Churchill and Hitler--A Lesson for Baker, Hamilton, and U.S.

The present situation with America's involvement in the Iraq War remarkably resembles England in 1938 just prior to WWII. The Baker Gang's recommendations are eerily reminiscent of British Prime Minister Chamberlain's policy of appeasement toward Hitler. This makes the report of the Iraq Study Group even more baffling, given either the inability or unwillingness of the Baker-Hamilton gang to learn from history.

In 1938 Chamberlain went to Munich to meet with Hitler. No one in Parliament wished to face the prospects of war. British citizens overwhelmingly resisted any suggestion that the country engage in yet another war in less than 20 years after the first World War. Hitler's march through Europe was none of their concern. Thus, Chamberlain went to Munich to offer Hitler a piece of property in exchange for his commitment to cease invading European nations. He would offer a piece of Czechoslovakia that was called 'Sudentenland.' Nevermind that he already had Austria.

Winston Churchill, who at the time was a member of the House of Commons in Parliament, warned Chamberlain, AND British citizens, that Hitler could not be trusted and that his signature on any accord would not guarantee his compliance. Churchill had warned Britain before about such foolish notions, insisting that if the British refused to take him on early, they would pay a heavy price later as the Nazi army marched into London. As early as 1930 the record shows Churchill's increasing wariness of Hitler, long before anyone else was paying attention.

For this Churchill was essentially exiled within his own country. As friends in Parliament fell by the wayside and the citizenry as a whole turned a deaf ear, Churchill found himself increasingly isolated. When he warned Chamberlain of the trap Hitler had made, there were a mere five other voices in Parliament that stood with him.

Chamberlain went to Munich, Hitler accepted the offer of appeasement, and Chamberlain returned to Britain a hero. Hitler had assured Chamberlain that the Sudentenland would be his last venture. In Parliament, Churchill made the following statement concerning that ill-fated deal--'How could honourable men with wide experience and fine records in the Great War condone a policy so cowardly? It was sordid, Squalid, sub-human, and suicidal...The sequel to the sacrifice of honour.'

A mere five days later Hitler violated the terms of the agreement he had signed with Chamberlain.

As expected, Churchill rose to his feet in Parliament, issuing a scathing message to the effect that Britain had just suffered a most agonizing, dastardly defeat.

Shortly after Chamberlain's utter humiliation at the hands of the Nazis, Churchill issued an urgent plea to the Americans. Stung by the refusal of his fellow countrymen to stand up to the Nazi menace, Churchill was convinced that the only way Hitler could be stopped would be for the U.S. to join the effort.

As history shows, Churchill was right about Hitler all along. No amount of appeasement or negotiation would stop his relentless march toward world domination. With the eastern front solidified under Nazi rule, Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. Churchill succeeded in convincing Parliament that Britain must honor its treaty agreement with Poland, and thus, the country declared war on Germany.

Today, we are in a similar state of affairs in the United States of America. The Democrat Party, the mainstream media, and the Baker-Hamilton committee are all in one accord on the policy of appeasement. Convinced that America cannot, and SHOULD NOT, win this war, they tell us to negotiate with state sponsors of terror. Rather than face off against Syria and Iran, they tell Israel that they should be willing to give away the Golan Heights and then, to add insult to injury, they refuse to include Israel in a proposed regional summit of nations in the Middle East.

Apparently the geniuses of the Baker Gang did not learn anything from the Chamberlain policy of appeasement toward Hitler. In attempting to appease tyrants, despots, and barbarians who exhibit little rationality, does the Baker gang actually expect any other consequence than our ultimate humiliation?

Had Great Britain heeded the words of Winston Churchill in the early to mid 1930s, perhaps the Holocaust could have been prevented. Instead the Nazi army went marching into Austria, Holland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, and France. Ultimately the bombs rained on London.

Interestingly, frightened Brits turned to none other than Winston Churchill in 1940, electing him Prime Minister.

It is 1938 in America. We are on the brink of making the same colossal mistake as Prime Minister Chamberlain. Democrats already have been meeting with Hamas. Their mouthpieces in the mainstream media have already proclaimed our defeat. Iran's barbarians are dancing in the streets over the prospects of the Baker-Hamilton report being accepted by Democrats who will then pressure the President to implement its provisions. Syria boasted that the report was proof that Islam reigns supreme. If we go through with the Baker Gang recommendations, we are insuring many more 9/11 attacks on our soil. Far from being a deterrent to war, appeasement only increases the appetite of the power-hungry.

Rest assured that if this country does not resolve to win this war, we will have hell to pay.

Sadly, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the only thing that will change American public opinion is to suffer the same fate as the Brits. This time, however, the bombs that rain on New York City and Washington, D.C. will be nuclear or biological. The weapons of terrorists have far more potential for doing massive harm than the bombs of Hitler.

Before that dreaded day befalls us, we can only hope and pray that Americans wake up and fight. We still have time to avert a catastrophic national disaster.