The Old Diplomacy v. The New Diplomacy

[Flanders]

After signing the Munich Pact in 1938 Neville Chamberlain famously said this:

My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time.

I doubt if there was one reasonable Brit who believed that Chamberlain was deliberately lying. You’d be hard-pressed finding one reasonable American who believes Barack Taqiyya and John Kerry are not lying.

After making a deal with a plethora of Hitler-like ayatollahs Barack Taqiyya said:

For the first time in a decade we’ve halted the progress on Iran’s nuclear program.

Great Britain had Winston Churchill:

England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame and will get war.

America has John Kerry:

There is no agreement that they can enrich. They have the ability to negotiate it, but they could only gain that capacity to have some enrichment, as some countries do, if they live up to the whole set of terms necessary to prove it's a peaceful program. Iran has some very stiff hurdles that they are going to have to meet in order to do that.

It gets worse. The left dug up revisionist history from the 1950s that said Neville Chamberlain was right to sign the Munich Pact. That bit of appeasement political philosophy fits in nicely with this:

Obama Signals a Shift From Military Might to Diplomacy
By MARK LANDLER Published: November 25, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/world/middleeast/longer-term-deal-with-iran.html?_r=0

The Old Diplomacy v. The New Diplomacy

Books have been written on the subject. Scholarly tomes even offer dates separating the old and the new; however, my definitions of Old Diplomacy and New Diplomacy are less complicated than the definitions scholars put forth. I think of the Old Diplomacy as negotiations between sovereign nations going as far back as sovereign nations talked to one another. The New Diplomacy sublimates sovereignty to Internationalism. That is the kind of diplomacy our UN-loving State Department has been engaging in since 1945.

My definition of New Diplomacy incorporates all of the malevolence that sprang from WW I after the untimely death of the Old Diplomacy. Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations supplied the pallbearers. I don’t see how anyone can deny it; especially when you trace today’s worsening evils to the New Diplomacy —— encouraging weak foreign governments to dictate to a strong free people. After the New World Order reins supreme there won’t be any free people left.

Diplomacy between Germany and England in 1938

Peace-at-any-cost-revisionists should be asked this question: If England was prepared for war would Chamberlain have stood up to Hitler? Truthful peaceniks might abandon their core belief and answer yes. My interpretation of events tells me that Chamberlain would have done exactly what Barack Taqiyya & Company are doing today.

Just to be clear, England was unprepared for war to be sure; nevertheless, the evidence shows that Hitler would have backed down had Chamberlain stood up to him. Example: Germany’s military did not believe they could win. The only chance Hitler had was a quick victory; i.e. invade England. That was not possible in 1938 before Germany occupied France. That reality was hardly a military secret in 1938 which makes Chamberlain’s thinking shortsighted to say the least.

NOTE: Invading England was not possible after German armies were entrenched on the shores of the English Channel.

On the other side of the argument it can be said that “Peace in our time.” might have given Germany the atomic bomb when it was ready to attack. Analyze that possibility in relation to Iran.

America and Iran in 2013

America and its allies are militarily stronger than Iran. There is no reason to give the ayatollahs the time of day. Not only should enrichment be stopped, Iran’s entire nuclear industry should be dismantled if the ayatollahs so much as blink.

Here’s the betrayal. Unlike England and Germany in 1938 Iran can be slapped down. Diplomacy is the only thing standing in the way.

Incidentally, China and Russia are not today’s version of Great Britain finally going to war to save Poland in 1939. There is no possibility the US would attack China or Russia the way Germany conquered weaker countries. Russia and China have no reason to risk nuclear war against the US and its allies in order to defend Iran.

Also, there is lot of talk about the fear of uniting a billion Muslims. Even if that is true they should be seen as that many more targets if they don’t straighten up and fly right. Happily, a lot of Muslim countries are not thrilled with the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Those Muslims who are suspicious of Iran did not require diplomacy to tell them where their best interests lie.

Finally, I’ve read dozens of quotes about diplomacy credited to the famous and the not so famous. I don’t believe any of them.

Here are some “quotes” of my own:

1. Diplomacy is the favorite weapon of the weak.

2. Diplomacy is a foul smelling cloak of decency worn by the dirtiest of politicians.

3. Diplomacy never prevented a war.

4. Diplomacy always loses the peace.

5. Diplomacy is never called upon when a government abuses its own people.

6. Diplomacy is a low-down word favored by historians trying to turn dead politicians into heros —— and to sell books.

7. Diplomacy sucks.

 

[regent]

After signing the Munich Pact in 1938 Neville Chamberlain famously said this:

My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time.

I doubt if there was one reasonable Brit who believed that Chamberlain was deliberately lying. You’d be hard-pressed finding one reasonable American who believes Barack Taqiyya and John Kerry are not lying.

After making a deal with a plethora of Hitler-like ayatollahs Barack Taqiyya said:

For the first time in a decade we’ve halted the progress on Iran’s nuclear program.

Great Britain had Winston Churchill:



America has John Kerry:

There is no agreement that they can enrich. They have the ability to negotiate it, but they could only gain that capacity to have some enrichment, as some countries do, if they live up to the whole set of terms necessary to prove it's a peaceful program. Iran has some very stiff hurdles that they are going to have to meet in order to do that.

It gets worse. The left dug up revisionist history from the 1950s that said Neville Chamberlain was right to sign the Munich Pact. That bit of appeasement political philosophy fits in nicely with this:

Obama Signals a Shift From Military Might to Diplomacy
By MARK LANDLER Published: November 25, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/world/middleeast/longer-term-deal-with-iran.html?_r=0

The Old Diplomacy v. The New Diplomacy

Books have been written on the subject. Scholarly tomes even offer dates separating the old and the new; however, my definitions of Old Diplomacy and New Diplomacy are less complicated than the definitions scholars put forth. I think of the Old Diplomacy as negotiations between sovereign nations going as far back as sovereign nations talked to one another. The New Diplomacy sublimates sovereignty to Internationalism. That is the kind of diplomacy our UN-loving State Department has been engaging in since 1945.

My definition of New Diplomacy incorporates all of the malevolence that sprang from WW I after the untimely death of the Old Diplomacy. Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations supplied the pallbearers. I don’t see how anyone can deny it; especially when you trace today’s worsening evils to the New Diplomacy —— encouraging weak foreign governments to dictate to a strong free people. After the New World Order reins supreme there won’t be any free people left.

Diplomacy between Germany and England in 1938

Peace-at-any-cost-revisionists should be asked this question: If England was prepared for war would Chamberlain have stood up to Hitler? Truthful peaceniks might abandon their core belief and answer yes. My interpretation of events tells me that Chamberlain would have done exactly what Barack Taqiyya & Company are doing today.

Just to be clear, England was unprepared for war to be sure; nevertheless, the evidence shows that Hitler would have backed down had Chamberlain stood up to him. Example: Germany’s military did not believe they could win. The only chance Hitler had was a quick victory; i.e. invade England. That was not possible in 1938 before Germany occupied France. That reality was hardly a military secret in 1938 which makes Chamberlain’s thinking shortsighted to say the least.

NOTE: Invading England was not possible after German armies were entrenched on the shores of the English Channel.

On the other side of the argument it can be said that “Peace in our time.” might have given Germany the atomic bomb when it was ready to attack. Analyze that possibility in relation to Iran.

America and Iran in 2013

America and its allies are militarily stronger than Iran. There is no reason to give the ayatollahs the time of day. Not only should enrichment be stopped, Iran’s entire nuclear industry should be dismantled if the ayatollahs so much as blink.

Here’s the betrayal. Unlike England and Germany in 1938 Iran can be slapped down. Diplomacy is the only thing standing in the way.

Incidentally, China and Russia are not today’s version of Great Britain finally going to war to save Poland in 1939. There is no possibility the US would attack China or Russia the way Germany conquered weaker countries. Russia and China have no reason to risk nuclear war against the US and its allies in order to defend Iran.

Also, there is lot of talk about the fear of uniting a billion Muslims. Even if that is true they should be seen as that many more targets if they don’t straighten up and fly right. Happily, a lot of Muslim countries are not thrilled with the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Those Muslims who are suspicious of Iran did not require diplomacy to tell them where their best interests lie.

Finally, I’ve read dozens of quotes about diplomacy credited to the famous and the not so famous. I don’t believe any of them.

Here are some “quotes” of my own:

1. Diplomacy is the favorite weapon of the weak.

2. Diplomacy is a foul smelling cloak of decency worn by the dirtiest of politicians.

3. Diplomacy never prevented a war.

4. Diplomacy always loses the peace.

5. Diplomacy is never called upon when a government abuses its own people.

6. Diplomacy is a low-down word favored by historians trying to turn dead politicians into heros —— and to sell books.

7. Diplomacy sucks.

"Fifty four forty or fight," never happened--a diplomatic solution. Wars go down in the history books but diplomatic solutions if mentioned at all get a short paragraph. We just spent a number of years in a cold war that never blossomed out to what it could have been. I think more wars have been averted with diplomacy, than not.
As for Chamberlain, England had nothing at the time to make war, in fact, Churchill's participation in the Rule of Ten was one reason England was not ready.

 

[Flanders]

"Fifty four forty or fight," never happened--a diplomatic solution. Wars go down in the history books but diplomatic solutions if mentioned at all get a short paragraph. We just spent a number of years in a cold war that never blossomed out to what it could have been. I think more wars have been averted with diplomacy, than not.
As for Chamberlain, England had nothing at the time to make war, in fact, Churchill's participation in the Rule of Ten was one reason England was not ready.

To regent: The Old Diplomacy between sovereign nations working in a few instances only proves there is no need for an International body to be involved.

It was the fear of nuclear war, not diplomacy, that kept the Cold War cold for the most part.

NOTE: At the beginning of the Cold War the Left justified treason with this gem “If everybody has the atomic bomb nobody will use it.” That’s what gave the world nuclear proliferation. Today’s reality: When everybody has the atomic bomb somebody is sure to use it.

The certainty of retaliation, the means to retaliate, and the will to wipe an attacker off the face of the Earth is the only thing that will prevent nuclear war. Diplomacy can play a small part in negotiating a non-nuclear war although compliance is still up to the warring parties.

The first Geneva Convention was a rule of war. The one and only impetus for the first Convention in 1864 was better treatment for wounded soldiers. In effect, the Geneva Conventions are supposed to eliminate the need for diplomacy. Let’s take a look at how codified diplomacy works.

The original Geneva Convention grew through diplomacy; i.e., sovereign nations agreed to the terms:

The First Convention covered care for wounded and sick soldiers in the field.

The Second Convention covered care for the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea as well as shipwreck victims.

The Third Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of the war.

The Fourth Convention covered civilians in times of war.

I’ve suggested that caring for the wounded in accordance with the Geneva Conventions evolved into deliberately wounding enemy combatants. Professional soldiers in every modern army know that a wounded enemy soldier ties up more resources and manpower than does a dead enemy. I am not suggesting that the wounded should be treated as they were treated in long-forgotten wars. I am simply pointing out one result of the Geneva Conventions. To paraphrase an old chestnut “The diplomatic highway to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Brutality strengthened by new technology will always outpace good intentions. In the hands of the politically powerful, technology developed in the last century alone made it the most murderously efficient century in history.

The Geneva Conventions would be wonderful things if all wars were fought by gentlemen. And please don’t tell me that an end to war will be an end to government murders. The do-gooders who are preaching diplomacy as way to drive the world toward a global government seem to think the brutes will admit defeat after the birth of global government. The truth is: The butchers will take control of the machinery the instant it is up and running.

My point is this: There is no evidence to support the claim that says the Geneva Conventions made the world a better place. There is much evidence to support the opposite view. TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS have become increasingly barbaric from the outset of the Geneva Convention in 1864.

Incidentally, there are no diplomats negotiating for the victims after a government decides to slaughter its own people.

Finally, so long as the New Diplomacy remains a political force nothing else will be tried. Scrap the New Diplomacy and the Geneva Conventions and see what develops. Civilization cannot possibly be worse off after scrapping both. Resurrect them if things are worse at the end of this century. The criterion for judging should be the number of deaths caused by wars and government slaughters when compared to the past century.

 

[editec]

Was is just one more kind of diplomacy.