The Shadow of Munich Haunts the Iran Negotiations

Loading

VDH:

The Western capitulation to Adolf Hitler in the 1938 Munich Agreement is cited as classic appeasement that destroyed Czechoslovakia, backfired on France and Britain, and led to World War II.

All of that is true.

But there was much more that caused the Munich debacle than simple Western naiveté. The full tragedy of that ill-fated agreement should warn us on the eve of the Obama’s administration’s gullible agreement with Iran on nuclear proliferation.

Fable one is the idea that most people saw right through the Munich folly. True, Europeans knew that Hitler had never once told the truth and was already murdering German citizens who were Jews, Communists, or homosexuals. But Europeans did not care all that much.

Instead, the Western world was ecstatic over the agreement. After the carnage of World War I, Europeans would do anything to avoid even a small confrontation — even if such appeasement all but ensured a far greater bloodbath than the one that began in 1914.

Another myth was that Hitler’s Wehrmacht was strong and the democracies were weak. In fact, the combined French and British militaries were far larger than Hitler’s. French Char tanks and British Spitfire fighters were as good as, or superior to, their German counterparts.

Czechoslovakia had formidable defenses and an impressive arms industry. Poland and perhaps even the Soviet Union were ready to join a coalition to stop Hitler from dissolving the Czech state.

It is also untrue that the Third Reich was united. Many of Hitler’s top generals did not want war. Yet each time Hitler successfully called the Allies’ bluff — in the Rhineland or with the annexation of Austria — the credibility of his doubters sank while his own reckless risk-taking became even more popular.

Munich was hardly a compassionate agreement. In callous fashion it immediately doomed millions of Czechs and put Poland on the target list of the Third Reich.

Munich was directly tied to the vanity of Neville Chamberlain. In the first few weeks after Munich, Chamberlain basked in adulation, posing as the humane savior of Western civilization. In contrast, loud skeptic Winston Churchill was dismissed by the media and public as an old warmonger.

Hitler failed to appreciate the magnanimity and concessions of the French and British. He later called his Munich diplomatic partners “worms.” Hitler said of the obsequious Chamberlain, “I’ll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers.”

The current negotiations with the Iranians in Lausanne, Switzerland, have all the hallmarks of the Munich negotiations.

Most Westerners accept that the Iranian government funds terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It has all but taken over Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Yet the idea of stronger sanctions, blockades, or even force to stop Iranian efforts to get a bomb are considered scarier than Iran getting a bomb that it just possibly might not threaten to use.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If anyone understands how the seeds of war are planted, it is Victor Davis Hanson. Whenever he teaches at the Army War College, an empty seat cannot be found in his classroom. He understands how war begins with miscalculation, and is followed by gross mistakes by political and military leaders that leads to many lives lost.

The current negotiation, and apparent preliminary agreement, with Iran over its nuclear weapons program is all about legacy as VDH suggests. Obama’s foreign and national security policy is a disaster. His dismantling of the military is very similar to what occurred during the post-WW I years, that if somehow we dispose the weapons of war, no one would be tempted to wage war. That if we give the remaining military other tasks, the reluctance to go to war would be so great. The specter of war, carnage of war would not be seen ever again. By emasculating the US military, we would be unable to act or react if we found Iran violated the nuclear agreement and/or is preparing for war. Obama wants a foreign policy legacy like he has on the domestic side with healthcare – it does not matter the cost. Kerry believes this will give him the success that will catapult him to the presidency.

Also, the argument being perpetuated in some corners, that failing to reach any kind of agreement, leaves us with only one solution – the military one. It does not. Walking away means only one thing, the terms are unacceptable. A bad deal is a bad deal.

Hopefully, the seeds of war won’t sprout, but we may be too late already as miscalculations have begun.

Wow, just announced that an agreement has been reached. Seems this agreement is that they now have a framework to work toward that will allow an agreement to allow Iran to keep going on their nuclear weapons development. I’m impressed. Obama was able to achieve complete defeat in this big negotiation. Who woulda thought, well, except maybe ‘everyone’?

It is not surprising Obama has found a way to reach an agreement. He wanted an agreement. He’s going to say everything is “on course”. Exactly “on course” for what is anyone’s guess.

@David: I would say ‘on course for disaster’.

They are so proud of this deal, they’re not even going to tell us the details, we don’t need to know. I guess if you’re a member of a protected class you can get the details because they can’t discriminate against them.

War with Iran could easily turn into a disaster for the United States. All of the same long-term problems and dangers exist that were there with Iraq, possibly to an even greater degree. Iran is militarily far more formidable than Iraq was, and once again there would be no sable point of resolution that would follow any military success.

There’s also the clear danger of unintended consequences: Under the Saddam Hussein regime, Iraq was a foil against both Iran and al Qaeda. We thoughtlessly removed that foil and left a dangerous power vacuum that extremists predictably took full advantage of. Currently Iran is the effective enemies of our enemies. Iran is an opposing force against Salafi jihadism. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand—Iran’s regional opponent—is the single greatest source of funds promoting that very thing. Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons on call already, having financed the Pakistani nuclear weapons program. If you take Iran’s power out of the region, what happens next? What fills that even greater vacuum?

War with Iran really could be a far greater disaster for the United States than Iran with a nuclear weapon. Victor Davis Hanson totally blows that point off. His underlying assumption is that by conducting wars we fix problems. That clearly isn’t always the case.

@Greg: not likely

This is not a deal for peace or for containment of the Iranian islamonazis.

We should fear for those in the middle east who oppose the Iranian islamonazis.

And the supreme asshat hominey who said “death to America” is our new “uncle Joe”….

the fool and kerry and his team blew every Iranian member in that committee. The fool wants of go to iran to blow their leader-want to bet he does not come back.