Skip to main content

View Diary: A Short History of the Munich Analogy, Part 1 (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  An overused analogy may still be true.. (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the great diary!

    That the "Munich agreement" and "appeasement" have become buzwords, I will not argue.  And you correctly point out that the terms seem to have been used (or avoided) to justify actions (or inactions) already decided as politically necessary.

    In American political discourse, Munich 1938 is not so much a historical reference as it is a moral syllogism that expresses absolute values. Because of the absoluteness of the values it embodies, it has come to figure in political discussion as a preemptive argument—a knockout punch that puts an end to, rather than invites, further debate.

    However, one cannot dismiss entirely the effectiveness of simply using the term.  How does the prominent use of the term "appeasement" in the American press sit in Tehran, for example?

    The seriousness (and complexity) of the Iranian nuclear question, I believe, has been reduced to the simplistic argument of whether to appease or not.  Whether we even have a right to dictate whether Iran can obtain nuclear weapons needs to be decided first.

    But those countries that would help us decide these matters in a world court would do well to keep the lessons of Munich in mind. A nuclear Iran could lead to a middle east war that would devastate the world economies for decades if oil production were severely hampered.  

    Using the analogy of Hitler and Chamberlain is, therefore, quite applicable when assessing how Iran interprets the intentions and resolve of it's adversaries.

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

    by Skeptical Bastard on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:40:45 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site