Welcome Back to Munich

Bill Neinast

neins1@aol.com

September, 1938, in Munich, Germany, a conversation like this was underway.


“Oh! Thank You!  Thank You! Herr Hitler, your agreement to accept and reintegrate that part of Czechoslovakia that some refer to as the Sudetenland with a population of three million ethnic Germans and to forget the plans for creating a German empire outlined in your book, Mein Kampf, has made our trip here worthwhile.”


“Prime Minister Chamberlain, you deserve the gratitude.  This concession will right one of the wrongs imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles and means that we will have peace for our time.”


Chamberlain returned to England and told his people, “This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you... We regard the agreement signed last night … as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.”


Later that day he stated, “My good friends, for the second time in history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts.  Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”


September 1, 1939, Germany invades Poland with the blitz klieg that began the devastation of WWII.


The Munich appeasement of Germany was the result of France and Britain being set on avoiding war at any cost.


If anyone in the Obama administration is aware of any part of this tidbit of recent history, they obviously do not believe that history repeats itself.  In justifying the appeasement of Iran in the current nuclear discussions they claim that negotiations are better than war.  Just like the French and Brits 77 years ago, they are fixated on avoiding war at any cost.  


The negotiators refuse to recognize that Iran is already at war with much of the world.  There is no need to list here the involvement of Iran in wars and unrest in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and others.


Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other smaller nations are well aware of the threats posed currently by Iran without nuclear weapons.  Not much thought is required to imagine what those wars will be like when the existing Iranian missiles are fitted with nuclear warheads.


If Iran really wants nuclear capability only for peaceful purposes like generating electricity, medical research, etc., there is a much cheaper way than the billions of dollars it spent on secret installations with thousands of centrifuges.  It could contract with another country that builds nuclear generating plants and provides the nuclear material.  Other countries are doing that.


So here’s the perspective.


Iran’s record is clear.  It has not complied with existing agreements.  The International Atomic Energy Agency is warning repeatedly that Iran has not cooperated with its inspections under existing agreements.


Existing sanctions forced Iran back to the negotiating table but apparently have not slowed its march toward nuclear warheads by even a second.  There is no rational reason to think that agreeing to lift those sanctions if they agree to stop their march to nuclear powers would benefit anyone other than Iran.


As mentioned here earlier, tougher sanctions enforced by embargoes might have more positive results.


Otherwise, welcome back to Munich.

enough

 
HOME page>                  NEW STUFF page> 
          WRITING CONTENT page>       GUEST ARTISTS page>Home_1.htmlNew_Stuff.htmlEssays.htmlGuest_Artists.htmlshapeimage_1_link_0shapeimage_1_link_1shapeimage_1_link_2shapeimage_1_link_3