Lindsey Graham Brings Up Hitler While Criticizing The Iran Deal (VIDEO)

I’d love to see a picture of the Newsmax TV studio(s)…I bet Lindsey sat on his hanky.

As usual, it’s way more complicated than what the Lindsey thinks, and most of the public for that matter, and is generally at odds with serious students of WWII history:

Historians often find themselves moving against popular opinion. In the case of Chamberlain, though, the gap between public perception and the historical record serves a political purpose. The story we’re told about Munich is one about the futility and foolishness of searching for peace. In American political debates, the words “appeasement” and “Munich” are used to bludgeon those who argue against war. But every war is not World War II, and every dictator is not Hitler. Should we really fault Chamberlain for postponing a potentially disastrous fight that his military advisers cautioned against, his allies weren’t ready for, and his people didn’t support? “People should try to put themselves into the position of the head of the British government in the 1930s,” Dutton says. “Would they have taken the apparently huge risk of a war [that] might mean Armageddon for a cause that nobody was really convinced in?” Chamberlain’s story is of a man who fought for peace as long as possible, and went to war only when it was the last available option. It’s not such a bad epitaph.

My emigré old dad, who served in the RAF during WWII told me much the same thing as this article when he heard “Munich” being used as a club by hawky politicians who wanted to kill other people’s children and spend other people’s money on wars.