RCP: 'Obama Needs a History Lesson'

[Joe Republic]

May 09, 2008

Obama Needs a History Lesson

By Jack Kelly

In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.

In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "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."

That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.

When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.

Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."

It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.

The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.

History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said:

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[Beet]

The problem with the Munich comparison is that it was more than just a talk-- it was a complete sell-out of Eastern Europe (and, to a lesser extent, France). Also, Cold War analogies are problematic in the sense that, Cuba today, for example, or even Iran, does not pose nearly the threat to the US that the Soviets did during the Cold War.

Russia and China still pose the biggest threat to the US strategically, and, well... Bush already meets with them without preconditions.

[Eraserhead]

RCP should get over their extreme hatred towards Obama.

[Joe Republic]

RCP should get over their extreme hatred towards Obama.

That's all you have to say in your candidate's defense?  Weak.

[Stranger in a strange land]

FDR tried to negotiate with the Japanese before Pearl Harbor: it failed because he wouldn't make concessions, not even to lift the oil embargo. Negotiation doesn't equal surrender, and it isn't supposed to. Many Neocons equate the two. It's not an accident that they always cite Munich.

Kennedy negotiated with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis: if he hadn't, it's likely many of us wouldn't be here.

[Angel of Death]

Jack Kelly is not only an asshole, but also ignorant as f**k. It should be proclaimed repeatedly from the rooftops that it was the Conservatives who appeased Hitler.

Oh, and that quote was from George Santayana, not from that perennial masturbation fantasy of conservatives, Winston Churchill.

[Eraserhead]

RCP should get over their extreme hatred towards Obama.

That's all you have to say in your candidate's defense?  Weak.

I honestly don't understand what I'm defending him from. If Hillary Clinton said this, nobody would have cared. It's the kind of generic comment that you can argue for or against until the end of time without any clear answer.

Plus, I have talked to some of the people there. Not exactly a "fair and balanced" staff.

[War on Want]

The problem with the Munich comparison is that it was more than just a talk-- it was a complete sell-out of Eastern Europe (and, to a lesser extent, France). Also, Cold War analogies are problematic in the sense that, Cuba today, for example, or even Iran, does not pose nearly the threat to the US that the Soviets did during the Cold War.

Russia and China still pose the biggest threat to the US strategically, and, well... Bush already meets with them without preconditions.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

Jack Kelly is not only an asshole, but also ignorant as f**k. It should be proclaimed repeatedly from the rooftops that it was the Conservatives who appeased Hitler.

Oh, and that quote was from George Santayana, not from that perennial masturbation fantasy of conservatives, Winston Churchill.

I know. It's utterly fascinating how the history of 1930's British policy to the Nazis has been completely rewritten. How many people know that Churchill actually had to ally himself with the Left to oppose appeasment against the darling of the Establishment Right, Chamberlain?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyone remember RCP's 2000 prediction?

Enough said.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

RCP should get over their extreme hatred towards Obama.

LOL. How dare RCP point out errors in his awe inspiring speeches!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Anyone remember RCP's 2000 prediction?

Enough said.

Totally irrelevant. These are facts, not predictions. This is pathetic for you guys.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

See this thread for a history lesson of how RCP are a bunch of right-wing hacks.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=41493.0

[Joe Republic]

See this thread for a history lesson of how RCP are a bunch of right-wing hacks.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=41493.0

How is that in any way relevant?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

See this thread for a history lesson of how RCP are a bunch of right-wing hacks.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=41493.0

Again, totally irrelevant. This was a prediction. So many people got it wrong. They are using facts. You all are doing a horrible job defending your candidate.

[MODU]

So far only Beet, Strangeland and Mango have had decent responses to the article, yet they don't really explain how Obama is different than what is being projected by the article.

[Dan the Roman]

Here's the problem with these attacks on Obama and the fake conservative "history". We are all here today because JFK decided not to invade Cuba in 1962 and instead called up Kruschev and guess what, appeased him by offering to remove our missiles from Turkey.

The problem with what Chamberlain did at Munich is not that he made concessions but that he made them without demanding anything in return and simply relying on Hitler's good will. In reality he had no choice. The dominions wouldn't fight over Czechoslovakian territory that was filled by Germans anyway, and without them he couldn't carry the country - note two Conservative MPs resigned their seats and fought the subseqeunt byelections as independents opposed to Munich. Both were popular in their districts and both lost. This ridiculous hindsight based Chamberlain bashing is grossly disingenious, especially because it was people like RCP and Bill Kristol who argued that we couldn't allow Russian troops into Eastern Europe to protect the Czaechs ands that we should give Hitler what he wants so he will go east.

  This recent spate of attacks remind me why I quit the GOP last year - the fake intellectualism. The RCP article spews forth events without context and reaches conclusions with no relationship to reality. If the current class of clowns were running things in the Cold War we would all be dead. I liked McCain in 2000, and I am thinking of voting for him now, but attaching himself to hacks like Kristol, and insane statements like Bush's in Israel makes me incredibly wary as to whether this nation can survive a McCain presidency. I just hope he doesn't really believe this stuff.

[Dan the Roman]

Plus the best way to deal with iran is to open relations. The Iranian religious leadership is corrupt through and through and most own stakes in the oil industry. If the US opened relations they would make billions and they would have a personal financial stake in maintaining at least civil relations with the US.

The real lesson of history is that force without adequate political preparation accomplishes nothing.

[Eraserhead]

See this thread for a history lesson of how RCP are a bunch of right-wing hacks.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=41493.0

Again, totally irrelevant. This was a prediction. So many people got it wrong. They are using facts. You all are doing a horrible job defending your candidate.

We'll never be masters like you, Mr. Duke.

[minionofmidas]

This video belongs here.

[Gustaf]

Poor guy...talk about being clueless. Good that history knowledge can be an asset at times.

[Gustaf]

Jack Kelly is not only an asshole, but also ignorant as f**k. It should be proclaimed repeatedly from the rooftops that it was the Conservatives who appeased Hitler.

Oh, and that quote was from George Santayana, not from that perennial masturbation fantasy of conservatives, Winston Churchill.

I know. It's utterly fascinating how the history of 1930's British policy to the Nazis has been completely rewritten. How many people know that Churchill actually had to ally himself with the Left to oppose appeasment against the darling of the Establishment Right, Chamberlain?

I do. Most people obviously don't know history very well to begin with, but anyone who has studied that part I believe are well aware that Churchill had his most solid support from the Labour Party (and, I believe, the Liberals) while the Tories were split on the issue.

Still, the fundamental point really remains unchanged, doesn't it? That some British Conservatives did something wrong 70 years ago doesn't really take much away from American Conservatives today calling it wrong...

[classical liberal]

Still, the fundamental point really remains unchanged, doesn't it? That some British Conservatives did something wrong 70 years ago doesn't really take much away from American Conservatives today calling it wrong...

Especially since the word Conservative is so nebulously defined as to negate any intellectual rigor involved anywhere else in the statement in which it appears.