Many have made comparisons between the ongoing debate regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions and the 1938 Munich pact British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made with Adolf Hitler to cede portions of Czechoslovakia to Germany. At the risk of redundancy, I must admit the comparisons are glaring.
Writing on slate.com, Nick Baumann asserted in 2013 that Neville Chamberlain was correct to make the deal with Germany because it “delayed” a war with Germany until Britain could be more prepared. What is telling about the article is how often the author illuminates Chamberlain’s naiveté while attempting to defend his diplomacy.
Mr. Baumann details how Britain had gone to a “10 year plan” (sound familiar to the current Iran deal?) that presumed Britain would not have to fight a major war in less than a decade. What Baumann reveals however is that the British military was in a necessary rebuilding after unprecedented draw down of forces following WWI. This sounds eerily familiar to the current push to draw down American forces to levels we have not seen since before WWII. Bauman’s argument for the wisdom of Chamberlain is that he made the Munich pact deal to give Britain time to rearm itself is invalid because the rearmament would have been unnecessary if Chamberlain’s pacifist ideology had not insisted on unilateral disarmament in the first place.
Among the flood of liberal criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on March 03, 2015, William Saletan (Slate.com) calls the Prime Minister a “hypocrite and a liar” for daring to criticize President Obama’s policies regarding Iran. Mr. Saletan repeatedly points out that Netanyahu “does not tolerate opposition” in his own country, but dares to express opposition to American policy here. He accuses the Prime Minister of moving to secure his own political power at the expense of honest debate among all sides of issues facing the country he governs.
Great Britain had pleas from Poland, the Netherlands and Czechoslovakia, leading up to the Munich Pact that Hitler’s intentions were not as benign as the British supposed. Those pleas were criticized as fear mongering and overblown. Within one year of signing an agreement with a tyrant to secure “peace in our time,” Neville Chamberlain had to resign as Prime Minister as Hitler marched across Europe and directly threatened the British homeland. The “fear mongering” epithet has been used by members of the U.S. Congress to describe Netanyahu’s speech yesterday. It is not fear mongering to yell fire if a building is burning. The threat against Israel is real. The circumstances of today’s debate are almost a mirror image of what occurred in 1938.
If Benjamin Netanyahu is a bully (Saletan’s word) then why is President Barack Obama not the same when he bypasses Congress; and uses Executive Orders to accomplish his will rather than engage Congressional opposition in open debate of the issues? If couching is comments in the light of his own agenda constitutes a lie for Mr. Netanyahu, then why is it not the same for President Obama when he promotes the benefits of the Affordable Care Act without an honest discussions of its calamitous effects on American businesses and families? If Netanyahu has no right to speak out to America regarding his view of issues in Israel, then why is our President lauded for decrying his views of American injustice to foreign governments?
The threat of Nazi Germany was as real in 1938 as Iran’s stated threat to “push Israel into the sea” is today. The current unilateral disarmament of America by those who suppose that “peace in our time” is still an option is truly comparable to the delusional hope of Neville Chamberlain in 1938. The ongoing promotion of political agenda on a foundation of lies is no less destructive in America today that it was in Great Britain seventy-seven years ago.
Adolph Hitler intended to annihilate democracy, so do today’s terrorists. Hitler hated the Jewish people merely because they existed. So does Iran and all the “tentacles of terrorism” they support. The Nazi’s had no intention of upholding their agreement in the Munich Pact in 1938, and if America supposes that Iranian assurances are any more valid today, we will face the onslaught of a terrorist invasion just as surely as Great Britain faced the Blitzkrieg.