Do a Web search on "Hitler + Chamberlain" to get the background. Here are a couple of decent links, one from the BBC's Education pages and the view from Slovakia (which was sold out by Neville Chamberlain).

Those who are calling for appeasement, negotiation and (my personal favorite) "trying to understand the anger" of the terrorists downplay the fact that we're at war, and that the Sept 11th attacks were acts of WAR, plain and simple.

Sure, this war is much smaller in scale; let's be honest, the Taliban and Al-Qeiada combined are a flea compared to Hitler's Germany. There's no comparison in that respect.

But this doesn't mean that there aren't some very important parallels.

First, the bitterness (or, in Appease-Speek, "hate") factor: Germany was extremely bitter over the Versailles Treaty at the end of WWI. It disarmed their nation and left them defenseless, paying huge reparations that destroyed their already-bad economy.

This is a fact; it's also a fact that Hitler used this anger to gain power. It's hard for us to see this now, several decades later, but go look at news clippings from the mid-1930's. Hitler was viewed as Germany's savior ... by more than just Germans, too! Many people (particularly in England) supported Hitler at first, thinking that he'd be a great counter to communism.

Surely you can see the parallels here: we helped "the Base" in Afghanistan, only to have it turn around a decade later and bite the hand that helped create it ... right?

By the logic of the Appeasers, we should never have stopped Hitler. After all, didn't we help "create" him? But in fact, it's actually quite simple: if I breed an aggressive dog and it happens to threaten the neighborhood, it's my responsibility to help eliminate that threat.

But really, at the root of our disagreement is what we believe, as individuals, about human nature. Chamberlain serves as an incredibly poignant reminder of what happens when a belief system is flawed.

What the articles above don't mention is that Chamberlain belonged to a religious group that very strongly believed that all people were basically good; that any disagreement could be worked out with "dialogue and communication" (sound familiar?).

Lock that into your mind: he really believed this with all his heart. Chamberlain sincerely believed that, if he could just meet with Hitler face to face and work out their differences, all would be well.

Poor Germany! Noble Hitler, a patriotic German simply trying to address the legitimate grievances of the German people!

Chamberlain's belief system prevented him from considering, until it was too late, that there IS such a thing as EVIL. But had Chamberlain spent more time reading Mein Kampf and listening to Hitler's speeches, he might have seen the truth: Hitler wanted power for power's sake, because he was EVIL. Hitler wanted to wipe the Jews, Slavs and other "Untermenschen" (subhumans) from the planet.

Do you see the parallels yet?

Most Americans are completely unaware of what Islamic Fundamentalists believe and how they interpret the Quran. Listen to what these radical Muslims are saying, and you'll experience deja vu: the triumph of Islam isn't just something to be desired, it is to be actively (and militantly) worked for. If innocents die in the process, oh, well; you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs ...

(... which is about the same thing that old Hindenburg said of Hitler when he assumed power. Amazing how history repeats itself.)

Groups like Osama Bin Ladin's are EVIL, plain and simple. They do not seek discussion or appeasement; they are not the least bit interested in compromise. This, without question, is the single biggest mistake made by the anti-war and appeasement types in the West.

Don't be fooled for a minute by the militant's claims for "justice in Sudetenland (read: Palestine), and then we'll be satisfied." That's a smokescreen.

If there were no Israel and no Palestine, they would find some other justification for what they're doing.

Take that to the Bank. They are evil, they hate the West and are determined to destroy it.

No, the current "war" isn't anything like the one that we fought with Germany and Japan. But that war taught our parents and grandparents an important lesson: sometimes, you just have to take a stand against evil -- fully aware of your own imperfections and mistakes, but sometimes, you just gotta do what you gotta do.

It's a lesson that we would do well to remember today.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Answers

VERY well said.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

When I see film of Nazi rallies in the 30s and film (video) of Muslim fundies today, I am struck by the similarities---the mass psychology, the mass salutes, the marching, the screaming, the scape-goating, the Jew-hating. Pure passion, pure evil passion.

If you are willing to define Fascism as a mentality, then it's clear that Muslim fundies are fascist.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Poole:

I was unaware that Slovakia was sold out. As I remember they were allies of Hitler and formed a Nazi style government. As I recall Tiso was the leader there.

Of course you could be reading from revisionist history. It is everywhere.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

good one.

Check out http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/marketthoughts

Got some great ones there too.

You're all invited.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Maul Pilne hasn't had a new idea or a good one in ten years.

SOURCE: his family which calls him a chronic paranoid.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Z,

Having a little fun with the chronology, are we? :)

Chamberlain (as well as France) most assuredly did sell out Czechoslovakia -- of which the Slovaks were also most assuredly a part at the time (1938). The formation of the separate Slovak republic occurred some months later (in 1939).

Two points: (1) it's still a FACT that Chamberlain believed that he could work things out with Hitler if they could "meet face to face," because he believed that there was "good" in everyone.

(2), Chamberlain (and Western Europe's) sell-out of Czechoslovakia is essentially what allowed Hitler to direct the breakup of that nation to FORM the first Slovak Republic. So there. :)

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Poole:

I accept your apology. :<))))

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

If Chamberlain had gone to war with Germany instead of signing the Munich Pact, England would have gotten it's ass kicked. As it was Britain BARELY hung on through the Battle of Britain, some TWO YEARS (of frantic arms building) later.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Z,

Certainly. :)

Unk,

I disagree, and besides, you missed my point. I focused on Sudentenland because it was a handy example; it is by no means the only example of appeasement toward Hitler.

In 1936, France and Britain allowed Hitler to remilitarize the Rhineland. Hitler admitted later that he'd been terrified at the time that they would call his bluff; the German military was totally inadequate at that time.

That's really the first "what if," if you want to be technical: what if France and Britain had said "no!" then? History might have been rewritten with a single word.

Also besides, I disagree with you anyway. :)

Hitler did not want war with England, not even in 1938. You might not think that a year or two would make much difference, but it did. A HUGE difference, in fact.

(For one thing, BECAUSE Hitler was allowed to swallow Czechoslovakia, he gained access to their large standing army, a staging ground for his attack on Poland -- from which France and Britain never really recovered -- and the excellent Czech arms industry.)

The key point above, though, was HOW Chamberlain chose to avoid war -- and the philosophy behind his efforts. He refused to see the evil that Hitler represented, focusing instead on "understanding" and "dialogue."

I say that we'd better not make the same mistake. I've been examining the radical fundamentalist branch of Islam for the past few weeks, and I do *NOT* like what I've been learning.

Like I said above, there's a sense of "deja vu all over again" here.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Lars,

The classic is Triumph Of The Will.

And, as I just said to Unk, yes, there ARE some chilling similarities -- up to and including a firm conviction that Jews are the "problem" in need of a "final solution."

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Slovakia, the WW II years

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

I also see a few similarities between Muslim fundies and the Japanese of WWII. Sure, the Japnese were not Muslim but they fought with a fanaticism (surrender was a disgrace) and there were the kamakazes (die for the Emperor who was considered a God) instead of die for Allah. Same mentality.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Stephen,

I didn't miss your point, I ignored it. There's a difference.

( ;)

Anyway, I still think England would have lost to Germany in 1938. Hitler was building a military super-power while Britain was busy playing Cricket. The famous Spitfire fighter didn't even begin to be delivered to the Royal Air Force until 1938 (yes, I know the Hurricane was the backbone of the Battle of Britain) while the 109 had been in production since 1935. As it was England survived only (IMHO) because Hitler decided to go after civilian targets (The Blitz) instead of continuing his campaigne against the RAF, which was on the ropes and in real danger of collapse.

We could argue this all day I suppose, so many variables to throw in the mix.

As to your point, yes, I do understand the need to stomp a bully quickly and ruthlessly.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Poole:

I have a good friend [much older than me] who was a teen in Bratislava at the time. He remembers it more the way Toland tells it and less the way you tell it. Of course we all get confused with age. :)))

Unc:

You should read the comments of Field Marshal Werner von Blomberg on that subject. He doesn't agree with you.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2001

Z,

Just because I don't marinate my asparagus, you give me a hard time. There ain't no justice. :)

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2001