Dear Editor:

In his response to my Bush and King letter, Mr. Shepherd highlighted the flawed philosophy of liberalism in his statement: “Nonviolence works regardless of whether one’s opponents are interested in negotiations or not.” This philosophy is intellectually naive as well as historically vacant. A few examples:

Neville Chamberlain sent the following message to Hitler: “In view of the increasingly critical situation, I propose to come over at once to see you with a view to trying to find a peaceful solution.” After the meeting at Munich, Chamberlain remarked, “In spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I saw in his face, I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word.”(1) Chamberlain’s “peaceful solution” philosophy led to millions of deaths.

At the Potsdam Conference in 1946, President Truman told Henry Wallace, “Stalin was a fine man who wanted to do the right thing.” Truman’s “containment” policy led the way for communist takeovers of all of Eastern Europe and more than a billion people in China. Truman claimed that his decision to abandon Chiang Kai-shek was to “avoid a bloody and futile war.”(2) Chairman Mao went on to murder some 250 million people. Stalin went on to murder some 30 million. Once again liberals’ nonviolent peace philosophy soaked the ground with blood.

Now it is 2006, and we are faced with Islamic fascism that seeks to submit the world to their idea of peace. I would not be so quick to stand in front of them holding roses and singing Kumbaya. I would not be so quick to subscribe to a philosophy that thinks you can use nonviolence regardless of who the opponents are.

Citations. 1. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer, pg.384, 387. 2. Treason, Ann Coulter, pg.150.

Chuck Jines Carbondale resident