March, 1939
By Cicero | Related entries in NewsThis post is a question.
I realize that the present global crisis and World War II are only partially comparable. But I am wondering:
Throughout the 1930s during Hitler’s rise, the West maintained the hope that appeasement would contain the Nazis in Germany. Chamberlain claimed victory for appeasement in 1938 when he and Hitler signed the Munich Agreement.
In March, 1939, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, in spite of the Munich Agreement. This date is largely recognized as the point at which appeasement was no longer viable — that only force could counter fascism. And then a few months later, Hitler invaded Poland, and World War II began in earnest.
Throughout the first half of this decade, appeasment has been the weapon of choice to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In addition, Europe’s handling of its burgeoning Islamic immigrants for the past few decades — corralled into dreary welfare cities — has been another kind of appeasement, meant to assuage the passions of Muslims in places like France, the Netherlands, England and Germany.
So this week I am wondering: Is November, 2005 similar to March, 1939?
This week, appeasment has delivered two unfortunate results. First, Iran has elected a new, ultra-Islamofascist president, who has now recalled what it considers to be its ‘moderate’ ambassadors from Europe, while stepping up uranium production. There is no longer any realistic hope that European carrots will prevent an Iranian bomb. And second, Europe itself is seeing an intifada explode on its own soil. France is burning as I write this. The Netherlands is in a state of high tension, one year after Van Gogh’s murder. European immigrants are teaming with passion and fury, with a fire not unlike the ones that raged in Europe 60 years ago.
Is this the point at which Europe collectively recognizes that appeasement has hit a dead end? Misguided policies always reach a point of no return. Is it now? I look forward to reading your thoughts on this. Personally, I’m not sure if the point of no return has been met.
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 3rd, 2005 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:31 pm
In light of the Iranian situation, I HOPE that this is the turning point. However, I fear it isn’t. I believe that appeasement is still by far the first choice right now for the west, especially those countries who are currently involved in the reconstitution of Afghanistan and Iraq. One can argue that the West has used its military up for this generation… returning from that conflict will be a tired, emotionally drained military that will see much turnover. A new generation of technology and soldiers is needed to revitalize the military for another full-scale war. In the US, a full-scale war with Iran/Syria/Russia will be terribly difficult and may result in a Draft.
I believe the true turning point in this situation won’t be further escalation of rhetoric and threats of nuke technology, it will be a pre-emptive strike by one of the countries in that region. If the Israelis try another “Operation Babylon” it may very well result in a full-on regional war, with the rest of the civilized lining up and taking sides. Consequently, the same goes for if the Syrians or Iranians are finally busted cold hard supporting or carrying out a major terrorist attack.
The tension’s never been tighter right now and with the Iranians probably already having the nuke, the stakes are much higher.
Unfortunately, as in WWII, somebody innocent is probably going to have to die before the West decides to engage.
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:49 pm
W,
No one thinks that Iran has the bomb yet. If we did nothing, they would still be 2 to 5 years away. http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/12/90d73f75-908c-4434-a936-9efd628548f3.html
With inspections, they will never get it.
Also, why and when are we going to war with Russia?
November 3rd, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Some of this despair from the French riots seems exaggerated. Who really knows why people riot? Maybe some of them just want to trash stores. Maybe some are just looking for excitement in a dreary life.
More worrisome is the London bombings. Those suicide bombers were English in every sense of the word but one, they were Moslems. But the only thing they had in common with other Moslems was that, like some in Iraq, Indonesia, and Palestine they blew themselves up in crowded public spaces full of innocent people.
The Iran thing is different. Not to defend the mullahs, but they see themselves as living in a dangerous neighborhood. India and Pakistan, and Israel as well, got a pass for developing nukes. If, as we all should hope, the mullahs were overthrown in a democratic revolution, the Iranian people might still want nukes because of their geopolitical situation.
There is no military solution to the problem of Iran’s nukes. I should think the Iranians have developed defenses against an Israeli air strike. In fact, were Saddam still in power, he might cynically have allowed the Israelis to fly across Iraq in order to take out Iran’s nukes, but a democratic, Shia-dominated Iraq would never allow this. So no country exists that has the will or the means to take out Iran’s nukes. Might as well live with it.
November 3rd, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Cicero,
I think there are shards of parallels. In a way, the dilemma of an existing power confronting a rising one, not yet openly threatening, is the same through history. Sparta watched warily while Athens built its fleet.
One important distinction, though, is that Europe’s two appeasements — seceding certain of its own neighborhoods and urban centers to Islamists, on the one hand, and playing diplomatic chess with the zealots in Iran on the other, are not quite tyhe same game.
The same mentality may underlie them, from Europe’s poiint of view: the shared attitude of the Franco-German elites that they have outgrown violence, that force is never an option, and sensitivity and diplomacy can disarm any enemy.
But the rioters in the Paris suburbs seem mostly to be North African, more thuggish than devout, and reflecting localized social resentment. The Shi’ite clerics of Iran have no control over them, and do not inspire them, except as each acknowledges the other as a power willing and able to stick a thumb in the eye of the hated secular/Crusader West.
Or, in other terms, they have as much in common as Saddam and Osama.
November 3rd, 2005 at 5:55 pm
In fact, were Saddam still in power, he might cynically have allowed the Israelis to fly across Iraq in order to take out Iran’s nukes, but a democratic, Shia-dominated Iraq would never allow this.
One, my guess is that if the U.S. believes Israel is planning such a mission they would (quietly) use all their pull with the new Baghdad government to get them to look the other way. Of course, this is all assuming that the Iraqi military, as it stands now, is in any shape to prevent an Israeli jet or two from flying across Iraq in the first place.
November 3rd, 2005 at 6:01 pm
The essential difference involves power. Germany in 1939 was a power peer of Britain, France and Russia. Iran is in no way a peer of even the much-diminished Britain, France and Russia, let alone the United States. Further, Germany had powerful allies: Japan and Italy. (Yes, at that point Italy was thought to be formidable. Who knew?) Iran has no allies of note.
Nuclear weapons do, of course, transfer disproportionate destructive power to a nation, however insignificant that nation may be in other ways. That’s a difference. We can’t dismiss a nuclear-armed Iran as easily as we would a conventionally-armed Iran.
As for Europe, the Europeans are in effect the sullen teenagers of the planet: they live in a secure world created for them by a hard-working parent – The US – and sit in their rooms playing the music loud and denouncing Dad as a fool or a bore or an authoritarian. Sometimes Dad is all of those things, but the Europeans are seldom able to rise to the level of adulthood.
November 3rd, 2005 at 6:05 pm
This is not the turning point. The election results at the next French elections could very well be the turning point. The Crown Heights riots spelled the death of NYC Democrat dominance but the turning point wasn’t achieved until the election of Giuliani.
The most dramatic demonstration would be Villepin purging Sarkozy over the riots and Sarkozy winning the presidency anyway, under the NF banner.
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Cicero,
History does have a way of repeating itself and the similarities you cite between March 1939 and November 2005 does give one pause.
One other similarity …
A Prince of Wales appealing to the U.S. and other powers to show restraint and appeasement toward a country that is demonstrating a hostile stance upon the world stage.
November 4th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
I think we’re feeling the first tremors of a seismic event in history. I wonder if this is the big one or just a warning. It’s one or the other.
Islam and Western Civilization are going to come to blows. The fault line is there and the ground is shaking. Maybe things will settle down for a while or maybe it won’t. But the quake is coming.