Scroll Down for an update.
Sometimes you read something and you blink, rub your eyes, do a double or even a triple take and keep staring at the letters knowing they have to change. It can't possibly say what you thought is said so you keep re-reading it and re-reading it. The message entering your brain from the words on the page or the screen conflicts with everything you know to be correct in such away that your next thought is to figure out if what you just read is some kind of lame attempt at humor.
Then you realize the author is dead serious and your jaw immediately drops in astonishment. You then shake your head in despair at the addled thought process that passes for punditry
From The Seattle Times Editorial Blog Contributor, Bruce Ramsey:
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.
Folks you read that right and it did not come from some neo-Nazi Nut job.. That came from the Seattle Times!
It well could be a neo-Nazi nut job because it is laden with pro-Palestinian Jew hatred, but I'm guessing this guy considers himself a "progressive".
Reading further:
In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is
now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it
was obvious that a deal with him was worthless. He made a promise and
broke it within about six months. And so when Bush recalls the unnamed
senator who, in September 1939, lamented that he had not been able to
talk to Hitler, he hits an easy target. But the moment of September
1939 is nothing like today.
This is where Mr. Ramsey get's it wrong again. At what point in time did madmen all of a sudden change and become reasonable? It's idiocy such as this that makes my point when I say that the study of history is not about learning from our mistakes. Even if we were naïve back then, surely we should have learned from our folly!
Ignorance on such a scale is unbelievable. Mr. Ramsey is trying to justify the colossal failure of Chamberlain in order to justify the colossal ignorance and naivety of Barack Obama.
It boggles the mind.
VW
UPDATE:
Mr. Ramsey decided that the heat was a bit much and without any acknowledgment, amended his original assertion five minutes after I posted this and toned down the antisemitism. He removed the almost of his anti-Jew remarks. The bold part are words he added. I added the emphasis.
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. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was
not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state.
His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe--and ones that
thought of themselves as German --be 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.
From the view of 1938. Well thank heaven we have a view from 2008, 70 years later. Bullies and Madmen still lie, cheat and keep secret agendas
VW