The Mythology of Munich

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: delfairchild @ 06/16/2008 2:36:24 PM

    How can you say we lost in Vietnam? Look at Vietnam today and see how close they are to communism or how close they are to Capitalism. We won every battle. We only got out of there because the people at home had enough. The "war" was a police action, not a true war. We haven't been in a true war since WWII. Whenever we have to appease the country whose land we are fighting on, it is not a war.

    • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/16/2008 3:05:28 PM

      I like your last point. You are so right.

  • Posted By: jeff7915 @ 06/16/2008 9:36:17 AM

    Another daily pro-Nobama story from News"WEAK". I expect it from MediaSplatters , MoRon.org or from Keith Blowberman's daily rants. Anything Barry does is spun in his favor. There's a reason why the Iran hostages were released as soon as Reagan took office. The Iranians knew he would not be a total pushover like Jimmy "444" Carter. Talking may not be such a bad thing but you need to have some muscle to back it up. There's not much work for 135 pound bouncers at nightclubs and bars.

    • Posted By: Iamnotamused @ 06/16/2008 2:51:42 PM

      Actually Reagan didn't have anything to do with the release of the hostages. Carter did ALL of that on his own. Just that the time that they were released happened to coincide with Regan being sworn into office. His administration or the fact that he was elected, didn't have anything to do with it he's just given credit for it because he was in office.

  • Posted By: bambam @ 06/16/2008 12:19:40 PM

    The war in Iraq is just one small part of the much larger struggle wherein radical Islamists seek to force their religion upon the rest of the world. And THAT is a world-changing ambition worthy of any Hitler reference, and one that we must resist with by fighting to the bitter end. Speak softy, carry a big stick, and beat those who wish to kill or enslave us over the head with it please.

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/16/2008 12:27:02 PM

      I agree with you about this Bambam. I think that Obama agrees also. In addition, we as Americans need to make sure we don't forget the "speak softly" part, the diplomatic negotiations and international concensus building that Bush has failed to use.

      Lastly, let us not become like the radical Islamic nations. We can NOT allow the religious right to take over American politics. Separation of church and state is a necessary ingredient of real democracy., that's why the founding fathers wisely wrote it into the Constitution.

      • Posted By: abby_m @ 06/16/2008 2:15:19 PM

        Separation of church and state written into the Constitution? This is a common fallacy many have, and I bet you can't find show me where it says anything about the so-called "separation of church and state".

        The First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is specific to the legislature establishing or forbidding religious practice.

        • Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/16/2008 2:40:16 PM

          From Wikipedia: "The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept."

          When it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", this has *always* been understood to mean that one cannot mandate the practice of any one particular religion in our system of laws, as well as prohibiting the free expression of religion. Separation of church and state is not a "common fallacy". We have a REALLY bad fundamentalist Christian problem right now in America where many fundamentalists seem to want this to become an official Christian country - failing to recognize that our fundamentalist Christians are the exact counterparts of the jihadists who advocate holy war against America, and mostly can't be told apart from them in terms of intolerance or belligerence. No one seems to recognize that the vast majority of Muslims are kind, decent, hardworking people who care deeply for their families and don't take part in jihads, either.

          I hate to break it to you, ma'am, but you don't understand the First Amendment if you believe that writing any religious form into our governance is not a violation of it. And a stated belief in Christianity doesn't make somebody a moral person or a good one - that requires genuine compassion for others and, above all, *tolerance* of those who are different. I have nothing against Christianity whatsoever and try to follow many of the teachings of Christ - in particular, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", which is usually understood to mean that we have all sinned in one way or another and thus have no moral foundation to judge and scorn others.

          But this fundamentalist intolerance, whereby those who are different are judged, scorned, and marginalized, has got to go. It has as much to do with the true principles of Christianity as the Pharisees did to honest Judaism.

  • Posted By: bc.Indiana @ 06/16/2008 11:10:39 AM

    My mistake Churchill was indeed a Conservative. But the point stands that Churchill attacked Chamberlain, then benefitted from his policies.

    • Posted By: ChasP @ 06/16/2008 2:13:09 PM

      Your point, such as it is has no merit in fact or substance. The Premier in 1935 was Baldwin not Chaimberlain. Churchill criticised his (Baldwin's) policy as likely to lead to war because of neglecting to spend enough on air defence, that is not the same as accusing him of warmongering. Warmonger was the most frequent Tory insult used against Churchill. He supported Chaimberlain's belated increases in defence spending two years later. One of the few times that Churchill opposed defence spending was when he and Lloyd-George opposed the naval estimates in 1912. This led to an interesting compromise whereby the Admiralty wanted 6 battleships Churchill and Lloyd-George wanted 4 and they all settled for 8. (We subsequently won WW1)

  • Posted By: hayden23 @ 06/16/2008 1:40:12 PM

    It's fine if you support Obama, but stop pretending to be an objective journalist.

  • Posted By: bc.Indiana @ 06/16/2008 10:14:17 AM

    What people forget about Chamberlain is that in the mid 30's his government revitalized British war industry and specifically the British aircraft industry. During the critical Battle of Britain the "few" had fighter planes to fly because of Chamberlain's foresight. He struggled mightily for peace but also quietly prepared for war.

    So the question is: was he stalling for time? There is some serious reconsideration of Chamberlain being done by British historians.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/16/2008 12:21:47 PM

      Thats the beauty of history its always subject to reconsideration. I like Churchills take on history "History will be kind to me because I intend to write it."

  • Posted By: SmartSouthwest @ 06/16/2008 12:44:02 AM

    Take overs can be either abroad and home based. I support John McCain's strong stance on our relationship with Israel. I worry more about the very sudden news of the DNC moving headquarters to Chicago. They say Adolph Hitler's first tactical move was to divide the country, yet he claimed he wanted change and peace and for everyone to work together. Sound familiar? This decision to move the DNC to Chicago was not made overnight. This is a slick maneuver by a power hungry person with a self serving agenda. America beware! http://firstmention.com/hitler.aspx

    • Posted By: stholas @ 06/16/2008 11:53:16 AM

      A very selfish and irresponsible comment. What about the very Hitleresque mass hysteria and hatred towards a particlar religion that led to support for the war in Iraq in the first place? What about the propangandist nature of government that misled the people? Hitler preached hated and the propogation of a single super-race. Obama is preaching unity amongst people of all countries and races. How can you equate this to Hitler? Do you really have the greater good of humanity in mind? Selfish.

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/16/2008 1:14:53 AM

      The DNC moving it's main office to a central US city, the same city that the Democratic nominee is using for his main campaign headquarters is NORMAL.

      You must be really paranoid if you see a change of address as a form of Nazism. By the way, the headquarters of the American Nazi Party is in Arlington, Virginia, not in Chicago.

      Duh.

  • Posted By: fawltyoldboy @ 06/16/2008 11:32:52 AM

    What has become so apparent is the lack of respect and tolerance for other peoples political and idealogical views in America. A country that constantly feels the need to remind its populace that they live in the 'Freeest" place on earth, seems to be in need of a major reality check. Instead of having an endless stream of politicians proclaiming their opponents views as being symptomatic of 'Liberalsim/Radicalism/Racism/Conservatism/ Choose your own -ism flavor', our children should see that free debate and exchange of points-of-view can be conducted in a spirit of tolerance. That is not the case presently. What is needed at this point, from my perspective, is a President who can encourage his political supporters and opponents to work together, to set aside Party Ideology and focus on the multiple problems facing the economic future of this country. Forget the hatred and "smoke and mirror" tactics being used to blind people to the real issues.

  • Posted By: Mitty @ 06/16/2008 11:24:49 AM

    FDR was the patron saint of Stalin, Malenkov, & Beria. From the time Germany invaded Russia until FDR's death, the U.S. followed a path that must have been scripted by the Big Three.

    1. "The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II," by Thomas J. Fleming;

    2. "The Venona Secrets, Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors," by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel.

    www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/spies031303.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

  • Posted By: amicuspublilius @ 06/16/2008 10:23:16 AM

    All of this is great, but at the end of the day Americans know that Obama has a knee-jerk wussie reaction to national security. Talk all you want, Newsweek.

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/16/2008 11:21:39 AM

      For someone who choses a user name proclaiming love for mankind, you post falls rather short.

  • Posted By: wes1947 @ 06/16/2008 11:18:41 AM

    And you better look at the news photos of the iraqi leader and iran's leaders all smiles and hugs ! They all hate us plain and simple . The american people better start worrying more of home instead of poor lil Isreal . They're about as innocent as a snake ! Everytime they murder innocent children they swear to have an investigation ... no investigation ... no punishment ! No wonder the palestinians hate them ! Isreal has sucked the billions and blood from the U.S.A long enough ... oh yea ... we're paying huge for them standing back and letting our boys die instead of theirs . Let a few thousand jew boys die in Iraq for a change . No that'll never happen ... bush's lame excuse "the arabs will hate THEM if they fight " ... guess what they dispise them anyway . The arabs see them for what they are . Wake up .... I'm sick of hearing about that holocaust as a tear jerker from the jews ... get over it . That was almost 80 years ago and no excuse for us to do all the dying !

  • Posted By: amicuspublilius @ 06/16/2008 11:06:43 AM

    Churchill was a Conservative when he criticized Chamberlain (also a Conservative). Churchill was NEVER in the Labour party!

  • Posted By: wes1947 @ 06/16/2008 11:00:09 AM

    You have to be kidding ... bush .... another churchill ... I almost fell off my chair laughing !!!! That half witted idiot is more like another boob " MUSSILINI " . He went to the wrong country to kill the wrong people and slaughtered almost 5,000 of our elite troops ... maimed and crippled 12,000 more of them for nothing endangering US at all ! He and that gangster cheney ... and that's being nice ... have been the worse thing that happened to the U.S.A since Benedict Arnold . History will show he was a bumbling idiot who wrecked our economy ... crippled and slaughtered our military and made the U.S.A a joke to the world . Now idiots want to elect his clone " mc cain " . That feeble minded jerk can't even get straight who the enemy is ... keeps calling them by the wrong labels ... you want that brain dead moron with his finger on the nuclear trigger ?????????

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/15/2008 12:33:11 PM

    Answering the question, "What would Churchill do?", comparing him to Bush, first you would have to say that he would speak English, which Bush has yet to learn. It was always a comedy show to see Bush and Tony Blair standing side by side talking to the press. Bush would garble some unintelligible drivel, and Tony would ensue with, "What the president means is.....", and then make up an eloquent rescue speech for the occasion.
    Second, there is no way to figure what Churchill would do with our situation. There are far too many variables to even guess. He was a very well educated man with a high capacity to run a government, all the while extremely versed in ancient and modern history, as well as extensive intelligence on Germany's activities from the back doors of British Intelligence. Moreover, he had had extensive military experience in more than one war prior to becoming Prime Minister. None of these qualities ever existed in our president whose crowning achievement at Yale was leading cheers at sporting contests. Apparently they had canceled the English classes while he was there.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/16/2008 10:52:07 AM

      aren't you glad the British didn't give up on Churchil after his first defeat!

  • Posted By: bc.Indiana @ 06/16/2008 10:47:06 AM

    The absolute irony of this discussion is hilarious.

    Chamberlain, a Conservative, was accused of being a war monger by Churchill's Labor Party (that would be left wing socialist) in the 1935 election. Chamberlain's National Defence Contribution tax was used to finance the complete rebuilding of British industry which allowed full re armament in 1938. A full rearmament that allowed Churchill the leeway to be a hawk.

    Watching both sides on this current debate cherry pick from history only proves that partisan arguing has nothing to do with intelligent thought.

  • Posted By: robertkjjj @ 06/16/2008 10:35:48 AM

    Evan Thomas? You got to be kidding. This hyper-liberal is trying to give us lessons on what appeasement is and isn't? Look, this piece is well-written, and took a lot of work. But, it's obvious that Thomas believes in appeasment and simply cherry-picked events to fit his pre-formed agenda. This is just one long op-ed piece, and it's just flat-out wrong as well.

  • Posted By: Huachuca @ 06/16/2008 10:21:42 AM

    Golly Evan - did you study history in Iran? Or are you secretly in love with Mr. Peanut II?

  • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/16/2008 10:21:13 AM

    Not every dictator wants to take all of europe they only want to kill there own people so comparing them to Hitler is wrong. Think about that and then come back and argue appeasement one more time. Sadam only wanted to kill his own people except when he was fighting Iran oh yea and when he invaded Kuwait. But how the hell can anyone think killing even your own peasants is acceptable?

  • Posted By: OldGamer007 @ 06/16/2008 8:24:39 AM

    When Iran starts rolling tanks into neighboring countries [As Hitler did], I could see the comparison. But they aren't. Being Iraq was the first unprovoked war in American history, and after being stuck there longer then we were in WWII, haven't the neocons learned their lesson yet? Being McCain supports Bush's preemptive policies (bomb, bomb Iran), obviously not...

    • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/16/2008 9:03:58 AM

      They are n't? . I can promise you, IF. USA just quits from iraq right now, the proxies of Iran will take over Iraq. .. atleast most of it. Then there will be huge turf war for the oil rich Sunni areas which will put Saudi and Kuwait in trouble too. Why do you think Saudis are behaving good at this point? They know if US pulls at this point (when repubs are gone) they will be in jeopardy. Iran has extended arms throgh militants in lebanon, Iraq and even palestine. Do not try to close your eyes.... wake up.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/16/2008 9:14:21 AM

        Wow, you can predict the future!!! Awesome! Tell me, will I get the promotion I applied for?

        Anyway, we wouldn't be in this mess had we not taken out Saddam. Saddam had the region under control. Yes, he was a terrible dictator, but I'm beginning to think many citizens of the Middle East are violence-loving anyway.

        • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/16/2008 10:00:01 AM

          and about your promotion, not if you are keeping blogging at work time.

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/16/2008 10:16:56 AM

            I have Mondays off due to a 4 day 10 hour schedule. Idiot.

        • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/16/2008 9:59:10 AM

          YOu are right about Saddam. But we can't change what happened, right?. Only if that fool negotiated his way out. He was negotiating a price.. and the bombs came before he planned everything out.

  • Posted By: SKVAM @ 06/16/2008 9:24:34 AM

    Churchill was a racist through and through. He advocated for the gassing of Iraqis during English occupation, an errie resemblance to Hitler's later Mein Kampf statement that WWI would not have been lost had the heads of thousands of Jews been held under the gas. Churchill was an imperialist as cold and ruthless as any dirty Roman enslaving emperor. Under his cold-blooded rule, Gandhi saw his wife die in prison. Churchill was also incompetent and likely criminally so in his failure to properly monitor two German ships who, under allied flags, slipped his navy and bombarded the Turks, bringing the Turks into the WWI on the German side. He ruthlessly botched the Gallipoli campaign. He murderously delayed the bombing of the trains that led to the concentration camps, dooming millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs, and others to unspeakable deaths. He also cold bloodedly delayed the second front in World War II, dooming millions of Russions to die in a heroic fight against the Nazi regime. As Churchill's personal physician said, he wanted to have the Russians and Nazis tear each other up; unfortunately for Churchill, the incompetent, the Russians swept the Germans back to Germany. Churchill was a racist and vastly overestimated. Bloviating and stolen speeches hardly make a man a man.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/16/2008 10:13:41 AM

      perhaps you missed the whole cold war but letting the nazi's chew up the russians seemed like a pretty decent forward looking strategy to me. As for bombing trains full of prisoners I would like to see you make that call its easy in hindsight but the intelligence at the time only hinted of rumors of genocide and bombing a train full of slave laborers may have felt a little over the top. The reality is they held back from bombing the trains even though it was widely felt the trains were carrying people that were being forced to manufacture war materials.

    • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/16/2008 9:57:08 AM

      To me, one thing exposed your BS. Shut up. Which wife of Gandhi died in prison?

    • Posted By: jeff7915 @ 06/16/2008 9:38:45 AM

      Wow!!! You must be French.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse