more appeasement

Yglesias links a study from the Army War College - Jeffrey Record's "Appeasement Reconsidered." Very cool report on how the events of 1938 have been utilized in postwar America to justify aggressive reactions to possible foreign policy challenges.

From the conclusion:

The problem with seeing Hitler in Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Saddam Hussein is that it reinforces the presidential tendency since 1945 to overstate threats for the purpose of rallying public and congressional opinion, and overstated threats in turn encourage resort to force in circumstances where deterrence, containment, even negotiation (from strength) might better serve long-term U.S. security interests. Threats that are, in fact, limited tend to be portrayed in Manichaean terms, thus skewing the policy choice toward military action, a policy choice hardly constrained by possession of global conventional military primacy and an inadequate understanding of the limits of that primacy.

If the 1930s reveal the danger of underestimating a security threat, the post-World War II decades contain examples of the danger of overestimating a security threat.

Assign this as an optional reading during Hitler week, to remind how history is used in public discourse.

Hitler's War on America

Google videos provides the documentary, which raises some discussion (among its viewers) concerning the similarity of Hitler's plots and the 9/11 hijackings. Of course, as we know, the first plane to hit a building in New York was during that era...

I hate Illinois Nazis...

....but the Republican candidate for IN-2 LOOOOOVES THEM!!!

C&L has the video here:

On Sunday, Tony Zirkle, a Republican candidate for Indiana’s 2nd District, took time out from saving the economy by shredding vintage Playboys (of course!) so he could attend a 119th birthday celebration for Adolf Hitler. He claims he was only there to talk about his experience as a state’s attorney in Indiana, his wacky theories about pornography, and to preach the gospel, so of course his being there had absolutely nothing to do with his segregation plan that would allow blacks to “have six states, so instead of having one half-black senator, well they would have 12.”

The Bilerico Project (Indiana politcal blog) has Zirkle's lame excuses and also some video here.

South Bend Tribune:

During a news conference Monday afternoon, Zirkle said he accepted an invitation to address the group to spread his anti-pornography message.

An account of the gathering on www.Overthrow.com says "Zirkle spoke on his history as a state's attorney in Indiana, prosecuting Jewish and Zionist criminal gangs involved in trafficking prostitutes and pornography from Russia and the Zionist entity.''

Lovely how consistent the Nazi message is over 80 years -- Jewish Commie Darkie Homos are after your women and destroying your families!!!!

Northwest Indiana Times:

A congressional candidate is defending his speech to a group celebrating the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birth, saying he appeared simply because he was asked.

Tony Zirkle, who is seeking the Republican nomination in Indiana's 2nd District, stood in front of a painting of Hitler, next to people wearing swastika armbands and with a swastika flag in the background for the speech to the American National Socialist Workers Party in Chicago on Sunday.

"I'll speak before any group that invites me," Zirkle said Monday. "I've spoken on an African-American radio station in Atlanta."

Yeah, because that's comprable...

Expelled!

Not recorded much of this controversy (or much of anything recently at the end of this semester), but this link from Richard Dawkins (courtesy PZ Myers' "Appropriate Responses to Expelled") shoots down in perfect form the supposed connection between Nazis and Darwin. Which, Nazis being one of my things, would be handy to have around for future needs.

Though in a way, all one might have to say on the subject is that in all of Mein Kampf.... Hitler never mentioned Darwin. Some influence.

wtf?

Crazy Glen Beck: "Jesus and Hitler had a lot in common" (Crooks & Liars)

Actually his point isn't as crazy as it sounds -- he's trying to say that they were both charismatic and could capture people's loyalty by "looking them in the eyes". But it's still a mark of his authoritarian personality.