Hitler, Saddam Apologist Bruce Ramsey's Explains Away Munich Appeasement
"Bush and his use of 'Appeasement'" by Bruce Ramsey at Ed Cetera of the Seattle Times - the paper's editorial board blog, seems to go out of his way to apologize for both Adolf Hitler and damage Barack Obama with his stretch of a defense.
Ramsey is perturbed by the reference to the British and French giving in to Hitler at the 1938 Munich Conference - saying it is easy in hindsight to be critical of their actions. But isn't it now easy to criticize Bush and the Congress in hindsight for their decision to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein? And is Barack Obama an apologist for dictator and murderer of his people Saddam Hussein? Whatever one thinks of the prosecution of the war in Iraq, one has to question anyone who thinks that Saddam Hussein was good for his people.
Ramsey also ignores Hitler's breaking of treaties to get to the point where he took Austria and later the Czech areas.
Here is a part of his defese of the indefensible:
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.
Comments