Freunde der offenen Gesellschaft

Wie jeder klar denkende Mensch bereits bemerkt hat, demontieren sich die amerikanischen Appeaseniks (und weltweit ihre Unterstützer) mit ihrer hysterischen Reaktion auf George Bushs Rede zur Zeit selbst. Aber was sich Bruce Ramsey von der Seattle Times da geleistet hat, sprengt alles. Man lese und staune/kotze:

“Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

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.

We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germany’s eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years before—and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.”

Als wenn Adolf Hitler es auf die richtigen Sprachgrenzen abgesehen hätte. Wer ernsthaft so argumentiert, kann nicht ganz bei Trost sein. (Gefunden bei LGF)