Hitler reasonable?

cnredd · #1 (**permalink**) 05-17-2008, 12:33 AM

In an attempt to defend Obama from Bush's appeasement speech, this editor from the Seatte Times does what any good supporter would do...

Defend Hitler...

Quote:

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state. His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe--and ones that thought of themselves as German --be under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. We have learned the hazards of it. But 1938 was only 19 years since Germany's borders had been redrawn, and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following the historical lesson they had learned 1914-1918: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.

In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless. He made a promise and broke it within about six months. And so when Bush recalls the unnamed senator who, in September 1939, lamented that he had not been able to talk to Hitler, he hits an easy target. But the moment of September 1939 is nothing like today.

So you see all of you stupid people not intelligent enough to be an editor?...You're not understanding that, at the time, Hitler was just trying to get back land that was supposed to be his anyway...What a guy!...

bhkad · #2 (**permalink**) 05-17-2008, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

In an attempt to defend Obama from Bush's appeasement speech, this editor from the Seatte Times does what any good supporter would do...

Defend Hitler...

So you see all of you stupid people not intelligent enough to be an editor?...You're not understanding that, at the time, Hitler was just trying to get back land that was supposed to be his anyway...What a guy!...

The President's comments were primarily intended as a statement about IRAN.

But the Liberal, Left Winging Democrats choose to apply the message to the example that is actually the least dangerous of the three mentioned.

Hamas is a threat but without funding from Iran or naive Western nations they are in check to a great degree.

Osama bin Laden is virtually a non-issue in terms of being a threat to Israel.

Only Iran has the power to act as Hitler did and only Iran is trying to expand as Hitler did and the Liberals just seem to miss the point...and THAT IS THE POINT.

We have a group of people in America who can't be trusted to follow events that are transpiring before their very eyes and even with the text of the speech available to them they pick the least applicable example to argue because they are idiots and because they would rather fight Americans rather than trying to stop the real enemy.

And of course that makes it more likely that we'll have to fight the real enemy some day...here on our own shores.

The Democrats truly are the party of defeat.

saltwn · #3 (**permalink**) 05-18-2008, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

In an attempt to defend Obama from Bush's appeasement speech, this editor from the Seatte Times does what any good supporter would do...

Defend Hitler...

So you see all of you stupid people not intelligent enough to be an editor?...You're not understanding that, at the time, Hitler was just trying to get back land that was supposed to be his anyway...What a guy!...

I understand this person's reference from an historical standpoint. But he summed it up himself in so many words.
The 1930's were not the 2000's. You can't compare either way. Too much has happened. The dynamics have changed. Even if this was the same country we fought in the thirties, there's a lot of water gone under that old bridge. And the bridge may not even be there any longer.
Case in point, Julius Caesar penned a wonderful revue of an area around the neighborhood of Portugal. Certainly Rome should trade and exchange ideas with this learned and richly attired society!
Many years later a young soldier who grew up reading Caesar's memoirs, was stationed in the same land. Caused by war, famine, or a change in the shoreline and climate, the place had changed. Its only human population - little better than cavemen!
We must look at history, sure. I am an advocate of that. But in a loose and general way. Too much individual history goes into each generation to make policy or criticize it based on anything but the fluid present.
And to give Hitler the benefit of the doubt is doubly the same as giving Nero the same benefit. Of all the biographies and hopeful early days in either's background, the most sensitive historian still rightly names them monster.

cnredd · #4 (**permalink**) 05-18-2008, 05:55 AM

Even if you were to accept the rationale, there is a STRIKING resmblance between Hitler and Hamas...

Chamberlain was THINKING that Hitler was JUST going to take back German areas and then stop and be a good little boy...So he NEGOTIATED with Hitler untils Hitler broke his promise and started taking over more land than negotiated...

Does anyone with an IQ above single digits believe Hamas wouldn't do the same?...

Does anyone think that ANYONE (let alone Obama) could negotiate with Hamas and offer something like 1967 borders or some other land grab and think Hamas would SETTLE for that?...Of course not!...

They'd take whatever land they could grab and USE that land to attack Israel even further until it was (and I'll use Hamas' actual words)..."obliterated"...

Hitler would've NEVER been strong enough to take over other countries had Chamberlain not given him other land to begin with...That's the situation we have now with Palestine...

Palestine wants ALL of Israel...100%..and the destruction of all Jews...Giving them ANYTHING that could make them come closer to acheiving that goal is rediculous...

If anyone remembers Clinton's attempt at peace there in the late 90s, they'll remember Ehud Barak offered over 90% of what Arafat wanted...and Arafat refused...

Why?

Because anything LESS than "obliteration" is a failure in their eyes...

From Obama's very own website...

Quote:

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

Hamas is the "leader" of Palestine...

saltwn · #5 (**permalink**) 05-18-2008, 06:28 AM

Quote:

cnredd:Palestine wants ALL of Israel...100%..and the destruction of all Jews...Giving them ANYTHING that could make them come closer to acheiving that goal is rediculous..

.

What would you have all of Palestine do? Come here?

cnredd · #6 (**permalink**) 05-18-2008, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

.

What would you have all of Palestine do? Come here?

Before ANYHING Palestine MUST do two things...

These are 2 things that are part of the "Road Map for Peace" created a couple of years ago, but would logically be part of ANY talks with them...

1) Stop attacking Israel with rockets fired indiscriminately into civilians areas.

2) Denounce and cease all terrorism.

NOTHING starts without those 2...

Even when Israel made the first UNSOLICITED step at removing themselves from Gaza as a peace gesture, it accomplished nothing...(except for NEW places Palestine can attack Israel)...

foundit66 · #7 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 07:30 PM

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday backed the Bush administration's policy of shunning contact with the Islamic militants of Hamas in its Middle East peace diplomacy.

The Illinois senator has said he would break with President George W. Bush's stance of declining to talk to some other international adversaries but that stance does not apply to Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is committed to the destruction of Israel.

Reuters AlertNet - Obama says U.S. should not meet with Hamas

But please don't let the facts interrupt your mud-slinging...

cnredd · #8 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday backed the Bush administration's policy of shunning contact with the Islamic militants of Hamas in its Middle East peace diplomacy.

The Illinois senator has said he would break with President George W. Bush's stance of declining to talk to some other international adversaries but that stance does not apply to Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is committed to the destruction of Israel.

Reuters AlertNet - Obama says U.S. should not meet with Hamas

But please don't let the facts interrupt your mud-slinging...

And don't let a Reuters article interrupt Barack's own website...

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO SECURE AMERICA AND RESTORE OUR STANDING

Quote:

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

When Obama's own website say he's "willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe", and "the leaders" in Palestine are a group known as Hamas, then that tells me that either Obama is lying on his website or he's lying in your article...

Decide for yourself...

foundit66 · #9 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

When Obama's own website say he's "willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe", and "the leaders" in Palestine are a group known as Hamas, then that tells me that either Obama is lying on his website or he's lying in your article...

Decide for yourself...

Or, that whoever put together his web-site isn't listening to EXACTLY what Obama said.
Or, that he doesn't recognize "Hamas" as any sort of leader.
Or, ...

The list is long, and ultimately you have Barack's OWN STATEMENT on the issue, vs a web-site that he probably didn't even program...

Hardly "lying".

And If you want to go the route of "lying", let's discuss the Iraq invasion and statements that our administration made on that, 'mkay?

You get so lost in partisan rhetoric at times it's unbelievable.

cnredd · #10 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Or, that whoever put together his web-site isn't listening to EXACTLY what Obama said.
Or, that he doesn't recognize "Hamas" as any sort of leader.
Or, ...

The list is long, and ultimately you have Barack's OWN STATEMENT on the issue, vs a web-site that he probably didn't even program...

Hardly "lying".

You went THAT FAR to look for defenses?...Why not mention aliens and vampires?...

Geez...For a second I thought Chris Matthews stole your keyboard...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

And If you want to go the route of "lying", let's discuss the Iraq invasion and statements that our administration made on that, 'mkay?

Thanks scarecrow...Kickass strawman!...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

You get so lost in partisan rhetoric at times it's unbelievable.

You just defended a presidential candidate's website for not being on par with the presidential candidate's statements...

Don't talk to me about partisan rhetoric...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/media/3209-hitler-reasonable.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Political Wrinkles	This thread	Refback	05-17-2008 08:26 PM