The Evil, the Wise and the Blind

The Evil, the Wise and the Blind

© David Burton 2015

Peace in Our Time


     In the fourth decade of the twentieth century there was an evil man named Adolph Hitler in Germany, a wise man named Winston Churchill in Britain and a blind man named Neville Chamberlain, also in Britain.

     British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain was one among the many blind men of the world at that time. He chose to ignore reality and live in a fantasy world where he could not bring himself to believe the evil and the disaster that a madman like Hitler could unleash upon the world. Chamberlain, along with most British and European statesmen convinced themselves that Adolph Hitler wanted peace In spite of the realities of what he was actually doing – it was convenient for them to close their eyes, to cover their ears, to hold their noses, and to ignore the events taking place in front of them. At that time, concessions were widely seen as the way to appease the beast.

     The fate of a country like Czechoslovakia did not concern most people in Europe. If appeasement meant the end of the democratic nation of Czechoslovakia, who cared? After all, it was only one small state in Europe. What the blind men of the time could not comprehend was that feeding one small victim to the beast would not satisfy the beast’s blood-lust, it would only serve to whet its appetite for more victims. What the blind men would not understand was that the evil men of the world viewed appeasement as a sign of weakness which only encouraged them to press forward with their evil plans.

     One wise man understood the emerging threat and called for strong opposition to the peril. That man was Winston Churchill. “Churchill's warnings about the danger of the new Nazi regime in Germany initially fell on deaf ears. In 1938 Britain and Germany almost went to war over Hitler's desire to annex part of Czechoslovakia. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain flew to Munich to secure a guarantee that there would be no further German aggression. Churchill was critical of the policy of appeasement and broadcast directly to the United States, appealing for greater American involvement in Europe. When Hitler {eventually} occupied Prague and the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, Churchill's predictions were seen to be coming true.
     “In September 1939 Germany invaded Poland. The attack touched off the world struggle that Churchill would later call ‘The Unnecessary War’ because he felt a firm policy toward aggressor nations after World War I would have prevented the conflict.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 1)

     There is the story of two hunters who happened upon a hungry and angry bear that chased after them. One of the hunters uttered a prayer for the Lord to save him; the other prayed, “Lord, let me run faster than my friend.” So too, in the late 1930’s there were European statesmen whose philosophy was, "Dear Germany, do destroy us last!"

     Winston Churchill spoke of the emerging dangers posed by a rearmed and aggressive Nazi Germany led by a maniacal zealot. “Churchill's arguments about German military power - particularly air power - proved correct by the end of 1935. . . .
     “The remedy was not emergency preparation as Churchill recommended; it was appeasement - the settlement of grievances by peaceful means.
     “Germany's rearmament had breached the Versailles Treaty for years, but without reprisal. In March 1936, Hitler occupied the Rhineland - a violation that could not be ignored. Hitler offered a face-saving diplomatic agreement, and the British cabinet opted for this rather than war.
     “In 1937, Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister. He began to seek an accord with Germany, not only to avoid war, but also to limit spending on arms. He proposed to return African colonies to Germany.
     “In March 1938, Hitler occupied Austria. Churchill immediately responded, ‘Europe is confronted with a programme of aggression, nicely calculated and timed, unfolding stage by stage, and there is only one choice open... either to submit, like Austria, or else to take effective measures while time remains to ward off danger.’
     “Winston continued, ‘If a number of States were assembled around Great Britain and France in solemn treaty for mutual defense against aggression; ...and if it were done in the year 1938... then I say that you might even now arrest this approaching war.’
     “But Churchill's advice was out of step with prevailing opinion. . . .” (Ref. 2)

     With the rise to power of Hitler and his Nazi party in the 1930’s, the world began its spiral toward war, death and destruction. Anti-Semitism was a central feature of the regime. Jews and others deemed undesirable were persecuted and murdered. Opposition to Hitler's rule was ruthlessly suppressed. Members of the liberal, socialist, and communist opposition were killed, imprisoned, or exiled. Complete government control of German life was instituted.

     At the same time, Nazi Germany re-armed in violation of the Versailles Treaty signed at the conclusion of World War I and made increasingly aggressive territorial demands, threatening war if they were not met. In 1936, again in violation of the Versailles Treaty, Hitler sent 3,000 troops into the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland. In 1938, Hitler seized Austria and then, after signing the Munich Agreement in 1938, seized Czechoslovakia in 1939. Whenever convenient, Hitler made promises and signed agreements which very quickly proved to be worthless.

     The 1938 Munich Agreement was a settlement with Adolph Hitler that approved the annexation by Germany of portions of southern Czechoslovakia. The agreement was negotiated at a conference in Munich, Germany by Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy and excluded the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. The phrase "Munich Betrayal" was also used to identify the agreement because the military alliance Czechoslovakia had with France and Britain proved useless.

     After the infamous Munich Pact was signed on 30 September 1938, England’s Prime Minister Chamberlain returned home and proudly announced to the world that he had secured "peace for our time." A year later, Hitler invaded Poland to start World War II. Six years later the war ended after tens of millions of soldiers and civilians – mostly civilians – died. So much for the illusion of coming to a meaningful agreement with an egomaniacal fanatic!

     It has been said that "Chamberlain's worst error was to believe that he could march Hitler on the yellow brick road to peace when in reality Hitler was marching very firmly on the road to war." (Ref. 3)


     In the second decade of the twenty-first century there were evil men called ayatollahs in Iran, a wise man named Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and a blind man named Barack Obama in the United States.

     On the 3rd of March 2015, the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the invitation of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, appeared before a joint session of the American Congress to warn of the threat facing Israel, Jews, America and the entire world. His warnings were reminiscent of those uttered by Winston Churchill about the rise to power of Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Party, some 8 decades earlier. Most of Netanyahu’s remarks were focused on a proposed agreement with the extremist Islamic regime in Iran and Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction. One could not but help to make the comparison of the proposed deal with Iran and the Munich Pact of 1938.

     “Netanyahu said any deal that does not completely shut down Iran’s nuclear program would pose a grave threat to Israel. . . . {and that Iran followed an ideology} rooted in ‘death, tyranny and the pursuit of jihad’.
     “{He warned that} ’The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.’” (Ref. 4)

     In addition to warning of the threat posed by a nuclear Iran, Netanyahu proposed that if the world leaders were not prepared to insist that Iran change behavior before a deal was signed, at the very least, they should insist that Iran change behavior before a deal expired, i.e., the sunset provision of an agreement wouldn't kick in unless Iran did three things – (1) Iran had to stop being the world's greatest exporter of terrorism, (2) it had to stop bullying neighboring countries like Syria and Lebanon, and (3) it had to stop calling for the destruction of Israel.[5]

     Among the many blind men of the world today we have the American president, Barack Obama. He has chosen to ignore reality and live in a fantasy world where he cannot bring himself to believe the evil and the disaster that madmen like the ayatollahs in Iran could cause. Obama, and others, want to believe that these Islamic fanatics want peace. In spite of the realities of what they are doing – it is convenient for him to close his eyes, to cover his ears, to hold his nose, and to ignore the facts facing him.

     It might be said that "One of President Obama's worst errors is to believe that he can march Islamic fanatics on the yellow brick road to peace when in reality these extremists are marching very firmly on the road to war, martyrdom and a nuclear Armageddon."

     Concessions are now seen as the way to appease the beast. Small countries like Israel do not concern most people. If appeasement means the end of Israel, who cares? After all, it is only one small Jewish state in the Middle East. What the blind men of today cannot comprehend is that feeding one small victim to the beast will not satisfy the jihadists’ blood-lust, it will only serve to whet their appetite for more victims. What the blind men will not understand is that the evil men of the world view appeasement as a sign of weakness which only encourages them to press forward with their evil plans.

     So who are we to believe? “Secretary of State John Kerry and the president he serves who are desperate for a nuclear deal with Iran – any deal – or the leader of a nation that faces an existential threat should Iran become a nuclear power?” (Ref. 6) In retrospect, who should the world have believed in 1938, Winston Churchill who saw Hitler and the fascists for what they were or Neville Chamberlain who wanted a peace deal at any cost?

     “Netanyahu told some hard truth about the deal that the administration likes to gloss over – that ‘not a single nuclear facility would be demolished’ nor would the work of Iran’s current 19,000 centrifuges (used to produce enriched uranium needed for bomb production) be halted. Iran, he added, even now ‘not only defies’ requests from U.N. nuclear inspectors ‘but plays a pretty good game of hide and seek with them.’
     “{Netanyahu pointed out that} ’Iran has proven time and again it can’t be trusted,’ . . .” (Ref. 7)

     The Prime Minister stated that any agreement that simply relies on “International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to prevent Iran from moving forward with its nuclear program {is fantasy}, citing North Korea’s nukes as proof of the folly of that course of action.
     “in fact, recent reports indicate that Tehran continues to fail to come clean on its past bomb-building work with the IAEA, a request for information that goes back years.” (Ref. 7)

     Should we believe that any agreement with the radical ayatollahs in Tehran will be adhered to? Past history and even radical Islam itself tell us that any such agreement will be abrogated when it is convenient for the ayatollahs to do so.

     Islam permits lying. It is called Al-taqiyya which “is the Islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies.
      - - -
     “Muslims lie when it is in their interest to do so and ‘Allah’ will not hold them accountable for lying when it is beneficial to the cause of Islam. . . . (Ref. 8)

     “On May 10th, 1994, just a few months after signing the Oslo Accords (September, 1993), Yasir Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims in a Johannesburg mosque where he justified his actions by explaining: ‘This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh.’ And he concluded by calling on the worshipers ‘to come and to fight and to start the jihad to liberate Jerusalem.’
     “What did those words mean?
     “Muhammad signed a 10-year truce with the Arabian pagan Quraysh tribe in the city of Mecca (the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, 628 AD). At the beginning of the second year of that ten-year period he found a pretext to justify breaking the truce. He pounced on the Quraysh in a surprise attack, conquered Mecca and defeated the Quraysh, who were not prepared for more hostilities since they were honoring the 10-year accord and assumed that Muhammad was too. Since then this agreement between Muhammad and the Quraysh has been an example for Muslims world-wide of how to trick the enemy in wartime. In other words, Arafat explained to his Muslim audience that he gave his word to President Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin, and signed the Oslo Accords, only because he planned to annul his commitments and attack Israel as soon as it was expedient for him to do so. He lied to Clinton and Rabin; but once he was out from under the scrutiny of western media and in the comfort of a Muslim group whose support he could assume, he told the truth to his Muslim audience. . . .
     “Arafat’s lies to Clinton and Rabin were an excellent example of a 1,400 year old Muslim tradition of taqiyya: tricking the enemy in wartime by offering a false peace or truce, but preparing to attack once the enemy lets down its guard.
      - - -
     “The Qur’an in a variety of verses (2:225, 3:28, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28, and 66:2) establishes the religious legitimacy of breaking oaths, lying, unilaterally violating treaties, and generally scheming against non-Muslims. Allah Himself is described as “the best of schemers” (3:54, 8:30, 10:21), and Muhammad declared, as a justification for murdering unarmed prisoners after offering them safe passage, ‘war is deceit’ (see the Hadith collection of Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, nos. 268-271). So during the negotiations of Oslo I and II, Arafat’s willingness to acquiesce to Israeli demands was merely his acting as a good Muslim warrior, using taqiyya, deceit in warfare, to put his enemy at a disadvantage.
      - - -
     “Hamas too uses the taqiyya ruse at will, frequently telling the West that it really wants peace, but reminding its followers in Arabic that they must continue the ‘struggle’ (the terror war against Israel) until victory or martyrdom.
      - - -
     “. . . every truce, treaty or cease-fire agreement made by a Muslim entity with a non-Muslim entity is nothing more than a treaty made to be broken, as soon as the Muslim side finds it useful to do so. This being the case, the most frightening aspect of . . . taqiyya is that our own leaders are repeatedly deceived by it, or worse, turn a blind eye to it. . . .” (Ref. 9)

     The “deal” that Kerry, Obama and the other nations involved must insist upon is straightforward. It must demand “unfettered International Atomic Energy Agency access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and {must reaffirm} that any attempts to weaponize the Iranian nuclear program will be met with a military response if necessary.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 10) It remains to be seen if President Obama has the balls and the desire to be serious about a military response or the intestinal fortitude to seriously confront an Islamic nation.


     Because of the world failing to stand up to the evil of an Adolph Hitler (and the others in the axis of evil existing in the 1930’s and 1940’s) when he could have been stopped with minimum loss of life and destruction of property, some 50 to 80 million people died after 6 years of brutal fighting in World War II. In the 4th decade of the 20th century Hitler did not possess nuclear weapons. The death and destruction that would result in a nuclear conflict lasting only a few days in the 2nd or 3rd decade of the 21st century is unimaginable!

     The hope for tomorrow bringing an end to the threat posed by Iranian nuclear ambitions appears to be a vain hope. Time and again, the Obama administration has demonstrated an unbelievable obsequious posture and behavior toward Islamic totalitarian regimes and a total unwillingness to apply military force where and when needed, or to even maintain the military strength of the United States in the face of the growing threat from radical Islamic groups such as ISIS, from North Korea, China, Russia and even the dangers to world peace posed by third rate countries and groups such as Yemen, Syria, and Libya.

     The painful lessons of history are being ignored – better to strangle a monster in its infancy than to allow it to grow and spawn even greater disasters for all of mankind. Fear and timidity are not the marks of great leadership. Appeasement never works – it only encourages the evildoer and whets the appetite for still more evil. How many millions of innocent people have already been brutally slaughtered in the past several decades while the United States and the other “civilized” countries of the world spouted platitudes but took no action to stop the rape, murder and pillaging taking place while they all stood by.

     It takes no guts and it’s much easier to accuse a country like Israel of war crimes when it defends itself against the aggression of an Islamic terrorist organization like Hamas than to step in and prevent the killing of more than 200,000 civilians in Syria or the genocides in Rwanda and Dafur.

     “There are none so blind as those who will not see!” Unfortunately - how true!


  1. Churchill and the Great Republic, Library of Congress, Accessed 6 March 2015.
  2. I’m so bored with the Obama administration, Ben Cohen, The Jewish Advocate, Page 9, 6 March 2015.
  3. Gathering Storm: Peace Offerings, National Churchill Museum, Accessed 6 March 2015.
  4. Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British Road to War, Frank McDonough, Manchester University Press, 1998.
  5. Prez blasts Israeli PM, says no viable alternatives offered, Kimberly Atkins, Boston Herald, Page 15, 4 March 2015.
  6. Alan Dershowitz: Obama 'Obligated' to Answer Netanyahu's 'New' Proposal, Melissa Clyne, newsmax, 4 March 2015.
  7. ’A very bad deal’, Editorial, Boston Herald, Page 16, 4 March 2015.
  8. Much to fear in possible Iran deal, Peter Brookes, Boston Herald, Page 17, 4 March 2015.
  9. Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination!, Don Boys, Islam and the facts, 17 November 2004.
  10. Toxic taqiyya, David Meir-Levi, Daily Mailer, Front Page, 13 January 2012.

  6 March 2015 {Article 213; Undecided_41}    
Go back to the top of the page