On the neocons’ Munich comparisons

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 20 Comments

Jack Ross responds to Robert Kaplan's suggestion that Iraq was Nazi Germany, and so we could not appease it.

When considering the idea that Israel will be "the new Czechoslovakia",
we must remember that Czechoslovakia, like Israel, was a state that
should never have come into existence. 

Czechoslovakia was the
Wilsonian invention meant to cut down to size the German and Austrian
empires by creating an entirely fictitious country that was every bit
as much a mad ethnic hodge-podge as the Habsburg Empire.  Only the fact
that Germany's head of state had the mind of a serial killer made the
German position at Munich anything but entirely just: that the three
million ethnic Germans of the western part of Czechoslovakia – the
Sudetenland, should have self-determination.

By the grace of
God was a peaceful secession of that Wilsonian Frankenstein monster
brought about when the heart of Europe was finally freed of Soviet

And with respect to "appeasement" generally, World
War II did not begin because Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler at Munich. 
On the contrary, Chamberlain had a Wilsonian/neocon conceit to
intervene there in the first place, and once he had done so decided he
could regulate Hitler's designs by giving the war guarantee to Poland. 
To repeat – it was not the appeasement, but the internationalist hubris
and bellicosity – of Chamberlain which started World War II.

it logically follows that, if we should indeed reduce repairing
relations with the Arab world to "appeasing" it by demanding justice in
Palestine, this will not lead to peace, so long as we do not then turn
around and give a war guarantee to Lebanon against Syria.

I asked Jack if his last paragraph is ironical, following out the "logic" of the neocons.

Yes, it was ironical, I was merely comparing the Polish war guarantee to an eventuality as absurd as giving a war guarantee to Lebanon against Syria after the creation of a binational state.

20 Responses

  1. yonahred
    May 14, 2009, 5:15 pm

    in other words world war II began, not because hitler invaded poland, but because britian declared war on germany?!! you're nuts! or jack ross is nuts! go join pat buchanan in a rendition of deutschland uber alles!

  2. David_F
    May 14, 2009, 5:53 pm

    Very good analysis, Jack.

  3. daveg
    May 14, 2009, 5:54 pm

    No, that is a pretty accurate history actually. It is all a question of when you 'start the clock' so to speak. Just like a lot of today's problems are 'blowback' for US acts in the past, so was WWII, the wheels for which were set in motion long before Munich.

  4. syvanen
    May 14, 2009, 6:00 pm

    This is a very important perspective. Hitler thrived in German politics because of the real grievances the Germans had after WWI. The separation fo Danzig and Sudentenland from German control were very deep insults and they helped lay the seeds for nazi success. The view that WWII was a continuation of WWI certainly has more validity then that war was 'caused' by appeasement at Munich. There was very little that the west could have done in 1938 to stop the march to war. There was just insufficient military forcers to stop Hitler then.

  5. RowanBerkeley
    May 14, 2009, 6:37 pm

    Israel isn't playing the role of Czechoslovakia, it is playing the role of Nazi Germany. You have to understand, zionist politicians use these reversals systematically. It is Israel that is demanding that it be 'appeased' by the dismemberment and sacrifice of the small states around it.

  6. Ed
    May 14, 2009, 8:05 pm

    On the one hand, the Neocons say: the West Bank is Czechoslovakia. The Islamic Middle East is comprised of monolithic Islamofascist Nazis. If you give the West Bank to the Islamofascist Nazis, it's a repeat of the appeasement that led up to WWII. On the other hands, the Neocons say: Iran is the Islamofascist Nazi state. Even Islamic Arabs surrounding Israel don't want Iran to get nukes. We must join with our Islamic Arab allies to prevent Iran from getting nukes, by going to war if necessary. So which is it? The Islamofascist monolith comprised of all Sunnis and Shiites, or Islamofascist Shiite Iran only? I guess it depends on which day of the week you ask them (or what time of the month). These scatter-brained airheads don't know what the hell the threats are, or if they even exist. Their narrative is a constantly evolving lie, all designed to paper over their expansionism and get American soldiers to do their dirty work.

  7. yonahred
    May 14, 2009, 8:06 pm

    "it is israel that is demanding that it be "appeased" by the dismemberment and sacrifice of the small states around it." poppycock. the only argument is regarding the west bank which was never a state.

  8. RowanBerkeley
    May 14, 2009, 8:32 pm

    Israel is biting great chunks out of the surrounding states, and encouraging irredentism in others — exactly as nazi Germany did.

  9. yonahred
    May 14, 2009, 9:06 pm

    the only state that has lost a chunk is syria. but for 42 years it has done very well despite this lost chunk. all territory claimed by lebanon is also claimed by syria. no other country has lost a chunk. name the countries where israel is encouraging irredentism.

  10. historybuff
    May 14, 2009, 9:17 pm

    YES. This point was made earlier by two commenters on other threads today on this blog. Worse, the Israelis have to go back thousands of years to even pretend to be legitimate victims of appeasement, rather than what they are, the aggressors, land grabbers par excellence in the post Nuremburg Trial world. Very, very Talmudic.

  11. Citizen
    May 14, 2009, 9:24 pm

    Gee, doesn't history show the Palestinian arabs have lost quite a big chunk? Or do we need to close our eyes and only fondle form rather than look at content? Doesn't that approach bring us back to historical appeasement problems?

  12. yonahred
    May 14, 2009, 9:31 pm

    if we are going back in time and trying to avoid ww2, the versailles treaty is a good place to start. but once hitler gains power the only way to avoid hitler's strength when war eventually broke out was for france to react militarily to hitler's occupation of the rhineland in 36. once hitler rearms it is generally agreed that the chances of defeating him before giving him the sudetenland, were much better than afterwards. but it sounds to me like somebody here is advocating just letting hitler take poland without declaring war. maybe you also advocate britain making peace with hitler after the fall of dunkirk?

  13. thedhimmi
    May 14, 2009, 9:31 pm

    With all the great chunks Israel is biting out of other countries and it's incredible thirst for land, it is only a half of 1 Percent of the region. How do you figure it?

  14. Shafiq
    May 14, 2009, 9:34 pm

    "the only argument is regarding the west bank which was never a state" That's what Hitler said about Czechoslovakia Israel is also trying to annexe the Golan Heights (it's still occupied territory)

  15. syvanen
    May 14, 2009, 11:59 pm

    No. We are not playing "what if" history. We are pointing out that Munich 1938 was the consequences of Vesailles, 1919. The 'appeasement' analogy being applied to the ME today is simply pure propaganda for the zionist cause. There was nothing that Britain, France and the US could do in 1933 or in 1938 to reverse what happened in Versaille. The only resolution to this problem is what eventually occurred. The whole world went on a war footing and defeated German armies in the field. In 1938 they did not have those armies that could defeat Germany. Germany was simly too powerful. The comparison to Iran today is ludicrous in the extreme. Germany had the world's most powerful army in 1938, Iran's power is miniscule by comparison.

  16. RowanBerkeley
    May 15, 2009, 4:59 am

    And eventually the whole world will have to go on a war footing and defeat Israel's armies in the field — if Israel doesn't nuke their capitals pre-emptively, as it has threatened more than once to do.

  17. jacobwolf
    May 15, 2009, 5:48 am

    Truth is not an option for hatemongers. Anything to justify their hatred for Israel is fine with them.

  18. jacobwolf
    May 15, 2009, 5:49 am

    Don't worry. Your medication is on the way.

  19. Richard01
    May 15, 2009, 5:56 am

    I agree that constant and continual appeasement of Israel after its invasions of every single one of its neighbours (except Cyprus) is very dangerous indeed. Why does Isael need to have nuclear-armed submarines? To conduct exactly the sort of blackmail that Rowan Berkeley proposes. The inventors of the 'Samson Option' were and are,the Israeilis.

  20. LaNder
    May 15, 2009, 4:21 pm

    The guilt-ridden Germans gave Israel those sub-marines. The German, goes an old adage, are either at your neck, or at your feet. First they gas Jews, now they ignore slow erasure of the Palestinians. Then and now, they have a million excuses for what they do and do not do, but the pattern is clear.

Leave a Reply