Patterico's Pontifications

Hitler? No mention of her hero Stalin’s massive “population transfers”? Some of the survivors are Tatars, in the Crimea now, and could probably give us their view. I don’t thing we’ll hear much from the kulaks, though.

On the other hand, we have Michelle Malkin beating up Lindsay Graham for using Benghazi, analogously to this event, to paint Obama as a weak sister in world affairs. I think it’s fair. Whether the rhetoric is overblown is the speaker’s problem, he gets a C in Communications.

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:28 am

The Russian descriptions of Russian speaking residents of Ukraine do sound like the days of Sudetan Germans in 1938.

MikeK (cd7278) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:28 am

I meant that I think it’s fair for Lindsay Graham to bring up Benghazi now.

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:31 am

Narrowly escaping with her life from snipers at an airport in Bosnia several years ago makes her more savvy and wise than the average politician.

She can be trusted to know and do the right thing.

Mark (71f7cb) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:32 am

What difference, at this point, does it make!?!?!?

Colonel Haiku (0466d2) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:33 am

During the 2008 election, however, she spoke bluntly about Putin. “He was a KGB agent. By definition, he doesn’t have a soul,” she said that January.

She ought to know. Who knows soullessness better than Billary?

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:35 am

I guess that it’s easy for her to say it now, when she’s not in office but is (probably) running for one.

The Dana trying for the seventh comment (3e4784) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:48 am

Hillary is finding out now
That when Vlad makes a vow
He really means it
And don’t give a shit
He does it and does’t care how

The Limerick Avenger (3e4784) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:52 am

My opinion is that WW3 started when the Muslims attacked the Olympics in 1972. That make this one #4. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s the same war and our “Intelligence” services aren’t smart enough to figure it out.

Glenn (647d76) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:58 am

She’s using the Obama BS strategery.

Have Americans have learned their lesson?

Patricia (be0117) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:06 am

When I was a sophomore in high school, they told me this story about Teddy Roosevelt. He was a foresighted man, in the complete sense of the term, he had the gift of prophecy. There was this South American country called Colombia that had this narrow strip of land extending North that would be the ideal place for a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Now, Teddy foresaw that there was going to be trouble in Colombia; oppression, insurrection, even a shooting war. So, in the interests of world peace and suffering humanity, he thought he’d send a couple of gunboats down there to see if he could feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and comfort the sick, when such a thing happened. And his timing was impeccable. As soon as the American gunboats arrived, a shooting war did in fact break out. Thankfully, we were there, because of his vision. We restored order, took away the miserable little strip that was causing all the trouble from the vile Colombian oppressors; renamed it Panama and put its poor, oppressed people under our benevolent protection; and built a canal across it that has benefited mankind for generations. A wonderful thing. In gratitude to Teddy, we carved his face on a mountain, something that had not been done even for Pharaohs.

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:28 am

Bubba was on last night to say Pooter never went back on a word sworn to himself, the first black president.

He looked as old as Dad, mid-eighties.

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:35 am

There was this other story I learned, about a breakaway Republic from the Spanish Empire, called Mexico I think, that early on (maybe 12 years) in its nascency, got stuck with a dictator that was oppressing the English-speaking ethnic Americans in one of its northern provinces. I’ll need to look up the details of what happened next.

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:36 am

10. Your wheelhouse is fascinating.

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:37 am

Wheelhouse?

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:40 am

The stuff you’re, have been, really in to.

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:43 am

McCain’s “I looked into Putin’s eyes and saw KGB” is what’s remembered, but the minute preceding it is what makes very good sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAVlaIJWP-Q

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:49 am

16. Agreed. Not that an isolated gem redeems a cesspool.

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/5/2014 @ 9:04 am

Hill’ry’s running for stuff
So now’s the time to talk tough
But if she is Prez
I here now says
She’ll be strong as a powder puff

The Limerick Avenger (3e4784) — 3/5/2014 @ 9:48 am

Like many things, I think Godwin’s law only applies to Conservatives.

It is a bit of a challenge to Obama to do something serious, isn’t it? Or at least posture that she would be a tougher and more aggressive President than the one. (Recalling how she postured on Iraq for political points, maybe the smart money is on the second option).

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/5/2014 @ 9:50 am

Godwin’s Law is nothing more than a tactic to control speech. The way Hitler and the Nazis did in Germany during the Third Reich while perpetrating the Holocaust.

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:01 am

Sounds about right, nk, all kind of tricks to try to control and silence conservative common sense so that liberal musings are unopposed.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:04 am

I forgot to mention that it was enforced by the SS and the Gestapo.

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:05 am

Orwell wrote about it, MD. He theorized that people think in words and if you control words you control thought. (A very good essay, actually, it’s been forty years since I read it, I’ll see if I can find a link.)

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:09 am

Here it is. FWIW. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:17 am

Help me out here, I’m confused which I attribute to my family background: German, Dutch, Czech and Hungarian.

I’m kinda thinking that my relatives from Czechoslovakia were not all that keen on my relatives from Germany waltzing in to “protect” them in the late 1930’s. And were not impressed with the Great Powers negotiating the country’s fate without any Czechs at the table – even if it meant peace in their time.

The Dutch relatives were unlikely to have welcomed their German neighbors with open arms, but did appreciate the Allies rescuing them in 1944-45.

And I pretty confident that my relatives in Budapest weren’t too happy to “rescued” by the Soviets in 1956.

Or my family being rescued by the Soviets to end the 1968 Prague Spring.

The pattern I have seen is that most people don’t want or need to be “rescued” by some territory gobbling nation. They just want to be allowed to determine their own fate.

So, why is it wrong to draw a reasonable parallel to the Sudetenland “rescue” by Germany being excused by other European nations as understandable – especially when it resulted in a sincere promise of peace in their time. Putin tested the West in Georgia and knows that the European economic and fuel dependency on Russia will mute their response again in order to maintain peace with their supplier. How far will Putin be allowed to reach before security interests outweigh European economic interests? Or will their be not line in the sand for the Europeans?

in_awe (7c859a) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:18 am

The Czechoslovakian air force could have put an end to Hitler and his dreams of a Third Reich right then and there. It was stronger than the pitiful horse drawn army Hitler invaded with. Instead the Czechoslovakians surrendered. Giving Hitler 3% of the world’s manufacturing capacity, which Czechoslovakia had at the time. On the other hand, Prague’s beautiful old architecture was preserved for the pleasure of tourists (it was not bombed).

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:26 am

Where’s Ukraine’s Concord Bridge?

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:28 am

Frau Rodham would know Nazi-like.

askeptic (2bb434) — 3/5/2014 @ 11:36 am

…comparing Russia’s decision to issue passports in the Crimean region to the “population transfers” carried out by Nazi Germany before World War II.

I love how these ignoramuses tenuous grasp of history doesn’t extend past Hitler. As if anything Hitler did was original.

“Now if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the 30s,” she said. “All the Germans that were … the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they’re not being treated right. I must go and protect my people and that’s what’s gotten everybody so nervous.”

This sort of pan-German nationalism existed for nearly 100 years.

Pan-Slavic nationalism was one of the main pretenses the Czar had for entering WWI. He was protecting his fellow Slavs in the Balkans from those evil Austro-Hungarians and their German allies.

Steve57 (2991b6) — 3/5/2014 @ 12:33 pm

Actually, pan-German nationalism existed for more than 100 years before Hitler came along, since its roots really took hold during the wars with Napoleon.

There are all sorts of pan-nationalist movements that predated Hitler. In addition to the two I’ve mentioned there was pan-Iranism and Pan-Turkism. I’m sure there’s more; probably pan-Sinoism. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the PRC use the pretense of protecting Chinese minorities across south Asia for aggressive expansionism.

It’s not a new idea.

Thomas Sowell gets slammed for accurately drawing parallels between Obama and Hitler’s methodology and policies, things that were unique to 1930s fascism (and openly emulated in many respects by FDR).

Yet Hillary! will no doubt be praised as a historian for drawing this lazy parallel between Hitler and Putin for this comparo, even though the idea predates both of them by centuries.

Steve57 (2991b6) — 3/5/2014 @ 12:58 pm

Comment by nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:28 am

Now, Teddy foresaw that there was going to be trouble in Colombia; oppression, insurrection, even a shooting war.

At that time Columbia was rulled by a Vice President.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1121.html

In January 1903, Secretary of State Hay signed a treaty with Colombian diplomat Tomas Herran, which gave the United States a 99-year lease, subject to renewal, to a canal zone in Panama in return for $10 million and annual rent of $250,000.

Disliking the open-ended nature of the lease, and hoping for a larger settlement from either the Americans or the French, the Colombian senate rejected the treaty in August 1903. Roosevelt and Hay blamed Vice President Jose Marroquin, whom they judged to be the virtual dictator of Colombia, but his power was far less than they assumed. Colombia was a poor country torn by political factions, civil war, and occasional independence uprisings in Panama.

Roosevelt and Hay, though, considered the Colombian refusal to be evidence of bad-faith negotiating and highway robbery (as in this cartoon). The irate American president complained that the Colombian “jack rabbits should [not] be allowed permanently to bar one of the future highways of civilization.”

Philippe Bunau-Varilla, a French engineer who had worked on the original canal project and was a strong advocate of the Panamanian route, and William Nelson Cromwell, the lawyer for the New Panama Canal Company, began working in the summer of 1903 to foment a rebellion by Panamanians, who were worried about losing the benefits of a canal through their region.

On October 10, Bunau-Varilla met with Roosevelt at the White House, where the Frenchman surprised the president by revealing that a Panamanian revolt was imminent. Roosevelt did not give verbal support to the situation, but ordered the Pacific fleet to move toward Central America.

On November 3, 1903, the uprising began, and within two days Panama had secured its independence with only one human death. An hour after learning of the news, the U.S. State Department granted de facto recognition to the Panamanian government, with formal recognition following on November 13.

Five days later, on November 18, 1903, Secretary Hay and Bunau-Varilla, representing Panama, signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, which gave the United States sovereign authority over a canal zone in return for the $10 million and $250,000 annual rent originally offered to Colombia (the rent was raised over the years).

In 1904, the New Panama Canal Company received $40 million for rights to its canal holdings, and the United States immediately began constructing the canal. President Roosevelt visited the site in 1906, becoming the first president to travel outside the country while in office…

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/5/2014 @ 1:29 pm

Comment by in_awe (7c859a) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:18 am

The Dutch relatives were unlikely to have welcomed their German neighbors with open arms, but did appreciate the Allies rescuing them in 1944-45.

Holland had thought at first, it would remain neutral, as in World War I, but it was invaded.

History did not repeat itself.

NATO was formed partlty because the whole idea of safety through neutrality was discredited, at least in Belguim and the Netherlands.

They were ruled very harshly by the number 6 1/4 Nazi. Seyss-Inquart was his name. And he really was ranked about 6 1/4.

They were not rescued in the fall and winter 1944/45 – the allied armies went a bridge too far, and Seyess Inquirt imposesd starvation on the Netherlands. Most of Holland’s Jewish population had already been sent away to be killed.

So, why is it wrong to draw a reasonable parallel to the Sudetenland “rescue” by Germany being excused by other European nations as understandable – especially when it resulted in a sincere promise of peace in their time.

Because that was so much worse.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/5/2014 @ 1:36 pm

Overheard:

He’s not going to give that up.

He’s smart – he hasn’t shot anybody yet.

Actually a lot of demonstrators – but secretly – in Kiev before the governmnent was replaced.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/5/2014 @ 2:16 pm

Call me a faithless cynic but I give this story about as much credence as a Nigerian email scam.

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/5/2014 @ 3:54 pm

Link.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_05/Behind-Ukraine-snipers-was-not-Yanukovych-but-new-coalition-Estonian-FM-to-Ashton-5154/

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/5/2014 @ 3:54 pm

Real genius:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/03/drama-queen-code-pink-leader-medea-benjamin-makes-good-on-threat-to-make-a-scandal-for-egypt-if-deported/

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/5/2014 @ 4:17 pm

I’m wondering whether we, the commenters here at Patterico’s, might not be taking this more seriously than Ukraine is. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/live-us-ukraine-score-highlights-goals-2014-3

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 4:35 pm

It probably depends on what part of the Ukraine someone lives in, and whether they’ve lost any family members to the violence.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/5/2014 @ 4:39 pm

There were different groups involved in Maidan – some of them probably working for Putin.

In particular I have in mind the anti-semites.

I don’t think they were hired directly by Yanukovychh. Putin would have been responsible

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/5/2014 @ 4:44 pm

It might actually be half true

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/5/2014 @ 4:44 pm

Because that was so much worse.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/5/2014 @ 1:36 pm

Of course what the Germans did in totality during WWII was worse than Putin’s current adventurism. But the point remains that the agreement to let Germany take over the Sudetenland was reached by other nations in appeasing Germany in exchange for a promise of peace. There was no peace, only further adventurism.

The EU appears willing to cede Crimea to Russia because Russia controls one third of Europe’s natural gas and is a major trading partner. Once before the natural gas to Europe was shut-off to demonstrate Russia’s ability to direct European action. It was a lesson not lost on Putin.

My point remains: How far will Putin be allowed to assert Russia’s power before Europe’s security interests outweigh its short-term economic interests? Or will the Europeans just steadfastly refuse to become “involved” in addressing Russia’s adventurism?

in_awe (7c859a) — 3/5/2014 @ 6:32 pm

Well, we sure know who isn’t serious:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/03/gripping-photo-from-inside-presidents.html

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:54 pm

Let’s start World War III then.

And that is the crux of the matter. Obama has left himself in situations, time and again, where when predictable things occur, he is out of options.

There are no contingency plans, the normal resources have been ordered elsewhere, and the bargaining chips have been given away unilaterally. Because in his fantasy world they just can’t happen, especially after we’ve given those guys what they asked for.

And those things he could do, he doesn’t.

As I say this, I am reminded a lot of Benghazi.

Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:54 pm

The Russian gas pipeline goes through the Ukraine. If Russian movements suggest an existential threat to the Ukraine, I would expect them to destroy the pipelines. Everyone else may want to roll over and ignore it, but I doubt the Ukrainians will, at least those who have heard stories of relatives that starved to death under the Russians.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:03 pm

44. I agree, the seventy fallen seemed pretty committed and reasonably aware of consequences.

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:15 pm

Raving maniac:

http://therightscoop.com/ralph-peters-im-not-a-conspiracy-theorist-but-im-starting-to-wonder-if-obama-has-some-crazy-agreement-with-putin/

I’m thinking Pooter is using voodoo he picked up in Cuba.

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:26 pm

Hillary’s Putin’s. Obama belongs to Xi Jinping.

nk (dbc370) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:46 pm

Rodham is garbage. Obama is worse. Neither have a heheheheheeh SMIDGEN of leadership Neither have a smidgen of honesty. All is well.

Gus (70b624) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:08 pm

Shirley, they can’t be serious,

narciso (3fec35) — 3/5/2014 @ 10:12 pm

Your last sentence may be a little tendentious. Remember that the enemy gets a vote about war, too. If the enemy says, “There will be war,” only two things are possible response. We fight a war or we surrender. IMAO that means we fight a war. With that in mind it might be interesting to reconsider the so-called war on terror as a war in response to Muslim literalists attacks and asymmetrical warfare against us.

{o.o}

JDow (c4e4c5) — 3/6/2014 @ 3:06 am

Comment by Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/5/2014 @ 7:54 pm

And that is the crux of the matter. Obama has left himself in situations, time and again, where when predictable things occur, he is out of options.

This problem is actually endemic in the State Department and with American diplomacy – Too often there is no Plan B – and a peace agreement or peace proposal has no contingency plan for what to do when it is not abided by. If there are observers orcekeepers, what do they do if it is broken? If situation where goodwill cannot be assumed, you can”t make plans on that basis.

And those things he could do, he doesn’t.

As I say this, I am reminded a lot of Benghazi.

Benghazi (that day) was a case of:

1) Not wanting to do anything if it wasn’t truly necessary, especially crossing legal lines.

2) Not knowing what the truth was, and being lied to. They were being misdirected. They were being told different things about the Ambassador. They got conditions imposed, like needing to have Libyan partcipation.

They also repeatedly thought the battle (that is the immediate danger) was over.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/6/2014 @ 1:47 pm

44. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/5/2014 @ 8:03 pm

If Russian movements suggest an existential threat to the Ukraine, I would expect them to destroy the pipelines. Everyone else may want to roll over and ignore it, but I doubt the Ukrainians will, at least those who have heard stories of relatives that starved to death under the Russians.

Putin probably has to worry about that, and some other things.

The starving to death is something that happeend in the 1930s. Actually, to some degree times, because agriculture in the Ukraine was collectivized three times, once in the 1920s (at that time Herbert Hoover was allowed to feed them) the second time in the 1930s, when Stalin starved anyone not in the cities, and people previous to that had been prevented from moving into cities a of 1930, and the third time around 1947 under Khruschev’s administration – he supervised that)

They’re probably not worried about that, now.

But what are worried about is enough. They don’t want to be ruled by Putin. Not just the poor people. The rich people. The corrupt people. Anyone.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/6/2014 @ 1:56 pm

3/5/2014

Hillary: Russian Actions in Crimea Are Nazi-Like

53 Responses to “Hillary: Russian Actions in Crimea Are Nazi-Like”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out