PRE-WWII & PRE-ARMAGEDDON APPEASEMENT!
January 23, 2008
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Appeasement to Known Evil Principalities is a major contributor to the fulfillment of End Time Prophecy. It is heading the world down a path to a fulfillment of
the prophecies of Joel and Acts, and the latest action of appeasement by America is described in the DEBKAfile article which follows our heading.
Joel 3:9-15 – Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war,
wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: [10] Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong. [11] Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O Lord. [12] Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about. [13] Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great. [14] Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision. [15] The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.
Acts 2:19-21 – And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: [20] The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: [21] And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
The policy of appeasement in my lifetime has consistently proven itself to be detrimental to those who pursue it, as well as to all the residents of the same planet on which I abide. It is now coming into focus on dealing with Iran, and this time the policy of appeasement will be instrumental in producing the most detrimental horrifying event ever experienced by mankind. The policy of appeasement in modern diplomacy to prevent war is generally associated with British Prime Neville Chamberlain’s infamous trip to Munich, where the free world sold out Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler. I was in the first grade at that time and had barely learned to read. I remember the headline which Neville Chamberlain held up in his hand, as he proclaimed, “Peace in Our Times.”
It might be interesting for you to read the historical significance of the appeasement policy as extracted from Spartacus Educational Schoolnet, which follows:
Begin Quote
Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain on 28th May, 1937. Over the next two years Chamberlain’s Conservative government became associated with the foreign policy that later became known as appeasement.
Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after it was defeated in the First World War. He therefore thought that the German government had genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also thought that by agreeing to some of the demands being made by Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, he could avoid a European war.
Anthony Eden, Chamberlain’s foreign secretary, did not agree with the policy of appeasement and resigned in February, 1938. Eden was replaced by Lord Halifax who fully supported this policy. Halifax had already developed a good relationship with the German government. After his first visit to Nazi Germany he told his friend, Henry (Chips) Channon: “He (Halifax) told me he liked all t
he Nazi leaders, even Goebbels, and he was much impressed, interested and amused by the visit. He thinks the regime absolutely fantastic.”
In November, 1937, Neville Chamberlain sent Lord Halifax to meet Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Goering in Germany. In his diary, Lord Halifax records how he told Hitler: “Although there was much in the Nazi system that profoundly offended British opinion, I was not blind to what he (Hitler) had done for Germany, and to the achievement from his point of view of keeping Communism out of his country.” This was a reference to the fact that Hitler had banned the Communist Party (KPD) in Germany and placed its leaders in Concentration Camps.
In February, 1938, Adolf Hitler invited Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian Chancellor, to meet him at Berchtesgarden. Hitler demanded concessions for the Austrian Nazi Party.
Schuschnigg refused and after resigning was replaced by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the leader of the Austrian Nazi Party. On 13th March, Seyss-Inquart invited the German Army to occupy Austria and proclaimed union with Germany.
The union of Germany and Austria (Anschluss) had been specifically forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. Some members of the House of Commons, including Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill, now called on Neville Chamberlain to take action against Adolf Hitler and his Nazi government.
Hugh Christie an MI6 agent working based in Berlin, met with Hermann Goering on 3rd February 1937. He immediately reported his conversation with Goering and included information that Germany intended to take control of Austria and Czechoslovakia. He also told Christie that Germany mainly wanted “a free hand in Eastern Europe.”
In March 1938 Hugh Christie told the British government that Adolf Hitler would be ousted by the military if Britain joined forces with Czechoslovakia against Germany. Christie warned that the “crucial question is ‘How soon will the next step against Czechoslovakia be tried?’ … The probability is that the delay will not exceed two or three months at most, unless France and England provide the deterrent, for which cooler heads in Germany are praying.”
International tension increased when Adolf Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia should be under the control of the German government.
In an attempt to to solve the crisis, the heads of the governments of Germany, Britain, France and Italy met in Munich in September, 1938.
On 29th September, 1938, Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement which transferred to Germany the Sudetenland, a fortified frontier region that contained a large German-speaking population. When Eduard Benes, Czechoslovakia’s head of state, who had not been invited to Munich, protested at this decision, Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland.
The Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain because it appeared to have prevented a war with Germany. However, some politicians, including Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, attacked the agreement. These critics pointed out that no only had the British government behaved dishonorably, but it had lost the support of Czech Army, one of the best in Europe.
One staunch critic of appeasement was the journalist Vernon Bartlett. He was approached by Richard Acland to stand as an anti-Chamberlain candidate at a by-election in Bridgwater.
Bartlett agreed and in November, 1938, surprisingly won the previously safe Tory seat. Henry (Chips) Channon , a junior member of the government wrote in his diary: “This is the worst blow the Government has had since 1935”.
In March, 1939, the German Army seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. In taking this action Adolf Hitler had broken the Munich Agreement. The British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, now realized that Hitler could not be trusted and his appeasement policy now came to an end.
End Quote
Our current shift in policy to appeasement on Iran’s nuclear drive to obtain nuclear warheads for her Shihab missile series will allow her to succeed in her quest. This will give Iran confidence to begin what will amount to a conventional war, fearing no Israeli nuclear retaliation due to Iran’s own nuclear arsenal, and the conventional war will terminate at Armageddon, some three and one-half years after it begins.
Begin DEBKAfile Article
DEBKAfile: Washington lines up with Moscow’s soft diplomacy
on Iran, Nicholas Burns drops out
January 19, 2008, 12:18 PM (GMT+02:00)
Nicholas Burns’ retirement as US undersecretary for political affairs Friday, Jan.
18, and his replacement by US ambassador to Moscow William Burns, take the Bush administration’s strategy on Iran’s nuclear activities a stage closer to Moscow’s line of soft diplomacy.
State department spokesman Sean McCormack Saturday played down expectations that the six powers meeting in Berlin next Tuesday would produce a consensual UN sanctions resolution. The group – the US, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany – were deadlocked at previous meetings by Moscow and Beijing’s opposition to harsh measures. The change in Washington is indicated by McCormack’s reference to “multilateral diplomacy.”
The outgoing Nicholas Burns, in the No. 3 State Department spot, held the Iran portfolio and led the Bush administration’s drive for tough sanctions at the UN Security Council. (He is the 19th diplomat to quit the State Department in recent weeks). Ambassador Burns (no relation) is closer to the Russian approach.
DEBKAfile’s Moscow sources note that President George W. Bush has in recent months taken strides towards closing the gap with the Kremlin on Iran.
President Valdimir Putin’s standard line – I have no information that Iran is developing nuclear arms – was corroborated by the US National Intelligence Estimate’s conclusion in December that Tehran had shelved its military program in 2003.
Circles close to Putin maintain that the two presidents began working together quietly in October 2007, on the shared understanding that affirmative tactics were preferable to tough penalties for weaning Tehran away from uranium enrichment, even temporarily. Therefore, after long opposition, Bush surprisingly came out in favor of Moscow’s decision to consign uranium fuel rods for Iran’s atomic reactor in Bushehr.
Our sources in the Persian Gulf and Vienna disclose, moreover, that the US president also lined up with Saudi King Abdullah on a decision to relegate the handling of Iran’s nuclear issues to the UN nuclear watchdog’s director Mohammed ElBaradei.
ElBaradei was therefore accorded the unusual honor of an audience with Iran’s supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei when he visited Tehran on Jan.
12. He was told he could expect full cooperation from the Iranian government and promised answers to his questions on the tough questions of the uranium enrichment process and plutonium production.
The US and Russian governments both believe that an important breakthrough has been achieved and a way forward for further diplomatic engagement on the hitherto intractable Iranian nuclear program.
The United States has therefore turned away from confrontation with Iran and consigned its clandestine nuclear projects to the routine diplomatic track.
This course is diametrically opposed to the policy pursued by Nicholas Burns in recent years. His resignation was therefore logical.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.