Iran, the Munich Comparison, and the Abuse of History

The Iranian deal has called to mind the Munich Agreement of 1938. Then Britain and France signed away the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia, in hopes that Adolf Hitler would be content with absorbing the German-speaking Sudetenland borderlands and cease further territorial acquisitions. But that appeasement only accelerated Nazi atrocities, from Kristallnacht at home to the dismemberment of all Czechoslovakia and, the next year, the invasion of Poland.

Is the Munich disaster a sound analogy for the current proposed agreement with Iran?

  • Norman_In_New_York

    All too true. “The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

  • simus1

    VDH is on arguably weak ground at several points regarding Munich. France had good tanks in good numbers but also idiotic generals determined to ignore their value and stifle deGaulle’s correct views on the tactics required to properly fight them.
    One thing is very chillingly similar. As Churchill said of France, it was a fake Colossus, it had a horrible government and military high command “armed to the teeth and rotten to its core.

  • G

    “Munich disaster a sound analogy” I think so. Both are attempting to use conventional peace time diplomacy to a country that has made direct threats against other nations.

    If such a move had been made by any other president the treaty would be universally condemned. It’s only because of the news media’s slavish devotion to shilling for Obama that the treaty has any defnders at all.

  • bob e

    there is nothing to compare this traitorous black pimp with .. nothing