On Friday I noted this column by Bruce Ramsey in the Seattle Times. Rather than rebuke the president for his speech in Israel comparing those who sought to appease Hitler with those who would now appease terrorist groups and their sponsors, Ramsey defended Chamberlain's appeasement outright:
What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.
Ramsey has since written a follow-up post in which he laments that his reinterpretation of the events at Munich "inflamed a few hundred people." He also complains about the "Internet jeering section that considers [his] a weakling's argument." Yet, in a display of unabashed weakness, he also appeased his critics by rewriting the offending paragraph. His editors do not note the change, but the piece now reads:
The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.) Germany's claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.
It would seem there's a built-in advantage to arguing against those who favor appeasement--they'll roll over for anybody. Hitler, Ahmadinejad, right-wing bloggers, it doesn't matter. Just make your demands and Ramsey stands ready to submit. HT: AoS