Retconning Neville Chamberlain and Munich

[jordan179]

As we approach the end of the Strauss-Howe Generational Cycle that began with the Crisis of 1929-53, and we gradually forget or deny the lessons of history taught us by World War II as the generation which actually fought the war dies out, I've noticed that history is repeating itself with regard to appeasing (Obama) or allying with (Putin) the

Comments

A Mistake in Judgement

[jordan179]

* Last paragraph: incorrect, Chamberlain and the other Allies had the very recent example of German aggression in WWI, less than a quarter-century before. Most of the leaders of the time had living memory and firsthand experience of how wars could start, but also how devastating war could be, which is probably why they went with diplomacy until the bitter end, because they'd seen with their own eyes what its failure would mean.

German aggression in World War One was hardly unprovoked. World War One was in fact started by the Serbians, a fact of which Chamberlain would have been well aware. Austria responded to the Serbian assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand by declaring war on Serbia; the Russians then declared war on Austria; and that dragged in both France and Germany. The single unprovoked act of German aggression in World War One -- and the one which made British intervention inevitable even given public treaties -- was the German invasion of Belgium ... and the Germans there would have been satisfied with rights of transit.

I'm not claiming that the Germans were saints in World War One -- they committed atrocities and had no just cause for war against Belgium in the first place -- but it's fairly obvious that the reason why Chamberlain thought he could productively negotiate with Hitler was because he figured he was dealing with someone like Bismarck, Wilhelm II or Bethmann-Hollweg. Chamberlain did not take into account Hitler's fanatical ideology, which led Hitler to believe that he had both special right and special ability to master all Europe.

This is precisely the mistake we are making now in dealing with Iran and the other Islamic Terrorist States. We are assuming that we are dealing with an entity like Brezhnev's or Gorbachev's Soviet Union, which is ambitious but essentially rational, unwilling to attack unless the correlation of forces promise victory at sufficiently low cost. But we are actually dealing with entities more like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, who believe that they have divine right and promise to rule. Obama -- right now -- is making the exact SAME mistake as did Chamberlain, 75 years ago.

Maybe not the *exact* mistake

[ilion7]

"Obama -- right now -- is making the exact SAME mistake as did Chamberlain, 75 years ago."

For all his foolishness and willful blindness to human nature (especially as expressed in states), I don't believe that Chamberlain intentionally sought to harm the interests of Britain.

Re: Maybe not the *exact* mistake

[jordan179]

I remain far from convinced that Obama is intentionally doing any such thing. Though I've argued for the last four and a half years that his actions are nonetheless having this effect.

My belief is that Obama started with fundamentally misguided policy assumptions, and is simply too arrogant and stupid to learn from his own mistakes. He's made these mistakes even in situations where not doing so would have enhanced his personal stature and power, which is why I believe that they are unintentional.