> On May 16, 9:18 pm, Ariadne gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> 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.

>
> If Dolphy had invaded Britain, you would all be speaking Kraut, but at
> least the BNP would be happy to see all those pasty skinned Brits
> scurrying around and not the Wogs!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -