Politicizing “Appeasement”?

Contrary to complaints of Democrats, Bush’s comparison of Obama and Chamberlain is on target

By Jamie Miller

Last week, Barack Obama and every major Democrat denounced President Bush’s comments to the Israeli Parliament when the president said we can’t negotiate with terrorists because that would give us a “false comfort of appeasement.”

Bush’s entire comment was:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

This writer believes that Obama’s foreign policy is best described as a 21st Century version of Prime Minister Chamberlain’s failed foreign policy of appeasement prior to World War II. Obama suggests that tough rhetoric instead of actions will win the “diplomatic” argument. He’s either naïve, inexperienced or just plain stupid. I don’t know anyone who considers Obama stupid, so let’s just say he is naïve and inexperienced and clearly not capable of being a world leader during these turbulent times.

A history lesson is appropriate to understand the historic perspective of appeasement.

The Treaty of Versailles following World War I was viewed by Prime Minister Chamberlain as the root that gave rise of the dictator Adolph Hitler in Germany because the treaty made many internal restrictions on German affairs.

Chamberlain first spoke about appeasement as early as 1934, and it became the national foreign policy for Great Britain in 1938 when Chamberlain negotiated the Munich Agreement with Hitler. The agreement was signed in September 1938 by France, Great Britain, Nazi Germany and Italy. It allowed Germany to access the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia. Interestingly, Czechoslovakia was not invited to the Munich negotiations. The Munich Agreement followed the policy of Anschluss when Germany annexed Austria in March of 1938, and Anschluss was specifically prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. Great Britain and France were powerless to stop Nazi Germany.

Of course, Germany went on to invade Czechoslovakia and then Poland in 1939, prompting Britain’s declaration of war against Nazi Germany and ushering in one of the most devastating periods of world history – World War II and the Holocaust.

Is Obama’s foreign policy truly appeasement? Or is it rhetoric by the president that panders to voters of Jewish faith to increase the distrust for Obama and accentuate his lack of foreign policy experience?

The truth is Obama is not an experienced world leader, and he has said that he would meet with Iran with no preconditions even though it is apparent that Iran is supporting terrorists in Iraq. In fact, Obama shows his leadership on his very own web site by listing the 21 issues of importance in alphabetical order. Foreign Policy is listed 10th. What are his most important issues? Does Foreign Policy really fall behind, “Family, Ethics, Disabilities and Civil Rights?” One would think that the leader of the free world would take the initiative to list issues in some order of importance rather than a homely alphabetical list.

Obama describes his policy with Iran on his web site, “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions…If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.”

I agree that at this point, Obama might as well tout the fact that he will negotiate with terrorist nations without preconditions but his sanctions are, well, laughable. He will, as president, “step up economic pressure and political isolation.” That sounds like a policy of appeasement. Sit down and listen to us, but if you don’t listen, we’ll ignore you and allow you to continue the activities that have already been condemned by the world community. what activities will Iran conduct next that Obama will ignore if he’s president?

Jamie Miller is a political consultant specializing in political campaign management, strategic planning, public relations and crisis communications. He has been involved with running and managing political campaigns since 1994. E-mail him at: Repjam@aol.com.

2 thoughts on “Politicizing “Appeasement”?”

  1. Jamie,

    I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I would bet my next paycheck Obama slept through most of his history classes…

    Here are a couple quotes on the matter of appeasement from book written by a Georgetown Professor and elite Carroll Quigley.

    This guy was a historian and academic heavy weight at Georgetown in the 60’s, from his book “Tragedy and Hope”:

    “Chamberlain wanted peace so that he could devote Britain’s “limited resources” to social welfare; but he was narrow and totally ignorant of the realities of power, convinced that international politics could be conducted in terms of secret deals, as business was, and he was quite ruthless in carrying out his aims, especially in his readiness to sacrifice non-English persons, who, in his eyes, did not count.” (“Tragedy and Hope”; pg. 494 2nd paragraph)

    Obama FITS the pattern, sacrificing security abroad for welfare at home…

    Another excerpt from this book is an interesting insight into the decision making processes of evil men such as Hitler (and Ahmadinejad for that matter). How they take advantage of statements made either in secrete or in public. To think that the Democrat’s unwillingness to fully back the war on terror hasn’t had an encouraging effect on the enemy is absurd.

    “It is evident from some of Hitler’s statements that he had already received certain information about the secret decisions being made by Chamberlain on the British side; for example, he said flatly that Britain wanted to satisfy the colonial ambitions of Germany by giving it non-British areas like Portuguese Angola, something which we now know was in Chamberlain’s mind. Hitler further assured his listeners that ”almost certainly Britain, and probably France as well, had already tacitly written off the Czechs and were reconciled to the fact that this question would be cleared up in due course by Germany…. An attack by France without British support, and with the prospect of the offensive being brought to a standstill on our western fortifications, was hardly probable. Nor was a French march through Belgium and Holland without British support to be expected.”. (“Tragedy and Hope”; pg. 520, 4th paragraph.)

    Like

  2. Good article that is on point. In fact it is sad that we live in a country that so hates itself many are willing to put the future of the free world in the hands of an unknown who seems destined to repeat mistakes of the past and who’s wife is only now proud of her country because her husband is about to win the nomination and who’s pastor says GD America…

    Seriously folks what more do you need to know about Obama!?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s