“Here is an interesting exchange between Victor Davis Hanson and Patrick Buchanan, about Buchanan’s book.”

Quite intense. Not having read Buchanan’s book but having fairly recently become a casual follower of his editorials.

I have a built in instict to distrust historical revisionisim.

Drudging up old wounds can be equally destructive.

From what I can gather the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

In as much, and to a miniscule degree, as we’re re-living the same today, I can relate to Buchanan’s assertion that the lofty moral postion of western interests was over sold, and had tarnished somewhat
by wars end.

M

“Patrick J. Buchanan—Pseudo-Historian, Very Real Dissimulator”, 13 June 2008

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/patrick-j-buchanan%e2%80%94pseudo-historian-very-real-dissimulator/

“mainstream conservatives, or at least the ones on TV and mass media, do not seem to make a distinction between talking with Ahmadinejad, the president of an important state in the region and terrorists like Hamas, Hizbullah, al Queda, etc. Nobody on the left or right has advocated talking with al-Queda, but certainly the time is coming where the US will have to extend diplomatic recognition to Iran. ”

That’s an interesting thought. However as
4GW elements evolve, they grow, they survive,
IF thier cause has legitimacy, they accumulate
some measure of legitimacy.

You can argue from that position (your quote) to some degree from the perspective of self interests, but from the postion of moral high ground, or the claim to always being “the good guys” that’s becoming extreamly tenuous.

Good articles;

Worthy opinion to be considered and included
in the study of 4GW and our arsenal of ideas.
Even if these do not change your opinion, in order
to learn and grow these should be studied and considered.

http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=12891
Negotiating with ‘Terrorists

http://tinyurl.com/3f66qg
“the long war falicy”

Fabius Maximus has explored in depth.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0803c.asp
Why is democracy perpetualy at war ?

MC

You’re insights come across as
well reasoned, and informed.
M

I would say that recent American govm’t policy in the middle east has been based on a broad misreading of history. Every confrontation with Iran is not March 1938. There was a similar misreading of history in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Chenney said we would be liberators and clearly had 1989 in Eastern Europe when he said that. We were even treated to the TV spectacle of Sadam’s statue being toppled like Stalin’s in Budapest in 1956.

We are trapped by our own historical narratives and this is not just a problem for american conservatives. This was the problem of Europe in the interwar years. Each nation had a narrative about why World War One happened. They were so anxious not to “repeat history” that they backed themselves into a new war with a series of diplomatic half steps and outright blunders.

“Appeasement wasn’t just giving away a piece of Czechoslovakia, ”

That’s a rather well written summary of the standard opinion most of us grew up with.

What this thread started out as, was, does meetings and discussions amoung our elected leadership and their appointed representatives, with the roughly equivalent, heads of state, of countries who’s apparent interests go against the USA and it’s closest allies constitute “appeasement ?”

The vaugeries of so called “state sponsored terrorism” reduced to the eye of the beholder, and not with standing.
Your terrorists, maybe the next schmucks freedom fighter.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1114/p6s1-wome.html

Is that the same as negotiations directly with terrorists, like McCain
sitting down to discussions with Bin laden ?

This comes down to what many here might agree suggests the cavalier, and demonstrably reckless pre-disposition towards military conflict that prevaides US forgien policy.

Rather and given the reality of the current situation and events that lead up to this, Ask yourselves, If it makes sense to sneak around yet again, finding and probably also fabricating a lot of circumstantial evidience, coupled with questionable intelligence ?

It also comes down to due diligence and common sense.

To agree that it is all one and same, is to demote the standard of the US position to the imbicilic, as characterised in the attitude that coined the phrase, those ” Evil Doers.”

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/johnson1.html

If that’s the departure point of what now passes as the mainstream conservative consensus in America, then I don’t see much hope for any improvement at all just the continuation of the painfull and slow decline.

MaX

The French, British and Polish governments were reluctant to confront the Nazi regime when they violated the Versailles treaty by reintroducing conscription in 1935. The same governments were reluctant to confront the German re militarization of the Rhineland in 1936. The French and British governments refused to involve themselves in the Spanish Civil War, while the Nazis and Fascists supported Franco. None of them did anything to prevent the forced unification of Austria and Germany in March 1938.

Appeasement was a retrospective judgment, applied to policies that governments wanted to distance themselves from after WWII began. Before 1939 all European countries were profoundly reluctant to go to war, including the Germans! The British public believed that the Versailles Treaty had been unduly harsh. The petite entente in Eastern Europe failed to provide any semblance of collective security. The French Third Republic was immobilized by its own domestic ideological squabbles. Given the circumstances, its hard to see how anyone could have opposed Hitler before the fall of 1939.

My protest was over the source Chet cited. Since I was so foolish as to raise the question, I will mention a few of the many excellent works in this debate. Too many for a decent list and these are just from memory (supported by the invaluable Google).

Rather than – or in addition to – Buchanan’s book, consider the path-breaking work by the brilliant, provocative AJP Taylor: The Origins of the Second World War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_John_Percivale_Taylor#Origins_of_The_Second_World_War_Controversy

Far more controversial – due to his theories about the holocaust – is David Irving “Churchill’s War”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Revisionism

On the other side, which I find far more convincing:

Walter Goerlitzes, “A History of the German General Staff.” The wehrmacht was in no condition to fight the UK and France in 1938.

Adam Tooze, “The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy” — describes how Germany’s economic and industrial infrastructure was not prepared for war in 1938.

More important, I cannot imagine Churchill buying the Empire’s continuation at the cost of allying with Churchill. Some things are wonderful, but not worth preserving at any price.

Specifying conterfactuals.is difficult. Saying “What if Churchill made a deal with Hitler” makes little sense, as it assumes Churchill was a “two buck Chuck” politico like Chamberlain.

Asking what if the Brits picked someone else has the same problem. They picked Churchill knowing what they were getting, for what seemed to them good reasons. Picking some drone, like most of our politicos – checking the polls and weather before speaking, consulting the advisors about going to the bathroom (Not “Can I?” but the far worse “Do I want to?”) – would have meant that they were less than they actually were.

[CR: Can we get back on topic? The subject of this thread is "appeasement," what, if anything, it means and how it is being used in the 2008 campaign. I'm afraid that alternative histories ("The wehrmacht was in no condition to fight the UK and France in 1938.") do not add much to the substance of the debate. For those interested in that genre, however, a far superior example would be Len Deighton's SS-GB, which proves conclusively that Germany would have lost WW II.]

Is this the “Comedy” section of DNI, citing Pat Buchanan as an authority on the war against the NAZI regime in WWII?

I had expected better than a crude ad hominem from the great Delayer. I have not read many things by Buchanan, but those that I have read made sense to me. He seems to be an intelligent man with idiosyncratic opinions. As in this particular column, Buchanan says some things that are wrong or arguable, but also some that appear to be right, or at least worthy of consideration. He certainly makes much more sense than the President of the United States.

At least Buchanan is not drawn in by the stereotypical American view of 20th Century European history. If he overreacts against that shallow picture of history, that’s forgiveable—and far preferable, in my opinion, to just repeating the same tired old “lessons of history”.

I invite you to be more specific in your criticisms of Mr. Buchanan’s column, Fabius Maximus; kindly deliver yourself of an argument. C’mon—make my day…interesting!