On Munich and Vietnam: The Lacking Prevalence of Historical Analogies
In recent wars, the Vietnam analogy has been forgotten and the Munich analogy has justified large scale interventions. Appeasement was the key regret of World War II and the Munich analogy was formed to prevent it from ever occurring again. The National Review explains that “’Munich’ and ‘appeasement’ have been among the dirtiest words in American politics, synonymous with naïveté and weakness.” This analogy was used to justify the Vietnam War prescribing the destruction of appeasement and suggesting a military intervention to prevent Ho Chi Minh and communism from further expansion, the “domino effect” as most called it. However, the Vietnam War went off the rails and was …show more content…
The US generalizes Munich’s situation and “omits important details which reveal that Munich was more complicated than a black-and-white choice between fighting and giving in.” Examples of the complication of the Munich conference include popular support for a peace treaty and the effects of the last World War, peace was a necessity for Europe after being battered by war. In painting situations with a large brush-stroke, US policymakers tend to link every possible threat to the “Domino Effect” with Munich. If one power falls to an expanding state, the rest will follow. This has been used to justify large scale interventions in Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999, and Iraq in 2003. The domino effect is pertinent in situations where the Munich analogy is used, Hitler, after allowed part of Czechoslovakia, continued his power grab almost capturing Great Britain. Omitting details are also key in implementing the Munich analogy, in Iraq and Afghanistan for example, the leaders of these countries are Muslim. This establishes an important connection with the masses. Unlike Nazism, Islam boasts long history and a rich culture spanning centuries. For millions of fundamentalist Muslims, the “answer to their modern difficulties lies not in embracing a foreign political system like democracy, but in returning to the purity of faith.” Key details on differences with Vietnam and Munich omitted …show more content…
The primary purpose of most alliances is to combine the member’s capabilities in a way that furthers their respective interests. According to the realist theory, “states are the central political actors and their actions are governed by perceptions of sovereignty, national interest and security.” Because states consistently seek power and protection, they will seek an alliance with strategically placed states. The US does not want to invade Israel over the occupation of Palestine because of deep economic integration and they are a strategic nuclear capable ally in the Middle East. Under offensive realism; “States are rational actors, capable of coming up with sound strategies that maximize their prospects for survival.” A state wants to build up its relative capabilities so it can continue to keep a power stranglehold, alliances to regional hegemonies like Russia and China would be part of these capabilities. Intervention within Crimea or the South China Sea would also be dangerous, as nuclear superpowers are not kind to antagonizing and economic cooperation with China is integral to the United States economy. All three of the imperialist power expansions are going to be very difficult if not impossible to stop because of the West’s economic dependence on them, and their relative