On February 12, 1938, two Chancellors—Adolf Hitler of Germany, and Kurt von Schuschnigg of Austria—met at Hitler’s retreat at Obersalzberg, Germany. At stake lay the future independence of Austria.
That meeting ended with Hitler’s bullying Schnuschigg into submission. Austria became a vassal-state of Nazi Germany.
Seven months later, in September, 1938, Hitler gave another exhibition of his “negotiating” methods. This time, the target of his rage and aggression was Czechoslovakia.
Once again, he opened “negotiations” with a lie: The Czechoslovak government was trying to exterminate 3.5 million Germans living in the “Sudetenland.”
This consisted of the northern, southwest and western regions of Czechoslovakia, inhabited mostly by ethnic Germans.
Then he followed this up with the threat of war: Germany would protect its citizens and halt such “oppression.”
For British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, the thought of another European war erupting less than 20 years after the end of World War I was simply unthinkable.
The Cenotaph, in London, honoring the unknown British dead of World War 1
Something had to be done to prevent it. And he believed himself to be just the man to do it.
He quickly sent Hitler a telegram, offering to help resolve the crisis: “I could come to you by air and am ready to leave tomorrow. Please inform me of earliest time you can receive me, and tell me the place of the meeting. I should be grateful for a very early reply.”
Once again, another head-of-state was prepared to meet Hitler on his home ground. Again, Hitler took this concession as a sign of weakness. And Chamberlain’s use of such words as “please” and “grateful” only further convinced Hitler of another impending triumph.
Chamberlain was determined to grant his every demand–so long as this meant avoiding a second world war.
The two European leaders met in Berchtesgaden, Germany, on September 15, 1938.
Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler
During their talks, Chamberlain said he had come to discuss German grievances. But, he added, it was necessary in all circumstances to exclude the use of force.
Hitler appeared to be shocked that he could be accused of such intentions: “Force? Who speaks of force?“
Then, without warning, he switched to an aggressive mode. He accused the Czechs of having mobilized their army in May. They had mobilized—in response to the mobilization of the German army.
“I shall not put up with this any longer,” shouted Hitler. “I shall settle this question in one way or another. I shall take matters in my own hands!”
Suddenly, Chamberlain seemed alarmed—and possibly angry: “If I understood you right, you are determined to proceed against Czechoslovakia in any case. If this is so, why did you let me come to Berchtesgaden?
“In the circumstances, it is best for me to return at once. Anything else now seems pointless.”
Hitler was taken aback by the unexpected show of defiance. He realized he was about to lose his chance to bully the British into accepting his latest demands.
So he softened his tone and said they should consider the Sudetenland according to the principle of self-determination.
Chamberlain said he must immediately return to England to consult with his colleagues. Hitler appeared uneasy. But then the German translator finished the sentence: “…and then meet you again.” Hitler realized he still had a chance to attain victory without going to war.
Chamberlain agreed to the cession of the Sudetenland. Three days later, French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier did the same. No Czechoslovak representative was invited to these discussions.
Chamberlain met Hitler again in Godesberg, Germany, on September 22 to confirm the agreements. But Hitler aimed to use the crisis as a pretext for war.
He now demanded not only the annexation of the Sudetenland but the immediate military occupation of the territories. This would give the Czechoslovak army no time to adapt their defense measures to the new borders.
To achieve a solution, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini suggested a conference of the major powers in Munich.
On September 29, Hitler, Daladier and Chamberlain met and agreed to Mussolini’s proposal. They signed the Munich Agreement, which accepted the immediate occupation of the Sudetenland.
The Czechoslovak government had not been a party to the talks. Nevertheless, it promised to abide by the agreement on September 30.
It actually had no choice. It faced the threat of an immediate German invasion after being deserted by its pledged allies: Britain, France and the Soviet Union.
Chamberlain returned to England a hero. Holding aloft a copy of the worthless agreement he had signed with Hitler, he told cheering crowds in London: “I believe it is peace for our time.”
Neville Chamberlain
Winston Churchill knew better, predicting: “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war.”
Hitler—still planning more conquests—also knew better. In March, 1939, the German army occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain would soon be seen as a naive weakling–even before bombs started falling on London.
Hitler next turned his attention–and demands–to Poland.






ABC NEWS, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, CBS NEWS, CNN, DENNIS MCGUIRE, ELECTRIC CHAIR, FACEBOOK, FIRING SQUAD, GAS CHAMBER, HANGING, LETHAL INJECTION, NBC NEWS, OHIO, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VICTIMS' RIGHTS
WHO’S THE VICTIM?
In Law, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on June 30, 2014 at 12:26 pmJoy Stewart, 22, was nearly eight months pregnant when she encountered Dennis McGuire in Preble County, Ohio, while visiting a friend.
McGuire wanted to have sex with her but Stewart refused.
So he raped her.
No, not vaginally. She was so pregnant he couldn’t have sex with her.
So he anally sodamized her. With a knife.
Not surprisingly, Stewart became hysterical. And this made him fear that he would go to jail for raping a pregnant woman.
So he choked her. Then he stabbed her with the same knife he had used to anally rape her.
Finally, he severed her carotid artery and jugular vein. He wiped blood off his hands on her right arm and dumped her in a wooded area where she was found the next day by hikers.
Joy Stewart
The date was February 11, 1989.
When questioned by police, McGuire blamed Stewart’s kidnapping and murder on his brother-in-law. But the accusation didn’t hold up–and DNA evidence clearly implicated McGuire.
McGuire was convicted of kidnapping, anal rape and aggravated murder on December 8, 1994. But even while facing a grim future, McGuire managed to postpone his fate as his victim could not.
First, his attorneys appealed his conviction to the Ohio Supreme Court on June 10, 1997. To the dismay of him and his mouthpieces, the court upheld the verdict on December 10, 1997.
By this time, McGuire had already outlived his ravished victim by eight years.
Second, his attorneys appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, for the Sixth Circuit. During this appeal, as in the first, McGuire’s attorneys didn’t argue their client was innocent.
They simply claimed that a jury never got to hear the full details of his chaotic and abusive childhood.
As if that had been so much more horrific than the details of Joy Stewart’s rape and murder.
The case was argued on December 16, 2013, and decided on December 30. The court upheld the death penalty verdict.
By that time, McGuire had outlived Joy Stewart by 24 years.
But McGuire’s lawyers weren’t through.
Third, they asked Ohio Governor John Kasich to spare McGuire, again citing his chaotic and abusive childhood.
Kasich rejected that request without comment.
Fourth, on January 6-7, 2014, McGuire’s lawyers argued in Federal appeals court that Ohio’s untried two-drug execution method would cause their client “agony and terror” as he struggled to breathe.
You know, like the “agony and terror” he had deliberately inflicted on Joy Stewart.
Supplies of Ohio’s former execution drug, pentobarbital, had dried up as its manufacturer put it off limits for executions.
Ohio’s Department of Rehabilitation and Correction planned to use a dose of midazolam, a sedative, combined with hydromorphone, a painkiller, to put McGuire to death.
That appeal proved unsuccessful.
Finally, on January 16, 2014, McGuire kept his long-delayed date with the executioner in a small, windowless room at the Lucasville Correctional facility.
Strapped to a gurney, McGuire gasped, snorted and snored as it took him 26 minutes to die.
“I’m going to heaven,” were his last words.
His surviving family members, of course, feel that a travesty of justice has occurred.
On January 25, they filed a lawsuit in Federal court, claiming that McGuire’s execution was “unconstitutional.”
According to the lawsuit, McGuire suffered “repeated cycles of snorting, gurgling and arching his back, appearing to writhe in pain. It looked and sounded as though he was suffocating.”
The McGuire family wants to ensure that such an execution never happens again.
During the execution, his adult children sobbed in dismay. For him. Not his ravaged and innocent victim.
The truth is that there is no execution method that would have satisfied the McGuire family. If they had had their way, Dennis McGuire would have been released altogether.
The old saying, “Justice delayed is justice denied” remains as true–and relevant–as ever.
In order to be effective, punishment must be certain and swift. To repeatedly postpone it–literally for decades after the perpetrator has been convicted–is to inflict further agony on the victim.
Or, in this case, the surviving family and friends of the murdered victim.
And it sends an unmistakable message to those thinking of victimizing others: “Hey, he got to live another 25 years. Maybe I can beat the rap.”
Opponents of capital punishment have long argued that the death penalty is not a deterrant to crime.
In fact, it is.
Having finally had sentence carried out on him, Dennis McGuire will never again threaten the life of anyone.
Prisons scheduled for executions are now facing a chronic shortage of the drugs used to carry out such sentence. The reason: Many drug-makers refuse to make them available for executions.
This has caused some states to reconsider using execution methods that were scrapped in favor of lethal injection.
Methods like
In line with this debate should be another: Whether the lives of cold-blooded murderers are truly worth more than those of their innocent victims.
And whether those victims–and those who loved them–deserve a better break than they now receive under our legal system.
Share this: