All throughout the mid to late thirties, the Wolf Adolph Hitler, it was a codename that he kept for his entire career as Fuehrer / Dictator bullied people and broke things. And the decent, civilized leader of England and France and simply wrung their hands, and wrote harshly worded diplomatic cables, and made vague threats of sanctions, and all the rest.
Hitler didnt play the West like a violin: he played them like a light switch. Threaten violence, offer peace. Threaten violence, offer peace. Make outrageous demands; invade other countries; backdate the moral argument by claiming your are simply protecting your own ethnic populations against imagined and then invented foreign oppression, et cetera and so on and you know the drill. Well, some of us do, anyway.
Two days ago, skipping through my satellite comedy channels where I keep the BBC I came in on the end of an interview with an Estonian defense minister, who proceeded to remind Vladimir Putin the Bear -- that Estonia was part of NATO, while the Ukraine is not. And the BBC interviewer leapt in, in tones of contempt and panic, protesting in a panic that that sort of language was counterproductive because it only antagonizes and offends Moscow. You dont want to make them angry. Its better to be nice to them before they overrun your country you get a higher position in the slave government that way, and maybe they will shoot you last.
Now: both the Wolf and the Bear have a lot in common. Both were from humble beginnings, and both survived and clawed their way to becoming leaders of great nations by cunning and ruthlessness and the predators skill at finding weakness in their prey. Both without question have personally ordered the murder of political opponents. Both and this is important led nations that were filled with bitterness over lost glory, both fostered intense hatred of outsiders, and both promised to restore their national honor through military conquest. And most importantly, both the Wolf and the Bear represent nations with the exceedingly dangerous combination of resentment, envy, shame and unspoken but pervasive inferiority. That is a dangerous combination.
Opposing the Wolf and the Bear? Two Lambs.
Facing the Wolf: Neville Chamberlain, a proud, self-centered man, consumed with his own sense of self-importance: not terribly perceptive, or terribly interested in much of anything other than his own place in history as a result of his domestic social reforms.
Facing the Bear: ditto.
Hitler saw a vain and timid man who clutched at a piece of paper so that he didnt have to look at what was behind it. Putin sees a man-child, who is put in his place by one of the women that have always told him what to do.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. There are also things that are tried and true, and should be repeated. Democrats seem to think that change just for the sake of change is always a good thing. No it’s not.
The old, “create an international crisis and then seek a favorable diplomatic solution” ploy. China gets honorable mention but Putin is the champion.
It’d be more productive - and more to the point - to ask what Obama and Hitler have in common.
No, facing the Bear is Oswald Mosley, a fellow traveler who sympathizes with Putin’s aims and wants payback for America winning the Cold War.
Re Washington Free Beacon: Hillary Camp in Secret Meet Tells NYT to Back Off
We already know that Hillary Clinton is extremely ruthless. Greater attention should be paid to her animosity even to the left-leaning press.
A common characteristic of the great 20th century dictators was the importance they placed on public image. The conventional American media image of Adolph Hitler as a buffoon was highly misleading, as typified by Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4 , or perhaps better by Spike Jones' "Der Führer's Face" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MReV9dkAVhY
The true media profile of Hitler was that he was an extremely effective propagandist, nearly to the extent of something like "The Mule" in Isaac Azimov's "The Foundation Trilogy", a nearly psychic manipulator of public opinion. A dedicated sci-fi story that explored the issue of Hitler's extreme public relations effectiveness is Murray Leinster's "The Leader" http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23612/23612-h/23612-h.htm .
Media Studies guru Marshall McLuhan used Hitler's extreme effectiveness in the use of the then-new medium of the public address/loudspeaker system to demonstrate the power of media to influence public opinion.
When Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson, son of the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote his apocalyptic "The Lord of the World" in 1907 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14021 , he could conceive of the Vatican being destroyed by aircraft ("volors", flyers), but he was unable to envision public address loudspeakers when he has the Anti-Christ, Julian Felsenburgh address crowds at "Paul's House" (St. Paul's Cathedral) in London. Felsenburgh emerges as the despot's dream, a propagandistic paragon, single-handedly turning the civilized world to obey his slightest whim by force of personality, rabid mob devotion.
Someone fronting from a group so powerful, it could have ordered that Hitler be made into Hoffaburger. It turns out that when Hitler first assumed power, he went with hat in hand to make his case to the heads of German industry that his gangster militias could deliver labor peace.
(Not that the Big Boys were exactly helpless their corporate army was called Der Totenkopf, the “Death’s Head” the SS. Their corporate heirs are the people who put out RU-486 chemical abortion. [IG Farben > Hoechst > Roussel Uclaf])
They both steam-rolled weak, deluded incompetent Free World leaders.
They both faced a weak commie in the White House?