More important lessons from WW II than appeasement

[Count of Montesano]

So Obama has been getting a lot of flak in the press lately for being a modern day Neville Chamberlain "appeaser" because he's talked about actually opening a dialogue with Hezbollah and Iran. But IMHO, aren't there more important lessons from WW II that Obama's GOP opponents are totally missing?

Lessons like:

1. Don't take your eye off the ball While the US was busy providing aid to Great Britian in 1940, the Americans totally ignored an equal threat growing in the Pacific. Just like today where we're too focused on Iraq while the danger in Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran grows.

2. Know your enemy The Bush administration seems to be as oblivious and arrogant to America's Middle Eastern rivals as FDR's administration was to the Japanese Empire. The last time around America's arrogance and overinflated sense of superiority spelled disaster at Pearl Harbor. And I'm afraid we're in for another rude awakening if we simultaneously aggravate/underestimate Iran or Iran's allies.

3. Be careful who you ally with I can't help but think that our current uneasy relationship with China is all that different from Russia and Germany in the late 1930s. The good news is America and China aren't controlled by Hitler and Stalin respectively. The bad news is both the US and China have competing interests, share political fault lines that could explode into war, and vastly different cultures and governments.

[wilting]

Good advice, generally, but the groundings you've given for them aren't particularly strong.

One might argue that the US knew exactly what it was doing with regard to Japan, as it desired to enter the war but could not do so legitimately as the aggressor. (Note this does not imply that the US knew specifically about Pearl Harbour, so in that case your advice is well grounded.)

Also, war between the United States and China is unlikely in the extreme, and they are not engaged in a total war against a common enemy with the latter ally fighting for its very survival. Nor is a cold war scenario between the US and China going to emerge, both because of economic links and because we are entering a multipolar, not a bipolar era.

Its worth pointing out that appeasement was a response to war, not a cause of it. Appeasement just meant the war was a lot worse.

[Xan]

Good post but i don`t think a China vs USA war is likely i think it is more likely that China will just take over the US position in the worlds economy.

And yeah North Korea and Iran is likely to be much larger threats against the US and the rest of the world now then Iraq or Taliban ever was.

[Hound of Ulster]

...and never invade Russia from the West.

[jankren]

...and never invade Russia from the West.

So where should USA invade China from?

[Rapax]

...and never invade Russia from the West.

Haha, going from the east through thousands of miles of barren wasteland is gonna be much better.

[Каие]

1. Don't take your eye off the ball While the US was busy providing aid to Great Britian in 1940, the Americans totally ignored an equal threat growing in the Pacific. Just like today where we're too focused on Iraq Iran while the danger in Afghanistan, China, Russia, EU, NATO, Global Warming, Palestine/Israel, Oil and North KoreaIran grows.

Just a little correction.

2. Know your enemy The Bush administration seems to be as oblivious and arrogant to America's Middle Eastern rivals as FDR's administration was to the Japanese Empire. The last time around America's arrogance and overinflated sense of superiority spelled disaster at Pearl Harbor. And I'm afraid we're in for another rude awakening if we simultaneously aggravate/underestimate Iran or Iran's allies.

Iran has allies?
As far as anyone can see the US has all the Middle Easterners in its pockets except for Iran and Syria, which shows the extent of their influence there. Money.

[Hound of Ulster]

Haha, going from the east through thousands of miles of barren wasteland is gonna be much better.

actually, yes. The only truely successful invasion of Russia was by the Mongols from the east.

[NakedBarbarian2]

Iran has allies?
As far as anyone can see the US has all the Middle Easterners in its pockets except for Iran and Syria, which shows the extent of their influence there. Money.

They seem on pretty good terms with both Venezuala and Russia

[Каие]

Not really that successful as they came crashing down and the Russians went blasting east in the counter attack which forged their great empire.

Sam old story, invade Russia, win for a while, Russian counter attack, they rampage your way, all your dreams are destroyed.

[Heinz Guderian]

the moral of this thread is dont with Russians.

[Hound of Ulster]

quite true.

[antaeus]

if people stopped thinking about 'them and us' on both sides, there wouldnt be a need.

the future is going to see a reduction of this kind of thinking specifically because of the way the worlds economy is becoming so entangled. virtually all major nations are in discussions with each other on some level about free trade... and its this, that will prevent war in the future, not mutually assured destruction, or who has the biggest navy.

eg, the united states will not go to war with china, because the us economy would be crippled by the loss of one of its major production centres - virtually all of the united states' major technology firms are heavily involved in china.. most to the degree that they are quite happy to forgo the basic ideals which any war would be fought over to make money in china (freedom of speech etc). china will not go to war with the united states because it would mean an end to one of their largest product markets - and the very reason why its economy is growing so much.

[Senno]

if people stopped thinking about 'them and us' on both sides, there wouldnt be a need.

Agreed.

the future is going to see a reduction of this kind of thinking specifically because of the way the worlds economy is becoming so entangled. virtually all major nations are in discussions with each other on some level about free trade... and its this, that will prevent war in the future, not mutually assured destruction, or who has the biggest navy.

Agreed

eg, the united states will not go to war with china, because the us economy would be crippled by the loss of one of its major production centres - virtually all of the united states' major technology firms are heavily involved in china.. most to the degree that they are quite happy to forgo the basic ideals which any war would be fought over to make money in china (freedom of speech etc). china will not go to war with the united states because it would mean an end to one of their largest product markets - and the very reason why its economy is growing so much.

Disagreed.

The last 30 years of negotiations between governments have been for the purpose of improving lives and liberty in China. Refer back to point 1 and 2 please. And review the actual history of negotiations between China and the US since Nixon went there.

Your point is an over-generalization of 30 years of history to make your point.

[antaeus]

Disagreed.

The last 30 years of negotiations between governments have been for the purpose of improving lives and liberty in China. Refer back to point 1 and 2 please. And review the actual history of negotiations between China and the US since Nixon went there.

Your point is an over-generalization of 30 years of history to make your point.

to the direct contradiction of the negotiations you refer to - that go back as far as nixon and further, us companies are already dealing with china on chinese terms, as its too lucrative an opportunity to wait for politicians. this is the future. an example would be google and its adhering to chinese censorship laws, or microsoft, or yahoo. then theres any number of american manufacturers and the issue of workers rights and ethical workplace conditions.. there is a vast gap between the power politics of nations and what actually happens in reality.

[Senno]

to the direct contradiction of the negotiations you refer to - that go back as far as nixon and further, us companies are already dealing with china on chinese terms, as its too lucrative an opportunity to wait for politicians. this is the future. an example would be google and its adhering to chinese censorship laws, or microsoft, or yahoo. then theres any number of american manufacturers and the issue of workers rights and ethical workplace conditions.. there is a vast gap between the power politics of nations and what actually happens in reality.

Yet the US is not the dominant trade partner with China, either imports or exports. And many other countries companies operate inside China, as well. The US has a large trade imbalance with China. Their people and economy are being freed up slowly.

There had to be a starting point to extend the concept of democracy into China. And Nixon took that step.

As China is exposed to freedoms, they want them. As they are exposed to trade goods, they want them. There must be a demand before supply will go into China to a large degree.

And US Federal law does not go with the companies. They operate under Chinese law, and predominatly hire Chinese workers in those companies. Do you really want US to claim jurisdiction anywhere a US citizen might be?

Essentially I see that if the US and international community proceeds slowly and carefully to further the pursuit of democracy within a country, some of the world complains.

If the US and international community proceeds with more direct measures, some of the world complains.

Can't win in either way. Yet the international community wishes China to be free, it seems.

The policies pursued since Nixon have been to bring democracy to China slowly, since this is required due to their concept of "face" and the loss of "face" if they feel embarrassed.

Do you propose that it would have been better to have left China isolated for the last 30 years?

Again, someone's argument might distill down to anti-americanism, not pro-anything.

[Exarch]

Yet the US is not the dominant trade partner with China, either imports or exports. And many other countries companies operate inside China, as well. The US has a large trade imbalance with China. Their people and economy are being freed up slowly.

There had to be a starting point to extend the concept of democracy into China. And Nixon took that step.

As China is exposed to freedoms, they want them. As they are exposed to trade goods, they want them. There must be a demand before supply will go into China to a large degree.

And US Federal law does not go with the companies. They operate under Chinese law, and predominatly hire Chinese workers in those companies. Do you really want US to claim jurisdiction anywhere a US citizen might be?

Essentially I see that if the US and international community proceeds slowly and carefully to further the pursuit of democracy within a country, some of the world complains.

If the US and international community proceeds with more direct measures, some of the world complains.

Can't win in either way. Yet the international community wishes China to be free, it seems.

The policies pursued since Nixon have been to bring democracy to China slowly, since this is required due to their concept of "face" and the loss of "face" if they feel embarrassed.

Do you propose that it would have been better to have left China isolated for the last 30 years?

Again, someone's argument might distill down to anti-americanism, not pro-humanity.

there'a a reason why a lot of ppl say it'll be a chinese century, or at least a century heavily inlfuenced by chinese culture.
As china opens up more and more, i believe the whole world benefits, and inevitably, as bushbush has outlined-greater economic freedom->larger well to do middle class-> more influence from this newfound wealth-> inevitable shift towards a republic or a type of democracy as more and more ppl wish for change.
As a practitioner of traditional chinese medicine, i myself witness many individuals benefiting from this ancient art.
as a russian tsar once put it: 'better we emancipate them from the top, than they emancipate themsleves from the bottom'

[k995]

So Obama has been getting a lot of flak in the press lately for being a modern day Neville Chamberlain "appeaser" because he's talked about actually opening a dialogue with Hezbollah and Iran. But IMHO, aren't there more important lessons from WW II that Obama's GOP opponents are totally missing?

Seeing the war on terror hasnt been succesful anywhere, why not?

Lessons like:

1. Don't take your eye off the ball While the US was busy providing aid to Great Britian in 1940, the Americans totally ignored an equal threat growing in the Pacific. Just like today where we're too focused on Iraq while the danger in Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran grows.

I doubt the US took there eye of japan in 1940.

A suprise attack is different from completly ignoring a threath.

2. Know your enemy The Bush administration seems to be as oblivious and arrogant to America's Middle Eastern rivals as FDR's administration was to the Japanese Empire. The last time around America's arrogance and overinflated sense of superiority spelled disaster at Pearl Harbor. And I'm afraid we're in for another rude awakening if we simultaneously aggravate/underestimate Iran or Iran's allies.

iran doesnt have a lot of allies,and the US has plenty of inteligence on iran and co. Its when you put people in charge who ignore all that and follow there own ideas is that you get trouble. And its the US public that elected bush.

3. Be careful who you ally with I can't help but think that our current uneasy relationship with China is all that different from Russia and Germany in the late 1930s. The good news is America and China aren't controlled by Hitler and Stalin respectively. The bad news is both the US and China have competing interests, share political fault lines that could explode into war, and vastly different cultures and governments.

Well germany was ruled by hitler either when the US had there relationship with germany, there can easily come a chinese hitler in power in china .

[Sebdeas]

How can Iran be compared with Germany and Japan?

[Mithie]

Most western democratic countrys are better then the US btw, but they share they same principal: nobody is above the law. Every citizen has its rights. Not so in china people have rights up until certain point.

I don't understand this. I have rights. For example, I have rights to a free education, all the way through college. I have rights for free medicare. I have rights to elect my local governor and my local community representative. I have rights to fair employment, fair trade, and a minimum salary within the county/province where I registered my "hu kou". I have rights to a justice system. I have rights to have my life defended by the police, the fire department, and the PLA, without preference, with no regards to skin color, racial or geological profile. I have rights to submit appeals to local legislations via my local community representative and governor, whom I elected. I have rights to audience with my local community representative, who in turn can audience with the local prefecture. I have the right to resign from citizenship, to emmigrate to another nation, or to apply for citizenship again after resignation. Hell, I have the right to have more than one child, provided I'm willing to pay the extra overhead tax.

The central government has made it extremely clear that these rights are mine.

I think I have plenty of rights which I didn't have in 1920 China.


About the facial reconstruction surgery: it's not so much a cultural thing as a neccessity (or so some think). I went to a job interview with Mercedes Benz in Shanghai and there was another applicant sitting across from me. She had some serious facework done. We started making conversation and she told me that if you wanted to be promoted to management in a western corporation, or even employed in a first place, it really helps to have a western look, because that's partially what the interviewer (usually foreign) looks for. It also helps if you spoke English without accent, unmarried, and had a third language besides English and Chinese.