If the history of the Twentieth Century proves anything, it proves how dangerous intelligent, well meaning peace loving people can be.
The Treaty of Versailles which ended World War I contained crucial two clauses, which had they been enforced, would have prevented World War II. The first provision limited the German Army to 100,000 men. The second prohibited Germany from using conscription (a military draft) to rebuild its army.
In the years after World War I, France maintained an army of a hundred divisions, and built the Maginot Line. As long as the German Army did not exceed 100,000, France was safe.
When Hitler became the German Chancellor in 1933, he “tore up” the treaty, and reintroduced conscription for the purpose of building a new German Army. Hitler pleaded that Germany, as a great state, had a right to an army equal to that of France, or any other great state.
Winston Churchill saw the danger of that argument. Churchill argued that an armed democratic France posed no threat to a disarmed Germany, but that a rearmed Germany posed a mortal threat to France, and indeed, to all democratic states. But the well meaning intelligentsia of Britain, France and the United States saw equity in Hitler’s plea. A great state was entitled to a great army. The well meaning could draw no meaningful distinction between an armed but pacific France, and a Germany lead by the author of Mein Kampf - this notwithstanding the fact that Hitler put his plans on paper for the edification of anyone who cared to read them.
In Mien Kampf, Hitler wrote that man is a fighting animal, and therefore, that a nation is a community of fighting animals. Any living creature which ceases fighting for its existence, is doomed to extinction. The fighting capacity of a nation depends on its racial purity. Therefore, the German state had a duty to rid itself of its Jewish defilement. A race must fight, or rust and perish. The new greater Germany must gather within its boundaries all scattered German elements in Europe. Foreign policy must be unscrupulous. Germany must single out her enemies and destroy them one at a time, and not repeat the mistake of World War I of taking on all enemies simultaneously.
Yet notwithstanding all Hitler had said, notwithstanding Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland in violation of treaty, notwithstanding his reintroduction of conscription, and notwithstanding his rape of Austria, when Hitler demanded dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938, well meaning great men, like British Prime Minister Chamberlain, believed they could negotiate with Hitler and rely on his word.
Chamberlain wasn’t a weakling. But he had seen the carnage of World War I. He knew that Hitler had served in the German Army in World War I. Chamberlain, sadly, made the mistake of ignoring what Hitler said and did, and instead operated on the belief that because he thought a second World War was too horrible to image, that Hitler must think as he did. He ascribed his own rationality and his own values to Hitler .
Because Chamberlain was a gentleman, he operated under the self imposed delusion that Hitler must also be a gentleman. In Chamberlain’s own words,
“Hitler repeated to me with great earnestness what he had said already at Berchtesgaden, namely, that this was the last of his territorial ambitions in Europe ... In the second place, he said, again very earnestly, that he wanted to be friend’s with England and that if only this Sudeten question could be got out of the way of peace, he would gladly resume conversations.”
On September 30, 1938, in return for yielding to Hitler’s demands relative to Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland, Chamberlain came away with a piece of paper that bore Hitler’s signature, and told the world, “I believe it is piece in our time.” One year later, Germany invaded Poland, and World War II began.
Today well meaning Americans are again wishfully thinking. One recently wrote
“It’s obvious that no real peace can be achieved in the Middle East without the cooperation of Syria and Iran, but both America and Israel governments have ruled out even talking with them. Those countries are not to be “rewarded” with diplomatic contact."
"As I understand it, sitting down at a conference table
with either county would somehow taint us, or concede them
a kind of “equal” status. It’s a special kind of diplomatic insanity;
the sort you might encounter among high school cliques.”
Since 1948 Israel and America have sought peace in the Middle East. There have been negotiations ad nauseaum. Yet even now, the Palestine Liberation Organization Charter, and the Iranian President call for the elimination and utter destruction of Israel.
When Israel withdrew from Lebanon pursuant to U. N. Resolution, Hezbollah failed in every respect to comply with its obligations under the same Resolution. Indeed, rather than disarming, Hezbollah instead built up its store of rockets and weapons. Iran supplied, and Syria facilitated transport.
Iran signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Now Iran tells the whole world it will have nuclear weapons, and no one can stop it. Iran buys weapons from Russia with the condition that it will be the end user; instead the weapons are forwarded to Hezbollah.
The Iranian President denies the fact of the Holocaust. Other terrorists call from reimposition of the Caliphate from Persia to Spain. Lebanese Hezbollah fighters set up their rocket launchers among the civilian population, and fire into the civilian population of Israel.
Unlike Neville Chamberlain and many modern well meaning people, I don’t think it is possible to negotiate with these people. I don’t believe they would keep their word if they gave it. I don’t trust people who take innocent hostages and cut off their heads.
There is no point in Israel or American attempting to negotiate in good faith, if the other side is only using the negotiations as a stalling tactic to build up weapons systems that can do mortal harm to Israel or America. Winston Churchill’s dictum remains valid.
“There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win.”
There is no merit in allowing North Korea or Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems capable of destroying U. S. cities. Every day we negotiate, is one more day that they have to develop their weapons systems. America cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of the new would-be Hitlers.
While I don’t believe there can be meaningful negotiations with Iran or North Korea, I do not reject all negotiations. For starters, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties should sit together and negotiate, and reach consensus on what line North Korea and Iran cannot be permitted to cross. Then, that line should be drawn in the sand by the leaders of both our great parties for all to see. If North Korea or Iran cross that line, we should construe it as their declaration of war on America, and react in such a way, that no other would-be Hitlers will ever dare to cross the line again. Once it is clear to the petty Hitlers what the U. S. will not tolerate and what is not negotiable, then negotiations on other issue make some sense.
Originally published in the Moline Dispatch, August 31, 2006.
Copyright 2006
John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment