Speigel has published a fascinating short essay on how the end of World War I lead to World War II. The essay brings up a host of pertinent issues, but offers them from a fresh and well=considered perspective. The essay places the blame for World War II squarely on the United States: “Wilson drafted a new world order, in which all nations were granted a right to self-determination. But when it came to stepping into America’s new role as a hegemon, Congress withdrew its support by forcing the president to agree to a strict policy of nonintervention.” I am not sure that the decision of the US explains the vindictiveness of the French in 1918 or the aggressiveness of Hitler, but the reluctance of the US to ensure peace in Europe was undoubtedly a factor.
An aid convoy to the city of Homs in Syria came under intense fire and the humanitarian mission was aborted. Thus, what would have been the only tangible outcome to the peace talks in Geneva failed. The talks are rescheduled to begin again this week, but the hopes for progress seem negligible at best. The fighting in other areas of Syria continued unabated during the three day ceasefire.
When politicians use the word “Munich” they are typically calling for a more robust military and diplomatic position in world affairs; Munich is a code for policies that suggest weakness invites aggression. Historical metaphors are always dangerous. History never repeats itself and the differences between two historical circumstances usually overwhelm superficial similarities. Many, however, use the word Munich to describe the tepid response of the world to Chinese claims in the South China Sea. And at least one country, the Philippines, is concerned that the Chinese are getting emboldened by the lack of a response to its claims in the region.
World Politics News 
Leave a comment