Video: Roosevelt talked to Hitler and Tojo?
posted at 1:10 pm on May 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
During Barack Obama’s victory speech in North Carolina last night, he offered an argument about his much-criticized assertion that he would hold talks with America’s enemies without preconditions. Obama claimed that he would only be following in the footsteps of FDR and Harry Truman with this kind of openness. For a history buff such as myself, this sounds more than a little puzzling:
The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it is not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after Al Qaida’s leaders.
I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.
Putting aside the “labeling and name-calling”, leaving a war without winning it is, in fact, surrender. How else would anyone describe it? “Quitting” and “running away” come to mind, but both are synonymous with surrender. Leaving when the new strategy has made great progress in bolstering the elected government in Iraq is especially egregious, but in any case retreating while engaged with the enemy is surrender by any definition of the term.
I’m particularly bemused by the references to FDR and Truman. Both men ended up having to conduct massive wars that outlasted their presidencies, and in FDR’s case in no small measure because Western nations insisted on talk rather than action. While we maintained diplomatic contact with Germany and Japan until Pearl Harbor, FDR did not meet with Hitler and Tojo. And that diplomatic contact didn’t stop war from coming; indeed, it make it much worse than it otherwise would have been, at least in Europe, had the US, UK, and France had taken the appropriate steps to disarm Hitler when he started his Versailles Treaty violations.
Truman met with Joseph Stalin during and after World War II, but that didn’t stop the Soviets from blockading West Berlin or ringing down an iron curtain across eastern Europe, enslaving those nations for almost 50 years. If Potsdam and Yalta are Obama’s idea of successful foreign policy, then he obviously hasn’t studied 20th century history. Talking with implacable tyrants leads to appeasement, which leads to either war or more implacability of the tyranny in question.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Perhaps if their timing had been perfect and there had been a coordinated multi-nation invasion of Germany following the Stresa conference, but it’s hard to calculate how war-torn the British and French people were following the carnage of the Great War, where about 1 of every 4 men of fighting age were killed or seriously wounded.
In terms of deaths, Great Britain probably lost the equivalent of 5 million soldiers in terms of the current U.S. population.
dedalus on May 7, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Someone ought to read Sen Obama a bit of FDR’s 9/11/41 radio address:
“When You See a Rattlesnake Poised to Strike, You Do Not Wait Until He Has Struck Before You Crush Him”
-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat to the Nation, September 11, 1941
http://www.usmm.org/fdr/rattlesnake.html
It was an authorization for the use of force against Hitler months before Pearl Harbor (let’s ignore the pre-Pearl Harbor formation of the Flying Tigers or American squadrons fighting the battle of Britain for the moment).
Oh yeah, FDR was all about talking to enemies
NOT
scottm on May 7, 2008 at 6:13 PM
We were fairly isolationist in the lead up to WWI as well. As far as snapping out of it, after WWII we spent trillions of dollars, fought two major wars, and tangle with the Russians globally in the Cold War. I don’t think of the United States from 1945 until the early 1990’s as isolationist–we engaged an enemy and the physical survival of the planet hung in the balance.
dedalus on May 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I’d like to see a clip of this by Obama put up on youtube with a split screen or something with Neville Chamberlain talking about how he meet with Chancellor Hitler and was assured that there would be peace - and then a suitably appropriate comment from FDR and/or Churchill about Hiter.
I guess this would be the closest example of what I’m thinking of.
wise_man on May 7, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Actually, this video was the example of the split screen technique. The Zucker video I linked had the Neville Chamberlain footage. It’s all good.
wise_man on May 7, 2008 at 6:27 PM
I’d call it “ending the occupation.” Or “transfer of nation-building management authority.”
It’s not a declared war. Why does it have to be a declared surrender? Do you think that the ragtag band of criminals we’re fighting in Iraq are going to ever surrender? It’s not a distinct unit we’re fighting, so such a surrender would be impossible. Absent any readily definable and achievable goals, no “surrender” can be implied by leaving. How do you lose a race with no finish line and no rules? You don’t lose and you don’t win… you either keep on running forever, or you decide that there are better things to do with your energy.
Mark Jaquith on May 7, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Someone ought to read Sen Obama a bit of FDR’s 9/11/41 radio address:
“When You See a Rattlesnake Poised to Strike, You Do Not Wait Until He Has Struck Before You Crush Him”
-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat to the Nation, September 11, 1941
http://www.usmm.org/fdr/rattlesnake.html
scottm on May 7, 2008 at 6:13 PM
scottm, you magnificent bastard. That was a great post and a great read. Thanks!
winemkr on May 7, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Oh, yeah. This might explain Obama’s grasp of 20th Century history.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Yes, he did, and he made the decision after trying to get the Japanese to commit to unconditional surrender, and after appointing several commissions (composed of both scientists and top government officials) to consider if using the A-bomb on Japan was the right thing to do. Truman ultimately decided to use the bomb, primarily because he believed it was the best alternative available at the time. He wanted to avoid the many American and Japanese deaths that would result if the U.S. were forced to invade mainland Japan. Truman decided that using the A-bomb would end the war with fewer deaths, and that it would also serve as a warning to the Russians, who were becomingly increasingly aggressive in Europe. Historians (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) continue to debate the wisdom of Truman’s decision to use the A-bomb. However, contrary to the ravings of the ignorant and dim-witted “Reverend” Wright, it was never a decision that was made “without batting an eye.”
AZCoyote on May 7, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Hey, great timing, Mark. Foner is just about your speed…
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Victory is the ability to impose your will. The absence of victory is defeat and will be viewed as such my friends and enemies alike. Before lacing up our boots and running for the door, you should consider the likely outcome of a premature US departure.
It is quite reasonable to expect the middle east to become a less stable and more dangerous place in the ensuing vacuum. Moreover, our political process will be watched with bated breath for clues as to which way the political winds will blow.
If Obama is, one can assume that Iraq will rapidly unwind as the various internal factions and external regional actors begin to position themselves for our departure.
Korea is a fine example which disproves your political equation. It is also one to which McCain made reference to and was shamelessly twisted by Obama’s campaign. I doubt Obama could have pointed to Korea on a map before he began running for president.
moxie_neanderthal on May 7, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Didn’t he spend part of his childhood in Asia? Obama has a lot of faults, but he probably looked at a few maps when he was young.
dedalus on May 7, 2008 at 8:05 PM
wise_man on May 7, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Great post. You and many others are the reason I come to Hot Air.
If it wasn’t for this bastion of common sense I think I would go crazy.
Semper Fi
Blame America LAST
winemkr on May 7, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Only because History is taught so poorly in America can Obama’s outrageous gaffes go unnoticed.
People probably think the Cold War had something to do with Climate Change and FDR is an express package delivery line.
Barry is counting on the historical stupidty of the citizenry to win.
So far his strategy is working brilliantly with the Dems.
It will crash on the rocks of reality in the Fall, should he get that far.
Or Stonewall Jackson isn’t a tax preparation service!
profitsbeard on May 7, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Not only does Obama need a serious history lesson but he needs a basic military 101 crash course on what the difference between victory and defeat is because he clearly has no clue.
I’m not an overly religious person but God help us if this guy somehow becomes POTUS.
Yakko77 on May 7, 2008 at 8:46 PM
I remember watching RWR’s farewell address, and he urged the teaching and appreciation of American history and heritage.
I also remember Jay Leno (or his lackey) going to both the USC and UCLA graduations with a picture of FDR to show, and no graduates could identify it.
silverfox on May 7, 2008 at 9:04 PM
I keep finding myself wishing that we could somehow bring back people from the past, people who knew instinctively right and wrong and were not afraid to say so and act upon it. I know,,, fantasy land.
4shoes on May 7, 2008 at 9:30 PM
This is what happens when you don’t study History!
This what happens when you schools don’t teach History!
This also is what happens when revisionist History is
taught!
Obama’s viewpoint on talking to America’s enemys,”NUTS”!
canopfor on May 7, 2008 at 9:51 PM
It’s not hard to see how we got here. Conservatives have a general distrust of the government, for good reason. We know we can manage our money better than the government. We can raise our families better, educate them better, farm better, produce more jobs, make more money, and create a better life for our kids. With exception to the military and judicial branch, there isn’t much the government can do better than We the People. Is it any wonder then why so few intelligent, capable, morally straight, good leaders run for office? Why try to join the very thing you distrust most?
For the most part, who are the politicians? The sycophants, the liberal arts majors in college who’d rather ingratiate themselves with the “elite,” the “powerful,” those who can do for them in the future.
Much the same with college professors. Why are most extremely liberal, especially in the liberal arts arena? Could it be that the career professors who have never left academia could not make it on the outside, whether for fear, incompetence, or general lack of desire to leave their little bubble of power?
The truly great teachers I have had were the ones who graduated school, went out into the world, conquered their field, developed some fresh ideas, grew in experience, then, and only then, went back to a school to share what they have learned with the young. The latter professors loved their country, for they have lived in, and saw the genius of, their country. The former wouldn’t understand the mind and soul of the common man, the one who makes life possible for all others, the one who works his whole life with the mere hope of making his life, and his kids’ lives, better.
The typical politician or college professor doesn’t understand this, and things will never change unless some conservatives start retaking such areas of our society as politics and academia.
Send_Me on May 7, 2008 at 10:09 PM
I was listening to this trite crap while playing Delta Force Xtreme and was very happy I did. I prefer the talking to our enemies come from a M-16/M-204 combo, mind you all.
HotAirJosef on May 7, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Please forgive me if someone else has said this, but there is nothing more frightening than a cowardly liberal with his finger on the trigger. Just ask Bill Clinton.
TimothyJ on May 7, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Y’all are confusing the ‘Image’ with the ‘content’. It’s not Obama who fails the history lesson; whoever wrote the speech for him needs to go back to school. Obama reads whatever they hand him.
I’m not suggesting that he is dumb-he’s a lawyer and a Senator-I’m sure that he’s very intelligent. But he depends on writers to get by-do you think he has time to be cracking open books and doing research? He’s running for President and, until recently, he’s been in a pretty tough fight with HClinton.
He needs better, more knowledgeable writers-too bad for him that most of those who have a clear understanding of history
are Conservatives.
Doug on May 8, 2008 at 1:21 AM
The liberal educational system has made historical morons out of a majority of the American people so Dillweed can say whatever he wishes and they don’t know the difference! Be careful, Barry about making them “feel good about themselves”! American schools are excellent at this…it’s facts that no longer matter!
sabbott on May 8, 2008 at 7:04 AM
When we have a presumptive presidential candiate describe the caterwauling of the mosques’ call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,” then “Houston, we have a problem.”
For Obama, we aren’t fighting al-Qaeda (the really bad muslims) in Iraq, unless they carry an al-Qaeda ID card to prove it. Under Obama, fighting terror will degenerate back to Clinton’s policy of fighting jihad with law enforcement. That policy really worked out well for us.
RickZ on May 8, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Some people don’t know about history, and then there are people who don’t care.
Reason #314 why Obama is simply not qualified for the job he’s applied for.
Merovign on May 8, 2008 at 10:22 AM
In fact, France had a larger army in 1940 than Germany, too. It didn’t help. Read William Shirer to find out why.
Ed Morrissey on May 7, 2008 at 5:45 PM
A French foreign exchange student explained it with a lovely diagram. The French positioned all of their troops at their border with Germany. Germany invaded France via a simple detour through their common neighbor. It stands to reason, either the French generals were very stupid, or the French leaders wanted to allow the German invasion’s success at once without the bloody battles.
maverick muse on May 8, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Obama is clarifying his politics. He has Jimmy Crack Corn Carter’s endorsement for many reasons, obviously one being their common desire to dismantle America from within through appeasements designed as pseudo-”diplomacy”: GIFTS TO TERRORISTS AND ENEMIES SWORN TO OUR DESTRUCTION funded by American citizen tax payers. Demoralization, accomplished. Submission, on course.
It takes vim and vigor to resist and fight back, and the sooner the better in organizing the conservative movement’s momentum in the USA. Besides our own agenda’s strength of purpose to retain the original character of our Constitution in daily life, it would also be effective to utilize propaganda from Europe, the liberal’s own favorite example, why EUROPE chose to CHANGE and place their hope in conservatism now.
Also, the true living and breathing interpretation of our Constitution is our daily life; for, our country’s ability to adapt to new times and accept new people relies on our original Constitution’s integrity being respected, honored, and kept securely in moto perpetuo. RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT, sadly lacking today, provides Constitutional requirements instead of Progressive demands and fads that displace “We, The People” from ownership of private property and free enterprise. It has been a long time the Progressive practice of our government for each branch to attempt BEING another branch. Most notably, we bemoan activist judges legislating from the bench. We also have a Speaker of the House Pelosi who would usurp the Presidency in international policy and diplomacy. We have legislative bodies who attempt to coerce all sorts of ideas, including “hate laws” and McCain’s campaign reform that strongly defy our Bill or Rights civil liberty of free speech. We have had Presidents who abuse the executive order to deny Americans of their own land deed rights.
maverick muse on May 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]