![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The Roots of European Appeasement.
Quotes:
No one defends British appeasement of Hitler; everyone agrees that Churchill was right to oppose it from the start. No one criticizes British appeasement of Gandhi and the Congress party in India (Gandhi and Hitler stand at opposite ends of the moral spectrum, but there is a clear analogy between British attitudes towards the two of them); everyone agrees that Churchill was wrong to oppose it from the start. Hitlerite Germany was the exception. India proved to be the rule.
And:
[...] well-placed American Jews in newspapers, TV, and radio have played in slanting the news against Israel. For the most part these seem to be well-meaning people who care so deeply about right and wrong, they have no time to distinguish between true and false.
And:
Obviously the analogy between Poland and Israel is rough. Poland was submerged for 123 years, Israel for nearly two millennia. But the similarities are obvious, too. Lots of Arabs moved to Israel during the years when no Jewish state existed. Lots of Germans moved to Poland. But Poles and Jews maintained an unbroken presence in their homelands. The idea that a Pole returning to Poland is a "colonist" is idiotic; a Jew returning to Israel is no "colonist" either. Nor does the fact of a large Polish diaspora in America make Poland's existence any less necessary. Nor does the Jewish diaspora make Israel less necessary.
Quotes:
No one defends British appeasement of Hitler; everyone agrees that Churchill was right to oppose it from the start. No one criticizes British appeasement of Gandhi and the Congress party in India (Gandhi and Hitler stand at opposite ends of the moral spectrum, but there is a clear analogy between British attitudes towards the two of them); everyone agrees that Churchill was wrong to oppose it from the start. Hitlerite Germany was the exception. India proved to be the rule.
And:
[...] well-placed American Jews in newspapers, TV, and radio have played in slanting the news against Israel. For the most part these seem to be well-meaning people who care so deeply about right and wrong, they have no time to distinguish between true and false.
And:
Obviously the analogy between Poland and Israel is rough. Poland was submerged for 123 years, Israel for nearly two millennia. But the similarities are obvious, too. Lots of Arabs moved to Israel during the years when no Jewish state existed. Lots of Germans moved to Poland. But Poles and Jews maintained an unbroken presence in their homelands. The idea that a Pole returning to Poland is a "colonist" is idiotic; a Jew returning to Israel is no "colonist" either. Nor does the fact of a large Polish diaspora in America make Poland's existence any less necessary. Nor does the Jewish diaspora make Israel less necessary.
no subject
And in general, too, he interprets everything the way he wants so the result is highly self-contradictory.
что касается "умиротворения Гитлера" - то до марта 39-го года это была единственная разумная и реалистическая политика.
Now, this is your interpretation.
Гелернтер только наносит вред правильному делу, пытаясь подкрепить его неправильными аргументами.
А многие ли заметят? Гелернтер — дилетант и пишет для дилетантов.
no subject
>> это была единственная разумная и реалистическая политика.
> Now, this is your interpretation.
Безусловно, моя - я же пишу от своего лица, не от чужого :)
Но - до марта 39-го года ВСЕ акции Гитлера, ныне рассматриваемые как требующие "противодействия агрессии", выглядели как исправление исторической несправедливости Версальского мира. Вооружение Германии - но ведь несправедливо было разоружить страну без естественных границ, окруженную врагами? Присоединение территорий (Саар, Австрия, Судеты) - но ведь речь идет о воссоединении немцев, которые только об этом и мечтали. Милитаризация Рейна - но в формальном обосновании (французская ратификация советско-французского договора как фактор, ломающий локарнскую систему) был немалый здравый смысл.
В такой ситуации - что могли сделать Англия с Францией? Оккупировать Германию?
Есть очень спорная - и очень хорошая, до сих пор актуальная - книга Тейлора "Origins of the Second World War". Так вот, хороша она прежде всего тем, что этот момент излагает чрезвычайно убедительно.