[R-G] How Good Was the Good War?

[Aaron]

The analogy with Munich and appeasement of Nazi Germany is actually not bad if one recognizes that the contemporary analog to the WWII Axis is not the U.S.-designated "Axis of Evil" but the U.S./Israeli-dominated Axis of Empire.

And, as in 1938, the appeasers (Russia, China, the E.U.) have overlapping, though partly conflicting, interests with those they are appeasing.

 - Aaron

>From: Bill Totten <shimogamo at attglobal.net>
>Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:53:49 +0900
>Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] How Good Was the Good War?
>
>by Andrew J Bacevich
>
>The American Conservative (July 14 2008 Issue)
>
>
>For historians, World War II revisionism is likely to remain a tough
>sell. The process of enshrining the conflict of 1939-45 as the "Good
>War" has now advanced to the point of being all but irreversible. The
>war's canonical lessons, especially those relating to the perils of
>appeasement, have permanently etched themselves in our collective
>consciousness.
>
>The problem with this orthodox interpretation is not that it's wrong but
>that it is inadequate. The reflexive tendency to see every antagonist as
>another Hitler (or Stalin) and every sensitive diplomatic encounter as a
>potential Munich (or Yalta) has produced an approach to statecraft that
>is excessively militarized, needlessly inflexible, and insufficiently
>imaginative. The remedy is not to engage in a vain effort to change the
>way Americans remember World War II, however, but to restore that
>conflict to its proper context.

[SNIP]