> On May 17, 2:16 am, FACE today.net> wrote:
>
>
>

>> From Robert S gmail.com>,
>> on Fri, 16 May 2008 17:53:31 -0700 (PDT)

>

>>>On 17 May, 00:02, FACE today.net> wrote:

>>>> What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the
>>>> German-speaking areas of Europe 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. But in 1938 it was different. Germany’s eastern and western borders
>>>> had been redrawn 19 years before—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 their historical wisdom: 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. 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.

>

>>>> In September 1939, when Germany started the war, it had no just claim to any
>>>> more territory.

>

>>>It had a just claim to the Polish Corridor, which was very new and
>>>split Germany in two.

>

>>>But the Palestinians who fight Israel do have a just claim

>>>> to territory. We can argue what it is; we can argue about the justness of
>>>> their military tactics, and so on. And the same for the Israeli side, which
>>>> is equally arguable.

>

>>>> The step that must be taken now is for the two sides to talk, so that they
>>>> can make a deal that both will accept, and that each side will enforce
>>>> against its radical elements. In that context, to continually bring up
>>>> Hitler, the Nazis, the Munich Conference and continually use the word
>>>> “appeasement,” is wrong.

>

>>>The rules of "appeasement" are complex, and by that I mean utterly
>>>hypocritical and not bound by logic.

>

>>>Allowing Austria and Germany to unite, according to the wishes of the
>>>majority of the populations: appeasement.

>

>>>Allowing half of Europe to be ruled by Stalin, against their wishes:
>>>not appeasement.

>

>>>Allowing Saddam Hussein to submit to rigorous inspections of his
>>>palaces with the aim of finding non-existent WMDs: appeasement.

>

>>>Giving masses of US tax-payers money to Pakistan (which has existent
>>>nuclear weapons): not appeasement.

>

>>>Etc........

>

>> Without regard to the complexity and nuances of appeasement; neither
>> agreeing nor disagreeing with the above examples; I prefer Churchill's
>> appeasement definition about feeding the crocodile..........

>

>> FACE- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> I don't think the shudder at the word "appeasement"
> is dying out with the passing of the WWII generation.