Shruggery
IN “THE HOLOCAUST SHRUG,” his article about indifference toward the liberation of Iraq, David Gelernter states, “I don’t claim that Saddam resembles Hitler” (April 5). Others have stated that Saddam was “no Hitler.”
How do we know that? Those of us of a certain age remember when Hitler was “no Hitler.” I’m speaking of the thirties, when the German dictator was not considered a threat to other nations by such eminent politicians as Neville Chamberlain. It is said Henry Kissinger once remarked that if France had resisted Hitler’s annexation of the Rhineland in 1936, assistant professors of history today would be arguing over whether Hitler was ever a potential danger to Europe and the world at large.
Passivity and appeasement allowed Hitler to develop into the monster we remember him as. Had those same policies of passivity and appeasement been allowed to continue in the case of Saddam Hussein and his bloody brood, can anyone rule out the possibility that Saddam or one of his sons may have one day proved to be Hitler’s monstrous equal? Luckily we no longer have to face that horrible possibility.
Nancy Stone
Washington, DC
Toddball
IN HIS REVIEW of Emmanuel Todd’s book, Roger Kaplan writes that After the Empire is “silly, mean-spirited, and anti-Semitic bile, bigoted to a degree . . . [The book contains] fashionable clichés [and] ill-mannered condescension” (“Imperial America?” April 5).
Having read the book and had the dubious honor of debating Professor Todd, I only wonder why Kaplan chose to sugarcoat.
Jeffrey Gedmin
Berlin, Germany
Rules of Engagement
IRWIN M. STELZER’S “The Sleeping Giant Wakes” (March 22) describes exactly how the world should work. I have been a believer in and a forecaster of China’s growth and its global significance since I began my business relationship there in the mid-1980s. As Stelzer suggests in his article, America’s best policy with China should be that of forging a “strategic partnership,” as China will undoubtedly reemerge as a superpower of at least equal significance to the United States. Therefore a dynamic and mutually beneficial strategic partnership between China and America has the potential to produce a century or more of relatively stable world peace and prosperity. (An early example of the fruits of such a relationship is China’s engagement in the North Korean nuclear talks.)
Even troubles in the Middle East could possibly be contained by a Sino-American global partnership, as this partnership would be made up of the two largest consumers of Middle Eastern oil.
Consumers of the magnitude of the United States and China wield a big stick in world affairs. Experience shows that the demand side usually carries the real power in a market exchange. Add to this the idea that, notwithstanding politics, both powers are technically and financially capable of moving energy consumption away from oil, and you have a source of leverage that can be used against anti-American regimes in the region.
Both philosophically and pragmatically, one of Stelzer’s most important statements in his article is that “we cannot remake the world in our own image.” Since China opened to the world economy, many pundits have said that China is Westernizing. But that’s not the case. What China is doing is modernizing. Such modernization lies at the heart of a successful long-term Sino-American strategic partnership, because the fundamental differences between our societies will result in a frictional energy that will make our strategic partnership effective in global affairs.
Robert Hefner III
Oklahoma City, OK
Sinister Sisters
THREE CHEERS FOR NOEMIE EMERY’S article on the politics of women’s magazines (“Leftover Glamour,” April 5). As a reader of these publications, as well as a conservative, I have never understood the “Women We Can’t Figure Out” attitude these magazines exhibit toward such prominent and accomplished women as Condoleezza Rice.
Growing up in the 1980s, I have always extolled Margaret Thatcher as my feminine model. My mother-in-law, who also happens to be a fan of Katie Couric, once told me that “Margaret Thatcher is not really a woman”! She and the “Spin Sisters” of America’s women’s magazines top my list of “Women I Can’t Figure Out.”
Michelle Fowler
Ontario, Canada
