Analogies
This Richard Cohen column reads almost like a joke. It's 1938! It's 1938! Appeasement! Appeasement! Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, at a minimum, pull this schtick off with a certain rhetorical flair. Cohen doesn't even seem to be paying attention. In-depth diavlogging discussion of the use and abuse of historical analogies here.
In general, I'm against these kinds of analogies. Marx and Hegel aside history does not, in fact, repeat. Analogies to 1938 are especially pernicious. Adolf Hitler is, obviously, a very noteworthy historical figure and WWII a noteworthy period in world history. This is precisely because the things that happened during them time were extreme, weird, and largely unprecedented they idea that they're constantly recurring or likely to recur is odd.
at this point, virtually all richard cohen columns read almost like a joke. i still don't understand why publishes think op-ed pundits deserve tenure.
August 22, 2006 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
wow, that cohen column was about as slapdash as these things come. it's probably worth noting, however, that there isn't a single european government who doesn't understand what's at stake. cohen seems to think they just want to walk away from all this and not worry their pretty heads about it. far from it, they want to avoid war, and one of the ways to do so is to not start one. given the limited military strength of the middle east's various roleplayers, what cohen here calls appeasement isn't such a terrible idea. you know, not going to war because the threat to our own territory and peoples is far more limited than what germany was plainly capable of. the threat to israel's territorial integrity remains marginal so long as the threat of overwhelming force from elsewhere remains, something that was most certainly not in place opposite the Nazis. an all-out frontline war in the middle east would be fought entirely on the territory of our opponents, save for the missiles lobbed at us. i should hope cohen is aware that the US, not to mention other interested parties, has military encircling the region already and that the populations and armies he seems to worried about are, in fact, very far from being able to march on us or our allies for the combined reason that they don't have the military strength and, aside from proximity to israel, they're geographically hemmed in.
whatevs. these people are alarmist retards.
August 22, 2006 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is precisely because the things that happened during them time were extreme, weird, and largely unprecedented"
I agree entirely that the original VW Beetle was all 3 of those things.
"the idea that they're constantly recurring or likely to recur is odd."
But the introduction of the "New Beetle" a few years ago is proof positive that they can recur.
August 22, 2006 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
History doesn't repeat itself, humans repeat the mistakes of the past.
I don't remember it exactly, but in one of the Star Trek novels, Dr. McCoy says something like
Bush was supposedly a history major in collej, and I bet he can't fully enjoy all his mistakes, either.
Bushco delenda est
August 22, 2006 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been thinking about the Chamberlain appeasement canard. If you're going to make the analogy (and really, who can resist someone who was so clearly wrong about Hitler), you've got to come at it from the other end. The conservative PM, Chamberlain, met naked aggression with a peace accord that sold some folks out. Bad call. In Iraq, who exactly is the aggressor again? Unless I missed it where Iraq attacked us, that makes us the occupying army of the Czechoslovakia. So in this analogy, we’re the Germans (sans concentration camps). Who’s Neville? PM Tony Blair? Without England’s support, we probably would not have gone in. So maybe this would make the Democrats the opposition party to the Nazis. Yes?
What’s that? This is a stupid analogy? I think so too. Anyway you slice it.
Terrorism has always been a job for the police and intelligence communities. There is no opportunity for appeasement. In fact, the closest we came to appeasement was when Bush removed our military from Saudi Arabia at Bin Laden’s request.
August 22, 2006 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The dismissal of Cohen's column suggests just how unserious Matt, and your cohorts are. It is not that history repeats itself. It never does exactly. Although it was interesting to see how many of the denizens of TPMCafe chose 1914 as the more congenial historical analogy.
One does not have to see Hilter, Mussolini and Stalin around every corner to recognize that the world of Bin Laden and Nasrallah funded by high oil prices and backed by various Middle Eastern coutries is very dangerous and despite the juvenile attitudes of some are not going to be content with wiping out Israel and then settign up a peaceful world.
Cohen's analogy to 1938 could have gone back to Yugoslavia. The Europeans despite the EU could not cope with genocidal wars on its own contientent without Americas help. However, unlike the 1990s we now have Bush incompetent and apparently unable to learn bogged down in Iraq.
Perhaps Europe will put a robust force in Lebanon but I would not count of it. Will the U.S. and the Gulf States put up enough money to rebuild Lebanon as directed by the government of Lebanon? I doubt that too.
It is nice to correctly say that history does not repeat itself. It is juvenile not to recognize that trends that arose with the end of WWI are still at play. It is unbelevable that so many at TPMCafe believe that Sunni Arabs (about 85% of Islamic World) and Shiia Muslims (largely Persians) both who have been relatively powerless for hundreds of years and who reject the very notion of a liberal society can be dealth with by platitudes and blaming the lefts traditional bad guys America and the Jews.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
August 22, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am always struck by those who decide to quote Niall Ferguson. While a charmer, Ferguson says things that make me cringe when he prescribes American imperialism. But here Cohen still gets it wrong.
Cohen's effort to draw an analogy between Niall Ferguson's 1938 fails not due to "absence of FDR" but precisely the opposite: and altogether too present U.S. military in Iraq. As if that were not sufficient, there is also increased U.S. meddling in the Israel- Lebanon conflict.
If Cohen's point is that we are on the brink of major war in the Middle East then it doesn't much matter whether his analogy holds. What we are then left with is Niall Ferguson's ringing words to the effect that America is an empire, all it needs to do is acknowledge the fact.
Then we go to war, anyway?
August 22, 2006 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy cow... this Cohen piece is riddled with errors and baseless assumptions.
1. "The events in the Middle East are often compared to 1914 and the start of World War I." Often? I'd be interested to find one person who's made that comparison.
2. "In the end [of WW1], millions died and the world was utterly changed." Erm... Weimar Republic anyone? End of the Ottoman Empire (including creation of, er, Iraq...)?
3. Comparison with 1938 begins with a point about a multinational force being inserted into Lebanon. Remind me which multinational force was keeping tabs on Hitler? That's right, there wasn't one.
4. "Command structure, though, was not nearly the whole problem in the Balkans." Strawman nonsense. Problem in the Balkans (as was the case in Rwanda) was an inadequate force with too limited a mandate.
5. "Maybe the French and other Europeans have just plain lost the political will." cf. Point above. Concerns over mandate. No country wants to go into Lebanon unless there's a plan to disarm Hezbollah (there isn't), because no-one wants to carry the blame if Hezbollah doesn't disarm (they won't - under optimal conditions, the IRA took over 5 years to disarm, and may not yet be finished).
6. "This inability of Europe to get its act together is what suggests 1938." Laughable. The short history of Europe is a history of rivalries, not co-operation. Countries have rarely gotten along for very long. Jeez, even during the Cold War, France was a regular member of the awkward squad.
7. "Europe without American leadership is a mere tourist destination." We should deal with our lack of leadership before we start pointing fingers at a disparate group of nations.
8. "...England, pathetically, was not up to the job. Now, by default, the leadership of Europe has slipped to France." The constant referral to "England" is ridiculous. It's the United Kingdom, you bozo (UK or Britain is acceptable shorthand). France's leverage comes from two factors (1) it is the only other European nation on the Security Council; (2) Britain f*cked itself by punting on King George and his Iraq War.
I guess the lesson from this is don't bother reading Richard Cohen... you'll get a crappy history tutorial and all you have confirmed is that Iraq is a monumental f*ck*p.
August 22, 2006 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect - anyone who states that the "lefts [sic] traditional bad guys America and the Jews" is not serious about dialogue. Do you have enough paint for that broad brush?
I'm sick of hearing about how I hate my country. I'm sick of being painted as an anti-semite if I don't rah! rah! Israel at every turn. It's insulting and anti-American in the extreme.
August 22, 2006 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I didn't think the Cohen column was bad. Usually, I find him ridiculous.
But, Matt, as a landsman (fellow Jew), you understand that there is something deep in our genes that makes some of us become paranoid old Jews once we hit a certain age.
It's true. People born in Beloit, Wisconsin or Helena, Arkansas sudenly develop Yiddish accents, worry about Israel all day, go to shul daily , and -- in the case of journalists (see Rosenthal, AM; Safire, William; Zuckerman, Morton) lose both their ability to write and to address any other question except "is it good for the Jews" and "how is this like the Munich agreement."
You and Josh are pretty young so you are fine. I'm older and could slip into Ed Koch land at anytime.
So I simply ask that you be charitable.
Caveat. Krauthammer does not have this malady. He is the same bigoted paranoid warmonger he was 20 years ago. Very sharp, although not in a good way. David Brooks on the other hand does seem to have judea dementia praecox, Big time.
August 22, 2006 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
While you are right on all counts, just notice what an unbelievable cock-up the mindless and utterly predictable Israel-does-no-wrong crowd have made for the Israelis. Their utter domination of the political debate here and the lack of even another perspective in the press and among politicians and the one-sidedness of their tribal viewpoint has created politics in this country which prevents the US from functionning as an honest broker (which might in fact help settle the Middle East problems). Instead Israel, screwed in Lebanon by the ferocity of the Hezbollah resistance, needs to depend on the hated Europeans (anti-semites all of them) who take a somewhat less one-sided view. In fact, the AIPAC/neocon crowd with their blind, mindless followers have weakened Israel itself both militarily, and diplomatically and caused great hardship in Israel itself (to leave aside for the moment the still greater misery and enmity it has created on the other side). While we on the left continue to press for negotiations and conciliation, the neocon crowd and the Greenbaums are determined to create more war and suffering for Israel and the rest of the Middle East. What they will achieve is a Netanyahu government and if that doesn't kill enough people then...
August 22, 2006 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think ridiculous is the right word.
August 22, 2006 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
“We can all sense war coming and a kind of crazy chronology forming like storm clouds for all to see ... “ says Cohen in his article. He uses reference to Chamberlain’s appeasement, which was an abysmal failure, as an implied suggestion that we should not negotiate. This seems to me an attempt to bolster Bush’s position and, from what I am reading elsewhere, Cheney’s and the Neocons desire to have war with Iran and Syria. It seems obvious that is Cohen's purpose when he says, “When George Bush used the term "Islamic fascists," he had a point.” What point, he doesn’t explain; sound to me like defense of an ad hominem attack. Evidence that the Bush Administration doesn’t want to negotiate? On Monday (8/21) asked whether it was time to speak with Hezbollah, Tehran, and Damascus regarding Lebanon, Bolton bluntly replied, “No”.
Negotiation is not appeasment. I fear that this Administration's refusal to negotiate may make Cohen right in his prediction that war is coming. We can see the storm clouds gathering, just not the same ones at which he is looking.
August 22, 2006 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
As one who has stuck up for Richard Cohen for what I think are some of the best anti-Iraq war columns among any of the widely syndicated MSM pundits (he was against it after he was for it), I have to say this was simply a really bad column. Period.
August 22, 2006 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Satori! How about this frame: saying that our foreign policy is misguided and (perhaps also saying that it is immoral) does not show hatred of American anymore than diatribes against Chamberlain show a hatred of the United Kingdom.
Let us also notice that criticising Hitler in 1938 was not in any way proving a hatred of Germany.
Criticising is much, much more frequent than hatred.
The Chamberlain analogies ignore so rather basic facts.
1. Whatever Hezbollah says, and however rich their patron is, their military potential is minuscule outside the area where they have build their bunkers. The ability of kidnapping 2 soldiers is not exactly projecting force that can anihilate the State of Israel. One thing that made Hitler our of Hitler is that Germany was more powerful than any other country in Europe.
2. The second thing that made Hitler out of Hitler was that not only his ideology was very bad, but his conduct was very bad. During the last military campaign one can find bad acts committed by Israel and by Hezbollah. Under what metric the conduct of Hezbollah was worse? Is it a serious moral criterion, or something invented specifically to compare Israel with her adversaries? And if USA is loathed, is it somewhat related to our loathsome conduct or "they hate it for our freedom".
3. The last point about invoking 1938 is that it is utterly mindless unless one can describe what was a correct thing to do back then. In particular, should all negotiations with Germany be interrupted and a war started that would last until the total eradication of the Nazi party in Germany? Or some aliance should be formed that would contain Germany in a somewhat limited zone of influence (without Czechoslovakia, of course)? or something else? You know, even in 1938 "resolve" was not the whole answer.
August 22, 2006 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richard Cohen wrote that after Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon the attacks by Hezbollah killed 901 Israelis. As Matt chacked, this is a tremendous lie or tremendous sloppiness. That alone shows that Cohen is either a propagandist not worth serious discussions (just rebuttals to keep the record straight) or a cretin. The latter case would offer some hope (sometimes cretinism is not congenital but transient.)
August 22, 2006 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an historian-in-training I disdain the notion that historical analogies reveal fundamental truths about human behavior. Cohen's column is an example of one of those reasons.
Anyone out there familiar with Michael Oakeshott's conception of history and historical knowledge?
August 22, 2006 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"what cohen here calls appeasement isn't such a terrible idea. you know, not going to war because the threat to our own territory and peoples is far more limited than what germany was plainly capable of."
I'm not agreeing with Cohen but I do disagree with the above. The world is so dependent on ME oil that there is a there is a "threat to our own territory and peoples."
August 22, 2006 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel G, you referred to "...blaming the lefts traditional bad guys America and the Jews."
Dan, I disagree.
Do you have any evidence of, say, whether "the left" historically has blamed Jews more than "the right"?
I am not referring to Bush/Cheney years as US ME policy and policy towards Israel has been crackpot extreme--and let us hope, an anomaly--compared to what it has been under all presidents going back through the Eisenhower years, at least. I also reject the view that critics of the Bush/Cheney Israel and ME policies are, on that account alone, in any way "anti-Israel." With "friends" like Bush and Cheney, Israel hardly needs enemies.
Groups such as the KKK and LaRouchies form part of the fringe political right. Pat Buchanan has identified himself with the right. I am aware of no anti-Jewish group that identifies with the political left.
When it comes to "blaming America first" you seem to be in agreement with Jeanne Kirkpatrick's formulation at the 1984 Republican convention, although you have forgotten to add that San Francisco has a lot of Democrats and that the 1984 Democratic convention was actually held there.
In recent times, those Americans who have been willing to hold up a mirror and contemplate the possibility that the United States may not be entirely God's gift to the world mostly identify themselves as coming from the political left. But here, part of what we see are disagreements as to the definition of patriotism and the role and value of criticism in a democracy.
The current GOP's MO consists of politicizing such efforts with wild accusations of lack of patriotism and "hating America", "appeasing enemies", etc., etc. Do you agree?
Some of the criticism leveled against the US by US citizens is expressed in a way that is over the top and ugly. Some of it is simply off base. But one of the great things about our country is that we have opportunity to correct our mistakes. We have little opportunity to correct our mistakes to the extent we have, through a form of self-censorship, lost the ability to both imagine and express out loud that we have done so.
One thing the Republicans tend to do which is politically smart: direct their criticisms at those who hold such views, rather than at our country. It plays a hell of a lot better, and not just in Peoria.
August 22, 2006 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right, kids! It's time for yet another episode of
BAD ANALOGY THEATRE!
Tonight, Bad Analogy Theatre presents our exciting new national security pundit mad-libs game. Just copy and paste the boilerplate text, fill in the blanks with one of the variable words or phrases, and post to your blog or Washington Post op/ed column. Mix and match to add variety! Perfect for any international crisis or election-year pseudo-crisis and suitable for all ages.
The dark clouds looming over the Middle East are reminiscent of the year __1__, when the peace-loving people of __2__ faced a grave threat from teeming hordes of vicious __3__ who hated freedom. As history clearly shows, one must confront such evil madmen as __4__ with military force. Once again, there are some weak and foolish people, like __5__, who want to negotiate with our enemies just like __6__ did. This just goes to show that __7__.
1. (a) 1938
(b) 1948
(c) 1968
(d) 330 BC
2. (a) Western Europe
(b) Southeast Asia
(c) The Oklahoma Panhandle
(d) South Africa
3. (a) Communists
(b) Fascists
(c) Communo-fascists
(d) Cylons
4. (a) Hitler
(b) Ho Chi Minh
(c) Attila the Hun
(d) Gorbachev
5. (a) Howard Dean
(b) Ned Lamont
(c) John Murtha
(d) George Will
6. (a) Neville Chamberlain
(b) George McGovern
(c) Ronald Reagan
(d) Gandhi
7. (a) Liberals are unserious about defending us from terrorism.
(b) Liberals will never ever win any elections ever.
(c) Liberals are all, like, totally gay.
(d) Liberals hate America.
August 22, 2006 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Niall Ferguson is an economic historian by training. Based upon my reading of one of his books (Colossus), Ferguson appears to have nearly unlimited faith in the idea of economic freedom being a necessary prequisite to political freedom. This assumption guides Ferguson's thesis that a liberal empire managed by a benevolent power is something we ought to embrace, rather than dismiss (to create the necessary economic infrastructure). Ferguson's model is the British Empire, obviously, which presided over an era of (relative) peace. Ferguson's fondness for the Pax Britannica seems concordant with other British thinkers (Burke and Hobbes come to mind) whose greatest fear was civil disorder. The stability that comes with overwhelming authority is infinitely preferable to chaos.
And who would entirely disagree? The issue I take with Cohen's column is that it assumes chaos in the Middle East is right around the corner and we need a power broker to establish order in the region (like the British had done previosuly). Is Cohen advocating that the United States take on this role? I don't see anything inherently wrong with that assessment other than the glaring reality that we can't and we won't because of the man in the White House (which Cohen points out). Bush has hobbled the ability of the US military to act in the capacity envisioned by Ferguson and lacks the qualities of leadership and wisdom to steward an imperial project. Shockingly, even his advisors--notably the impotent Dr. Rice--are unable to use the once-considerable leverage of the United States to use either carrots or sticks to achieve any sort of results--if they even had a plan to begin with.
Thus we are left with Cohen's dire warnings that, left unchecked, the Middle East is going to come to resemble Central-Eastern Europe on the eve of the Second World War with...who's Hitler in this analogy? Hezzbolah? I can't help but think that these people don't know a goddamn thing about history and I wonder what compels them to think they can pontificate about world affairs in such a superficial way. A shocking lack of original thinking for sure.
August 22, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
All historical analogies are weak. But if analogies are of no value then learning history has no value either. Cohen says that 1938 is "instructive" and I think that's fair. But that's all trivial.
But the central problem is that the Islamists and Syria will not give up their goal of destroying the nation of Israel, and something must be done about that. And the Islamists in particular will not give up their goal of bringing down Western civilization, or at least Islamicizing it. And something must be done about that too.
The Terror War by Islamic radicals has merged with the Arab-Israeli dispute. Maybe it was always one and the same.
The development of nuclear technology by the suicide cult leading Iran puts a timetable on things that means we cannot simply wait for the current leadership to die off.
Understanding the Middle East through the lens of George W Bush is simply failing to understand the Middle East.
The ideas of "Appeasement", of giving territory away without a peace treaty, of endless negotiations, look more and more like a dangerous path. In this respect the analogy to 1938 has some teeth. 1938 is seen as a time when the UK chose the short-term comfortable solution over the harder path, to it's eventual regret, and I (and Cohen) believe that the same temptation faces us today.
The problems with the Cohen column are trivial by comparison with the real problems in the Middle East. And they were not created by George W Bush.
If Matt Y or somebody has a real argument that there is something we can afford give to Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, and Hamas that will stop the conflict then that would be a real contribution. Show us how appeasing them will really work. But tooting of about analogies and the Cohen column are not exactly helpful.
To be clear, it's Matt's blog, and if he wants to write about analogies, similes or even the relationship between gerunds and adverbs, he has the right. But that's not why we read his blog.
August 22, 2006 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Traditionally, the right has been much more nationalist (sometimes sliding into fascism) than the left, while the left has always been more internationalist. This is still true today and not just in America.
The idea that someone is a better person simply by virtue of having been born in country XYZ doesn't jive with the leftist world view, which tends to be egalitarian.
In other words, it's not surprising that the left is more willing to look into the mirror with a critical eye.
August 22, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure which is a sorrier sight the continual moaning of the neo-cons over the failure of their plans for empire, or the rest of us paying any attention to their keening.
Let's get this straight Kristol, and company have been wrong about everything for the past 20 years. They promoted the wrong foreign policies which has led to the US losing every war it has engaged in since WWII. They promoted the wrong industrial policies which have led to the decimation of the US's industrial base, a rise in the idle rich and a decline in the standard of living for the backbone of our society.
They promoted policies to eliminate social programs and have been stymied at every turn. Medicare and Medicaid have expanded as have a number of programs for early childhood intervention and education.
So tell me again why are we discussing what they have to say? There still is a flat earth society, but I don't see Matt and others spending time on their latest pronouncements.
Let's declare the war of words over. We won. Now let's harness all that creativity and brain power and start to discuss meaningful plans to improve the planet.
These people don't have any influence on policy, they are just used as academic window dressing when the plutarchs in power need some intellectual cover for their self-serving agenda.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
August 22, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same "suicide cult" that is in fact years from developing nuclear weapons.
The same "suicide cult" that is going to lose power to an increasingly dissatisfied young population, if Cheney et al do not send them fleeing into the arms of their leaders.
Neocon bullshit.
August 22, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
RogerGathman
Analogies have to be controlled, at the very least, for scale and scope. There is nothing on the horizon remotely like the combination of Germany and Japan in the 30s. A better analogy would be with Lilliput.
Rather than appeasement being the problem, the problem is in the degree of vulnerability acceptable to Israel in the Middle East. There is no invulnerable nation in the whole of the Middle East, and if Israel's policy is to become completely invulnerable, then it is headed towards economic and military disaster. After all, if Lebanon gave invulnerability the same prominence, they would be well advised to buy long range missiles from whoever is selling them.
Appeasement, or detente, is actually the only answer to the twin problems in the Middle East for the U.S. -- how to get the troops out of Iraq and how to give Israel enough of a degree of security that it isn't hyperaggressive while at the same time enforcing UN resolutions and getting Israel out of the West Bank. Detente would mean re-establishing relations with Iran, making Israel become a signatory to the same nuclear non-proliferation treaty that is being used to judge Iran, and making Iran pledge some kind of non-interference in the process of West Bank devolution. No American interest is served by pretending that Iran cannot be recognized, or by the continual, futile effort to curtail its influence absolutely. Just as detente with China came out of the Vietnam debacle, and moderated the aftershocks for American interest, detente with Iran would have the same effect. Now, there's an analogy for ya!
August 22, 2006 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
roger, I agree with much of what you say.
It isn't appeasement or detente, however, to withdraw troops now trapped in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, when there are no grounds for confidence the Administration has a viable plan for how to end it and many grounds for believing it has no clue how to do that.
Apart from its inaccuracy in this context, the word "appeasement" has such connotations of weakness and lack of resolve that I hope Democrats avoid using it in describing what policies we are for.
August 22, 2006 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm sick of being painted as an anti-semite if I don't rah! rah! Israel at every turn." Mona Charen, a columnist (and a Jew) over at the "National Review" is calling American Jews "stubborn and downright stupid" because they "despise George W. Bush and will donate time and money to any Democrat in 2008, while Bush is indisputably the most pro-Israel president in the history of the United States." So I guess if you're not pro-Israel (which you aren't apparently if you're not pro-Bush) and a Jew you're just "stupid and stubborn" but if you're not pro-Israel (and not a Jew) you're anti-semitic? Rather makes the term anti-semitic racist, doesn't it?
August 22, 2006 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, want a Hitler analogy? It's not 1938 but earlier, and the ascent of a man perceived in his own land as an extremist nutcase threatening a democratic Germany is by no means assured. We spot a growing criminal faction. So what do we do? We could be working on building the German economy and stabilizing the Weimar Republic. But instead we scream "No appeasement! No negotiating with terrorists!" And we level Berlin.
Hitler actually comes to power five years sooner, with the support of most neighboring states. We never can save Europe from him. Twenty years later, with England isolated and in economic decline, Churchill is cursing not Chamberlain but us.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
August 22, 2006 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
For now we are dependent, and so are the suppliers.
We embargoed Germany and Japan's oil and it didn't slow them down a lot. Mainly it caused Japan to attack us.
August 22, 2006 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
History doesn't repeat itself?
That is a very presumptuous statement considering the U.S. debacle in Iraq mirrors what happened to British colonial forces there in 1915.
Around the time of the stalemate at Gallipoli the British forces marched on Baghdad but were completely stymied by the Jihadists who put up an unexpectedly fierce resistance.
Sound familiar?
Check out this link. Very interesting.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/ctesiphon.htm
August 22, 2006 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed that selling out Czechoslovakia was a low and dishonorable thing to do, but it's hard to see that history would have been that much different had Chamberlain and the French told Hitler No at Munich. In that alternate universe the Germans simply marched into the Sudetenland on their own say-so, and there was not a thing the British or French could do to stop them, no more than they were able to stop the Nazis from taking Poland a year later. So WWII started in 1938 not 1939, but pretty much played out the same. A longer "phony war" while Hitler made arrangements with the Soviets to divide up Poland as well, and then went after Denmark and Norway, then the invasion of France, and etc.
There was never a possibility that Hitler would back down. War as inevitable no matter what happened at Munich.
August 22, 2006 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
RogerGathman
American dreamer -- I agree with you about withdrawal - Murtha's suggestion of withdrawing to Kuwait has obviously, in retrospect, been borne out to the t by events in Iraq showing the irrelevance, at best, of U.S. troops. However, I think that, a., that isn't going to happen under Bush, and b., that a change in seeing the whole region and how we deal with it is necessary to ensure that troops aren't sent into the ME again - or that the pressure brought by the perpetual war gang in D.C. doesn't gain political traction. I think tempering the automatic hate sessions that seem to get started around this topic by enacting real diplomacy would be a great way to pre-empt the war gang.
As for how the Dems phrase it, well, I don't think we have to bear the burden of Democratic strategy every time we write a comment! I'd just call it, I don't know, common sense?
August 22, 2006 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking about any real actions being taken by concrete groups of individuals?
Who are "the Islamists" of which you speak?
Al Queda, Hezbollah, Al Dawa, Hammas, (some of the many groups that could be described as "Islamists", which also include classes in Islamic morality being taught to women in the Mosques of Cairo, and any number of other community organizations) all have different goals, and it is not at all clear that they are acting in concert, or view themselves as being part of a unified movement.
Indeed, the groups with the strongest relationship (at least geneologically) would seem to be Al Dawa and Hezbollah, who were both fostered by Iran durring the 1980s. While Hezbollah is fighting Israel, Al Dawa is part of the US backed government in Iraq.
And do they all want to destroy America, Israel and "The West"? I don't think that Hammas and Hezbollah are trying to destroy "the West". And beyond some violence along the border, Hezbollah doesn't seem to be trying to destroy Israel much either. I'm not saying that they haven't attacked Israel, but a much stronger case could be made that Israel is trying to destoy Lebanon.
Who is trying to force Islam on the West and how? I'm not saying that people you could describe as "Islamists" aren't bombing places that you could call "the west". But overgeneralizations on the scale that you're working with are more condusive to promoting hysterics than understanding.
August 22, 2006 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. There are some possible parallels that could be drawn between then and now, between foes with similar authoritarian tendencies and implacable ruthlessness. And between our own foolishness, fecklessness and dithering as the forces of conflict are encouraged by our own flaws to dream more ambitious goals.--And between the endless search for war profits that drive us all, seemingly mindlessly, into one conflict after another, generation upon generation, each one leaving the seeds of the next.
The issue to me doesn't seem to be about whether or not the Jihadist wants to destroy us and all we -- to him -- represent. "Journey of the Jihadist" by Gerges pretty much makes it clear that those dudes are basically not going to stop until we're dead, or they are. They despise what we are and their hatred is based on fundamentally irreconcilable world views. That they are a minority in the Islamic world, though, is a point of hope that this all can be yet saved.
The issue ahead is not so much as whether we'll be fighting these guys on multiple fronts, but whether the tactics, goals and values we project make it easier for them to defeat us or not.
August 22, 2006 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who would entirely disagree?
Well, as far as the British Empire is concerned, you might try a few chapters of Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts for a clue.
August 22, 2006 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty simple, really. Either it's 1938 or most of the punditburo eventually has to admit they were stupid. And you know how that turns out, right?
August 22, 2006 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue is power. Do the jihadists actually have sufficient power to present a serious threat to our civilization? Seems to me the answer is simply No. The people who are screaming about WWIII have an agenda, and telling the truth is not part of it.
August 22, 2006 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg, there are similarities. But there are also substantial differences. Which is why I conceptualize history as, not a circle, but a slinky. There are definite themes and resonances, which you rightly pick up. Yet enough other stuff has changed that there are no exact repetitions.
N.B.: I'm not saying that what's happened in Iraq wasn't totally predictable.
PSA: There is a Users' Help Forum.
August 22, 2006 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it might be more accurate to state that the Anglo-Indian expeditionary force, subject as it was to a perilously lengthy supply line, was defeated by the Ottoman/Turkish Fifth Army under the operational command of Baron von der Goltz.
While there were some Swamp Arab irregulars sniping at the defeated army during its retreat to Basra, there wouldn't appear to be any jihadi activity involved in the battle or thereafter.
August 22, 2006 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, Muslims generally regard resistance to an invasion by non-Muslims as jihad. The distinction you make - that irregulars are jihadis and regulars aren't - is one I haven't seen before.
August 22, 2006 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always hard to say, of course, but Czechoslovakia's army was not inconsiderable (about 60% as large are Germany's at that time IIRC) and had the advantage of a fortress line in mountainous country. The Soviet Union was also willing to honor their mutual defense pack with Czech (and France!) at that date. Although the transit of the Soviet troops through Poland, which killed that idea, was clearly very risky for Poland, it is hard to see how the outcome could have been worse than what did happen.
sPh
August 23, 2006 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know whether or not you're technically correct (actually, I thought a jihadi depended upon a published fatwa of jihad and too, we've never referred to the 1991 Iraqi Army or to today's Iraqi insurgents as jihadis), but my point was that Gettysburg's analogy didn't support his implied criticism of the Bush-Cheney Iraq strategy.
The British lost only one campaign in Mesopotamia during WWI -- the 1915 Battle of Ctesiphon and that to a German Fieldmarshall commanding a modern army predominately composed of foreigners, that is, Turks. If the analogy held, we could expect the Bush-Cheney strategy to be successful -- not exactly Gettysburg's intention in mentioning the Battle of Ctesiphon.
August 23, 2006 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never heard the Ottoman army in World War I, under the command of German officers, described as "Jihadis" before. Nor, for that matter, are the armies of the Arab nations in the Arab-Israeli Wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 generally described as "Jihadis". Describing the Battle of Ctesiphon as a victory of "Jihadis" over British forces is distinctly misleading.
August 23, 2006 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Soviets would have declared war on the Germans if the Allies had done so, I think, in 1938. At least, that's what they were telling the Czechs. They wouldn't have been able to do much, though. But it might have resulted in a somewhat better initial situation. Perhaps no fall of France.
The German army in the west would have been a lot smaller than it was in 1939, but it seems unlikely the French would have actually used their opportunity to attack.
What might have happened, though, is that the military might have overthrown Hitler. Seems a thin reed to bank on, though.
At any rate, it's hard to say what would've happened because it was pretty blatantly obvious from the beginning that the British and French weren't willing to go to war in order to let Czechoslovakia retain the areas under its control that were poplated by Germans. Nobody much cared for Hitler, but I still think it's hard, from the perspective of someone in 1938, to see that it would be worth fighting a war to keep the Sudetenland under Czech control. The Sudeten Germans had made it abundantly clear that they wanted to be part of Germany.
Beyond that, i see no reason why we should assume that Chamberlain, Daladier, et al knew what was going to happen. Sure, Hitler might be lying when he said the Sudetenland was his last territorial demand. But he might not be, and if there's any chance of preserving peace, isn't it worth taking? Especially given that French and British rearmament wasn't complete, and they thought, at least, that another year would put them in a better position to fight the Germans, if it came to it. There was much to be gained from trying to see if appeasement would work, and little to be lost, save some dignity, and, well, the Czechs' right to rule over a bunch of Nazi sympathizers. And if fighting is going to happen, the Soviets will always be around to bear the brunt of it - after all, there's no way they can ever cut a deal with the Nazis.
Of course, all the assumptions they made turned out to be wrong, and it's at least arguable that the French and British would have been better off fighting in 1938. But they didn't have the advantage of hindsight, and it's unfair to judge them on the basis of that hindsight.
So I'm going to come to the unpopular position that, looking at things without benefit of hindsight, appeasement would appear to be the right thing to do. Chamberlain style appeasement, I think, was not - Chamberlain held out a lot more hope for appeasement than I think was warranted. But a cautious, pessimistic appeasement of the sort advocated by Halifax or Daladier seems definitely justifiable, and was probably a more realistic position than Churchill's, which, if you actually try to read up on the specifics, didn't make any sense whatsoever.
In essence, the problem with appeasement isn't that appeasement is evil. It's that in this instance, it didn't work, because Hitler did not want to be appeased. It usually does work, and most leaders aren't Hitler. That doesn't necessarily mean appeasement is the best option in most situations, but it does mean that the comparison with 1938 is almost always a bad one.
August 23, 2006 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Soviets would have declared war on the Germans . . . .
Something I'd never heard -- not as crazy as it first appears -- and very interesting.
In 1941 Stalin was deathly afraid of Hitler and the Wehrmacht, but that was after seeing blitzkrieg in Poland and France. But in 1938, not knowing what Germany's stength was and covetous of lands in Poland, Stalin might well have been willing to go to war with Nazi Germany.
Have you got any links to pages discussing this claim?
August 23, 2006 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question of Poland shows the importance of lesser factors. Polish government at that moment got a moronic idea that it can gain on the partition of Czechoslovakia: Poland got 1/2 of a town with a little district (the other half was already Polish, the other had Polish majority), and the grand total of two small villages on the border with Slovakia, and a non-aggression pact with Germany that was worth even less than aforementioned villages.
On one hand, Polish government was paranoid of Soviets, but on the other, aliance with France and Britain was its paramout principle. With somewhat more resolute stand, Britain and France could perhaps convince Poland to allow Soviet units to cross Polish territory -- it would be a territory that Soviet Ukraine regarded as Ukrainian (well, it had Ukrainian majority). On the second though, it could be simpler if Britain and France sent their own units to Czechoslovakia and convice Poland to be in aliance without help of Stalin.
The important thing to remember is that Central-East Europe was a mess, full of mutual animosities, irredentist minorities, autoritarian regimes etc. It was not particularly clear that one could form a coherent anti-Nazi aliance.
A question to our philosopher/thread starter: how are Hegel and Marx connected with the idea that history repeats itself? Marx, rather famously, said that "history repeats itself as a farce". Following Marx, we would think that the contemporary Hitler-wanna-be are more comical than tragic. I have no idea what Hegel would say -- Zeitgeist was directional (progress!) rather than periodic, if I recall.
August 23, 2006 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's curtains for you Yglesias, curtains!
I don't claim to know if there is some diabolical plot for regional (no, world! world!) domination being hatched in the saunas and brothels of Tehran, or if Professor A. might be amenable to some kind of arrangement that doesn't involve the total annihilation of the Jews (which may be of special concern at some point to this hairy mischling), and the subsequent total annihilation of his own country, but it seems not such a bad idea for more Serious People (than just this one) to say aloud that one's chances of dying in a terrorist attack (state sponsored or no) are rather less than being struck by a stray Plymouth.
August 23, 2006 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich goes into this in some detail. It is of course impossible to say what a creature such as Stalin would have done, but in 1938 the Soviet Union at least expressed the possibility to France and Czechoslovakia that it would be willing to honor its post-WWI mutual defense pact with those two nations.
It wasn't until after Stalin saw at Munich what the Western powers were willing to do that he started negotiating the eventual non-aggression pact [sic] with Nazi Germany.
sPh
August 24, 2006 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arab rejectionism has a history of over 50 years and you'll have to look it up yourself. Start by reading the 'Hamas Charter'. Here's a a link. Nasrallah's constant references to Israel as a 'Temporary State'. The famous declaration of 'No negotiation, no recognition, no peace' of the Arab League. Interpret all that in light of the murder of Israel's Olympic atheletes and the murder of cripple Leon Klinghoffer just because he was a Jew. Rockets continued to rain on Israel from Gaza even after it gave up the territory.
As far as the Islamicization of the West, read Qutb or bin Laden or Nasrallah. Interpret that stuff in light of all the various terrorist attacks and the many decade history of the Iranian Ayatolla regime.
This is real war. It's not conventional war, but it's becoming a clash of civilizations. I don't think there's a lack of "Understanding" or problems of "Hysteria".
Sure there are lots of Muslims that want no part of Jihad. But the violence is immensely popular among the Arab and Persian masses.
Here's something to read that will shed some light on the problem: An article by Matthias Küntzel. Let me know what you think.
If you're right and there is no war then there billions of dollars to be saved and other problems to be dealt with. But I don't think you're right.
August 24, 2006 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's great that the Iranians made a statement about helping find the 9/11 plotters. How much help did they provide?
So, "Years" from now, when Iran has nukes, do you think they'll give a few to Hamas or Hezbollah? How about slipping some into an oil tanker? Do you really want to give them the chance?
Optimists have been wrongly predicting the fall of the Mullahs since they took over in 1979.
So your 3 points don't stand up too well. And I can't be a neocon because I'm not a conservative, new or old.
August 24, 2006 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where the 1938 analogy breaks down most severely is that nowadays the West is paying Iran and even Syria to foment a crisis. The hotter the crisis, the higher the price of oil, the more money Iran (and even Syria) makes. You would think that the free-enterprisers in the White House would have a better response to a market for trouble.
Most countries, especially Muslim countries, make trouble only in proportion to their oil wealth. This clearly applies to Venezuala, Iran and Saddam's Iraq. It for now does not apply to Indonesia and only somewhat to Saudi Arabia.
In 1938 the Axis was not financially supported by its enemies.
August 24, 2006 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But not for want of trying.
As Steven E. Lobell points out Britain's generous trade policy with Germany in the 1930s was part and parcel of its so-called appeasement policy and was intended "to strengthen conservative business, government officials, and economic circles in banking, light industry and finished goods, and even heavy industry in order to steer Tokyo and Berlin away from rearmament and extreme autarky."
August 24, 2006 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article that you link to makes some good points - a lot of commentators try to naturalize anti-sematism into the Middle Eastern landscape, and he correctly portrays it as a relatively recent European import. But when you look for any sort of historical context, it is lacking in a way that makes it pretty absurd.
What is missing there?
Why, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It only appears in mentioning the fact that Israel left. Why were there, and what did they do while passing through? Aparently that doesn't merit a mention.
That isn't to say that Israels invasion of Lebanon justifies Hezbollah's anti-semetic rhetoric. (The extent to which it justifies Hezbollah's violence against Israel can be debated, but suggesting that Lebanese should have ascented to Israeli occupation without resisting doesn't strike me as very realistic.)
But it is pretty poor history that discusses the rise of Hezbollah as a further development of some pan-Arab anti-semitism rather than a reaction by a specific group of people to a specific historic event.
Ditto with the absence of any context with Israel and the Palestinians. It states that Israeli policies don't have any relation to hatred of them - but that would seem to me to be a point to be proven, and not taken as true a priori. An attempt to account for the spread of anti-sematism in the Middle East that doesn't mention anything that Israel has done that has offended Arabs is just dishonest.
As for what you said in your post-
Klinghoffer's murder, while horrible, was -as I understand it- committed by a secular organization. So, what would it have to do with the Islamist threat?
And where is there a pan-Islamist threat to Western Civilization? Hammas and Hezbollah are not attacking the US. Al Dawa and SCIRI are our allies in Iraq. Al Queda is not attacking Israel. I don't see how you can lump them all together as a monolithic entity.
And as much as Bin Laden and Bush would like it to be, there isn't a clash of civilizations going on as far as I can see. I don't even know what that would even mean.
August 24, 2006 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt a year made that much difference in Stalin's attitude. He was bought off in 1939 with a big piece of Poland, and could have been bought off in 1938 with a piece of eastern Czechoslovakia to which Russia also had historic claims.
August 24, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: On the second though, it could be simpler if Britain and France sent their own units to Czechoslovakia and convice Poland to be in aliance without help of Stalin.
How were Britain and France to reinforce the Czechs? Look at a map of Europe: Czechoslovakia was even less accessible than Poland, which Britain and France were unable to help.
August 24, 2006 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem. They'd have purchased a few Bayern-Tickets (and they could have taken their children or grandchildren up to age 14 along for free).
August 24, 2006 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consider that we spoke of the USSR as illegitimate and evil for decades, threatened them with nukes supported a terrorist organizations actions against them in Afghanistan, yet we did not hand over nukes to the mujahideen.
The Chinese have been grumbling and making noises about Taiwan for decades, but no war.
Use a little common sense---Iran will act pretty much like every other state. It will protect its pride (and interests), and it will never give away its highest national achievement, should it succeed in making useful nukes. The mullahs aren't going away, but they are more likely a brake on an active executive than a cheering section.
August 25, 2006 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Phil T
Quite right: Analogies are viritually useless as to predictions, but favored by many since they seem to simplify a problem either too complex to comprehend themselves, or a problem they wish to resolve by convincing others of the value of their course of action.
The Bush Administration has made a fetish of using analogies, now picked up by some of the pundits, about comparisons between today and 1938 when Hitler was about to devour Europe. Earlier Iraq was suppose to lead to a post-1945 solution when Japan and Germany were turned into peace-loving democracies by our actions. The use of analogies by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney either denotes ignorance--probably the case with the president--or deliberate to advance their own agenda. In the case of the pundits, ignorance perhaps by a few, deliberate on the part of others, such as Krauthammer.
August 25, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink