Dr Dean,

You try to make a point about the evil of Hitler being obvious along a time line that is very much open for debate. From your point of view, it was obvious. The question I must ask is obvious to whom? To the Germans? To the Austrains? To the Poles, the french, the British, the Americans?

History tells us it was not obvious. It surely was not obvious to the majority of Germans and Austrians. It was not obvious to the political leadership of various other European nations or their citizens. I say this because of the actions they took or failed to take against the same time line you are using.

Even when it became obvious, and that realization probably happened at different times within each nation, the leadership was reluctant to act on this realization because it would lead to another war. The elected leaders lacked the courage and will to convey to their citizens the dangers and the need for action. They chose to ignore the difficult choices until they could no longer ignore them and were forced to act.

At that point the price that was to be paid was huge.

To think history cannot repeat itself is folly.

I will give you an example of how the obvious can be ignored and how weak leadership, the inability of leaders to convey to their citizens the need for action, plays out.

Look at the economic situation in Germany, france and Italy. I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim today these economies are performing in a way to promote long-term security and stability for their citizens. There has been study after study, recommendation after recommendation made but the problems still persist because of inaction.

It is not so much the leadership of these nations do not know what needs to be done or the actions needed are some mystery. It is these leaders lack of will, courage and the ability to convey the need for change to their citizens that causes nothing to change. Even modest changes result in a revolt by the population. To understand this one does not have to look any further than the most recent elections in Italy and Germany or the protests in france. There the vote was split giving no clear direction or mandate to the elected leaders. So things will remain the same but the world does not stop because a nation or its citizens want it to stop. The world continues to revolve.

As for the economies of these nations given the fact the obvious is clearly being ignored, change will occur when there is no other choice. At that time, the change will be more painful and effect more people than if actions had been taken sooner rather than later.

And I have no understanding of what you meant about a “tactical view of history”. That is a term or concept I am totally unfamiliar with.

Dr Dean,

I find it a bit difficult to follow the logic in your posts. You start out discussing obvious evil must be confronted at its earliest possible detection. Yet, when we look at examples of obvious evil it becomes unclear as to whom or what nations should recognize the obvious.

Today should it not be obvious that Iran is evil? It might not be evil to you or to the Germans or to the Europeans. Yet, it surely must appear to be obvious to the Israelis given Iran has publicly stated its goal is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. Does this mean Israel should act now to eliminate the obvious evil that Iran represents?

Equally I do not have a clear understanding of your appeasement argument. It would seem we have a very different view of diplomacy.

I can only find one real example of effective diplomacy that being the Cuban Missile Crises of the early 60’s. You might have other examples and if you do, I hope you will post them.

I believe for diplomacy to effective there has to be strength behind the negotiations. There also has to be both willingness and a clear understanding that diplomatic failure will results in the use of this strength.

The preparation for and the use of military action is the continuation of diplomacy. It is recognition of the limits of diplomacy and being realistic and clear about the alternatives.

There are actions, which can be taken short of direct military action. One of these would be total isolation and economic sanctions. But does anyone seriously believe these will be taken? Both Russia and China have made their positions clear on this. Of course, a real question is how effective would they be anyway given how well they worked in the 10 years with Iraq.

You might be like of a growing number of people who think there should be some “grand deal” between the US and Iran with lots of give a ways from the US and the West with the promise by Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. This is much like the “grand deal” President Clinton entered into with NPK. We can all see how well that worked. Equally you are saying we will trust Iran. Do you really?

You cite the Munich Conference in one of your earlier posts. I would say this was an effort to find a diplomatic solution to prevent a war. It was viewed as such by the UK and france. The Germans viewed it as a sign of weakness. We all know the results of that diplomatic effort.

The E3 have been in negotiations with Iran now going on close to 4 years. What has this accomplished? During this time Iran continues to develop its nuclear weapons program. In fact, it seems almost monthly something new is discovered about the progress of this program that had been kept secret from the E3 during their discussions. Not only has Iran lied to the E3 but also to the UN. Yet, you want to trust these people. I find that wishful thinking and hopeful.

Yes maybe as a German you have deep trouble with the use of military force. It is in some ways understandable.

I question if there is anything you deem worth fighting for. It surely is not for freedom or to prevent the genocide we witness in many places in Africa. Maybe you might fight for Frankfurt or Munich.

Equally at the end of the day, it will unfortunately be the US, which will have to act. It will also probably have to act alone. Look at the major nations in Europe. Who would support the US? The french cannot pass limited labor reform laws. The Germans have a divided government that while in the geopolitical arena is making lots of the right noise they will not step up when the call is made because they too are divided. Italy has just snatched chaos from order and the government is so weak it might not last the year. It surely has neither the political leadership nor a popular mandate to confront Iran.

So maybe the best course of action is just pretend everything is going to be fine and so what if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. As long as there is no war, we all can live with that. What do you think?