Appeasement Then And Now

Even in January 1942, when German armies were at the gates of Moscow, George Orwell wrote in Partisan Review that "the greater part of the very young intelligentsia are anti-war … don't believe in any 'defense of democracy,' are inclined to prefer Germany to Britain, and don't feel the horror of Fascism that we who are somewhat older feel."

As if to illustrate Orwell's point, a pacifist poet named D.S. Savage wrote a reply in which he explained why he "would never fight and kill for such a phantasm" as "Britain's 'democracy.' " Savage saw no difference between Britain and its enemies because under the demands of war both were imposing totalitarianism: "Germans call it National Socialism. We call it democracy. The result is the same."

Savage naively wondered, "Who is to say that a British victory will be less disastrous than a German one?" Savage thought the real problem was that Britain had lost "her meaning, her soul," but "the unloading of a billion tons of bombs on Germany won't help this forward an inch." "Personally," he added, with hilarious understatement, "I do not care for Hitler." But he thought the way to resist Hitler was by not resisting him: "Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on Hitler's head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemnation, but understanding."

And so Max Boot gives a lesson in history that should, if they trouble to read it, give today's appeasing anti-war movement pause. He's not calling them Nazis in an emotional rant as they are wont to do; he's simply showing how pacifists can only hold onto their beliefs if they refuse to confront evil, whether it's Hitler's evil or Osama's.

And it's not history. Boot reminds us that in the aftermath of the London terror attacks, George Galloway, the pro-Saddam Parliamentarian, blamed the attacks on England's involvement in fighting terror, as if bin Laden would respond to appeasement any better that Hitler did.

h/t Real Clear Politics