Dirty Arabs” (yes, I know Iran is Persian, bear with me here) or any attempts to deviate even a tiny amount from full-throated, unquestioning, absolute support for any and all things Israeli.
Lindsey, your strings are showing…
2 Likes
Yes, and two things:
- For every Chamberlain type deal that led to war, there are dozens that did not. What Graham is doing is essentially citing the one guy who survived a car crash because he did not have his seat belt on. Yes, it happens, but it’s the exception, not the rule.
- As to war, why doesn’t anyone point out how that war turned out for Hitler and the Nazis. My recollection is, not so good.
Additionally, Germany was a military power with an amazing manufacturing base. Iran has squat. Such a comparison of Iran to 1940’s Germany is asinine.
10 Likes
Asinine, yes. But Graham isn’t necessarily trying to make a valid or logical point. He’s trying to gin up fear and suspicion and play upon the insecurities of folks old enough to remember WWII and also old enough to remember a time when blacks weren’t “all uppity.”
4 Likes
The next trigger is Angela Lansbury wanting to play solitaire…
1 Like
Thanks for this. And to echo @MrComments, even if one buys the knock on Chamberlain, that’s pretty much the only instance in modern history of negotiation not having been the better/successful choice. James Fallows made this point at length in his Atlantic piece last week:
(BTW, his most recent Iran piece is also well worth reading, and sharing: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713 )
And no Iran story around here would be complete without my customary pimping for J Street: they’re running a big campaign in support of the deal, with ads and easy ways to contact your reps (which everyone needs to do). They’re using info that may help sway some wavering Dems, including a poll showing that most American Jews support the deal (which apparently may mean more to our Congresscritters than the support of hundreds of current and former members of the diplomatic and security establishments – Dem, GOP, and Israeli – but yay for my people). The more support they get, the more effective a counterweight to AIPAC they’ll be. Contact your rep, contact your senators, and check out J Street.
6 Likes
And I’m sure he feels the same way about Putin’s interest in Crimea and Ukraine.
2 Likes
Lindsey uses Hitler reference…
1 Like
Miz Linda…When you have to resort to Hitler, you’ve already lost the argument.
Good articles, thank you.
1 Like
And frankly, I couldn’t give a shit if Iran gets the bomb or if Iraq had built one. We live 8,000 miles away!
The Soviet Union, er, I mean Russia has had it for about 70 years. China, Israel, the UK, France, India and even borderline failed state Pakistan have had them for decades and managed not to use them. There is something to be said even at this point in history about how it tends to keep enemies from doing anything too stupid. How many times have Pakistan and India shot at each other without a complete meltdown?
This is not to say that I don’t wish they’d ever been created. But I’m a lot less worried about them now than I was in my 20s when “No longer bellicose” Reagan was president. North Korea is the only nation I worry about having one because the leadership there has nothing to lose and I’m very fond of Japan.
Actually, no. Remember, the deal is to keep a technologically advanced nation from building one of the most complicated weapons ever created. Nations that have “squat” aren’t capable of this. Iran is not Pakistan, who had to steal most of the technology. Iran is full of well-trained engineers and scientists. They have their own oil (the Nazis didn’t). Most of their major populations centers are deep within their borders meaning any sort of land invasion would be challenging.
1 Like