Chamberlain's appeasement isn't as huge a faux pas as we now make it out to be. What was wrong with him is what he did after Hitler took advantage. Rather than really strongly making the case to the U.S. that, hey, look, this guy's a homicidal maniac and we've gotta do something, he crumbled and did nothing. And it took Churchill, who also wasn't the full-on visionary hero history has made him out to be -- not only did he not see Hitler coming, he wrote love letters to Stalin about Communism having some good ideas -- but was steeled by his predecessor's failure and much had much more resolve when it came to coalition building, not to mention a better arsenal and more prepared citizenry in the '40s than Chamberlain had in the '30s, to begin to clean up the mess.
Ironically, the group that was most vocal about not entering WW II were known as the 'Old Right'. Rs were a pain in the ass even then.
So, yeah, I like the metaphor here, but the hope is that Obama, who legitimately is the Chamberlain in what is the beginning of the scenario, can also be the Churchill, rather than waiting for the guy who isn't shell-shocked (Hillary?) a couple of years later to strike back. The chances look half-decent so far.
Yeah, I think Obama has learned you can't appease R bullies.
If he does, the closer analogue in the WWII metaphor would be FDR, though I don't love it, given that Japan wasn't really an existential threat to the U.S. when Pearl Harbor happened.
Ain't history fun?
And educational if you pay attention. |
