Also worth noting that McCain is actively interfering in a crisis for political gain.

That's okay, so is Putin.

It's also worth remembering that at the time of the Munich accords, there was no way in hell that the French and British could have stood up to the German war machine. One of Chamberlain's aims was to BUY TIME for the British military to build it self back up...

Trouble of course was, that the Germans also had time to build themselves up as a result. Not that they were not already rather formidable, Loser's comments not withstanding.

Loser, I suggest to you that Poland of they day would ahve an argument for you on that score.

Worth noting that for all the GOP posturing on the issue, Bush has not done a damn thing about it.

Indeed, Anjin-san - it appears that Russia has no more respect for "Russian expert" Condi Rice than we do. It figures that the single, solitary thing that happens in the last 8 years she might actually have some skill at dealing with, and she doesn't want to come off vacation. Tho I suppose now that she's on the case, she'll proceed to make things worse...

Also worth noting that McCain is actively interfering in a crisis for political gain. Observe the silence from the right regarding said interference.

I would have to respectfully question your notion that the German war machine was anything much to fear. It was at best all bark and very little bite. German officers, including some at the highest levels, were going to stage a coup if Hitler had decided to go to war over Czechoslovakia in case the French and British didn't back down. Those officers were bitterly let down by the turn of events. I think the reason France and England wanted to appease Hitler was a legacy of the Great War and the catastrophe it stood for at that time in their history. Most adults had vivid memories of that war and the millions of dead and maimed and they didn't want that repeated again and avoided war at almost any cost.

Godwin's Law is funny simply because its so true - the lesson of Munich has been trivialized to the point where it doesn't mean anything because it now refers to any military action anywhere. The US going into Grenada was likened to the Nazi's going into Czecheslovakia - seriously.

BTW, I think there are good invasions (Afghanistan comes immediately to mind), more bad or at least unnecessary invasions (Georgia and Iraq come to mind), but I can't think of a current example which seriously is comparable to what went on with late 30's Germany. Georgia is in Russia's sphere of influence, Iraq was in the American sphere, and neither invasion shows a desire to take over the rest of the world, just to secure their respective spheres.

Interesting post, you make an excellent point. All this talk about "appeasement" seems to have some linkage with the "embolden the terrorists" line, the implication being that if we do not pursue the neocon agenda, terrorists will somehow become more bold. The folks already attacked the Pentagon and New York City, and we have every reason to believe they were going after the White House. I would say they are as bold as brass already...

Anyway, looking forward to hearing more thoughts about the Hitler de jour.

I think that is a crock. Russia is BOTH a totalitarian regime seeking world expansion AND a bullying neighbor. If you don't expect a squeeze on Russian-fed oil to western Europe you live in a fantasy world.

I tend to agree that the Munich analogy has been so misused in the ensuing decades as to be meaningless and that Russia’s reach and grasp are much more modest than that of Nazi Germany.

Precisely why I was quite careful in my linking to that historical example in my comment of yesterday, where I said that there are many similarities between this situation and that, and that it is an uncomfortably apt a comparison, rather than suggesting one equaled the other.

Look, I tend to agree that large steps toward re-gathering the old shepere of influence are not really viable given the state of things there. Then again, we thought such matters beyond Germany's reach as well.

It bears watching. Let's hope, however, that we don't wacth the situation grow beyond our ability to contain it should the need to contain it arise. As Beldar correctly points out, lives would be saved by reacting sooner in the growth cycle.

This is a dispute between a huge power and its overreaching neighbor over an almost unoccupied strip of land. Hardy the stuff of world wars.

To the contrary; History shows us that's how they start.

One way to think of it Hitler choking on a peach on January 1, 1940 ... or 1941 ... how would he be remembered?

That depends on who succeeded him, and if the new leader was able to maintain the direction of the National Socialists. History, after all, is always re-written by the victors.

"To the extent that the lessons of Munich still have any bearing, they are that unilateral concessions to despots with territorial ambitions only serve to whet their appetite."

But Hitler planned to go to war with Britain and France in 1943 anyway. He expected some pushback and had made his plans accordingly - then advanced them when the pushback didn't happen. There was no "whetting his appetite" by concessions, it was already whetted and there wasn't a much to be done about it. The fact that Hitler could be neither deterred nor appeased meant that war could have been avoided only via Hitler’s death or removal from power, options that prior to the war were apparently not considered by London or Paris.

See an article in this quarter's journal of the US Army War College, by Jeffrey Record, Professor of Strategy at the Air War College in Montgomery.
Parameters - Retiring Hitler and “Appeasement” from the National Security Debate.

Regards, C

You're so cute when you're angry.