Given how much we know about Munich, its an incredibly well documented event, I'm surprised how little actual information was covered here.
Chamberlin didn't "trust" Hitler, which is pretty obvious from his correspondence on the issue.
1) Chamberlin couldn't see how to get help to the Czechs due to basic geography.
2) The poles weren't coming to the Czechs aid (interwar Poland was itself an expansionary authoritarian state).
3) He felt it if somehow the Soviets got their way into Central Europe, they would never leave. This was correct.
4) The state of the allied Air Force was very poor compared to the Germans. Overall Entente military intelligence overestimated German strength and vastly overestimated bomber capabilities (the bomber will always get through). But you go with what military intelligence gives you.
5) Nobody could predict the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
6) Public opinion in the west did not favor war over Munich, and so war under these terms would not have broad public support. When Britain did go to war in 1939 it had broad based public support.
Overall, Chamberlin doesn't come across as a naive effete who thought weakness could buy peace. Rather, he felt that another year or two of re-armerment would favor the Entente more then the Germans and so while if it bought peace great but if not he felt he would be in a better position in a future war.
Historians debate whether that was the case or not quite a bit. Hitler himself seems to have wanted war in 1938. Maybe he would have been overthrown, maybe not. The Germany army got stronger due to Czech confiscations, but the Entente did close much of the Air Force gap with Germany (the planes that won the Battle of Britain were acquired during the Munich peace). One could credit the answer to the question either way without being incredulous.
It's less a morality play than one of difficult political tradeoffs and incomplete information. The Entente had already tried hard balling Versailles (the French occupation of the Rhine was a disaster) and pretty much all of the players were basket cases due to the depression.
Who is the aggressor? The American Empire? Rules based? Except we make the rules, and break them. We lied to Gorbachev and expanded NATO East 14 times to Russias border. Incompetent Neocon Joe Biden fresh from surrender pushed across a red line by advocating the corrupt government of the Ukraine for NATO. Joe bullied and never negotiated. He chose war. And you tough guy cheer it on.
It’s only 1938 if you are Russian and you are watching the Empire of America March NATO into a war with the nuclear power Russia.
Absolutely ridiculous. NATO poses no threat to Russia. That’s Putin propaganda and look at you, parroting it just as the old appeasers parroted Hitler’s propaganda.
Given the nature of V. Putin’s zombie Stalinist regime, one can readily understand why countries like Poland and the Baltic States desired to join NATO. Oh, and by the way, your hero isn’t about to start a war with the US and NATO, because he knows that Russia couldn’t possibly win it.
There is a simple way to expedite passage in the House of the bill providing assistance to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and various humanitarian programs. The aid bill should be attached to HR-2, the House immigration bill that was introduced and passed last year.
The Democrats in the House would almost surely vote “no” demonstrating their real commitment to supporting Ukraine. Once sent to the Senate, it would have zero chance of passing because Democratic Senators care about assisting Ukraine, but not so much that they are willing to do anything that might actually ameliorate the current immigration mess.
The so-called immigration compromise was a joke negotiated by a Republican clown (Lankford). The Republicans should give the Democrats everything they want (the entire $60 billion) in return for everything they want on immigration.
If the Democrats decide that appeasing illegal immigrants is more important to them than supporting Ukraine’s independence then at least we will know where they stand.
That’s what compromise is; acquiescing to something you hate to get something you want.
On the contrary, the natcon idiots in Congress should give up their opposition to aid for Ukraine, period. Linking it to a contentious issue like illegal immigration and border security is a recipe for stalemate—which is no doubt what they really want. They’re as stupid, duplicitous and delusional as the French and British statesmen who caved to Hitler. They say they don’t want war, but they’re making it far more likely that a major war will break out.
It’s true; immigration is a very contentious issue. Funding Ukraine is also very contentious. Many Americans support funding Ukraine and many oppose it. Most Americans don’t care one way or the other and even those who do care, don’t care enough to get riled up about it. Ukraine aid would pass tomorrow if HR-2 was attached to the legislation. All the Democrats have to do is relent. They don’t care enough about Ukraine to relent. They care about protecting a system that promotes illegal immigration more than they care about providing assistance to Ukraine.
It’s their refusal to compromise that is slowly, or maybe not so slowly, consigning Ukraine to what increasingly looks like a terrible fate.
Yes, this is what Thomas has been saying about how what's happening in the US now is similar to 1930s France. Everyone is hooked on "narratives" and virtual screaming on social media, gazing at their navels. That's where all this crap is coming from.
I just read Guns of August. Reading about Germany’s march into neutral Belgium made me completely not understand how Chamberlain could underestimate Hitler. All he had to do was copy the Kaiser and there would be another world war. Could Chamberlain have forgotten how Germany drew the whole world into a war, including Belgium that was neutral?
You might be interested in my Great War series, which includes an article on the Schlieffen Plan. How and why Germany chose to violate Belgian neutrality at the beginning of the war is a story of absorbing interest. Here I’ll just note that the invasion of Belgium in 1914 was justified in the minds of Germany’s leaders on grounds of military necessity.
Biden withdrew from Afghanistan in one of the most spectacular failures of America in recent decades. If he were doing as well now as he was then, would he not abandon Ukraine? Or half heartedly “help”?
It's in part because voter turnout is often low, especially in primaries. That's how kooks get into office BTW: low turnout in gerrymandered districts.
Given how much we know about Munich, its an incredibly well documented event, I'm surprised how little actual information was covered here.
Chamberlin didn't "trust" Hitler, which is pretty obvious from his correspondence on the issue.
1) Chamberlin couldn't see how to get help to the Czechs due to basic geography.
2) The poles weren't coming to the Czechs aid (interwar Poland was itself an expansionary authoritarian state).
3) He felt it if somehow the Soviets got their way into Central Europe, they would never leave. This was correct.
4) The state of the allied Air Force was very poor compared to the Germans. Overall Entente military intelligence overestimated German strength and vastly overestimated bomber capabilities (the bomber will always get through). But you go with what military intelligence gives you.
5) Nobody could predict the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
6) Public opinion in the west did not favor war over Munich, and so war under these terms would not have broad public support. When Britain did go to war in 1939 it had broad based public support.
Overall, Chamberlin doesn't come across as a naive effete who thought weakness could buy peace. Rather, he felt that another year or two of re-armerment would favor the Entente more then the Germans and so while if it bought peace great but if not he felt he would be in a better position in a future war.
Historians debate whether that was the case or not quite a bit. Hitler himself seems to have wanted war in 1938. Maybe he would have been overthrown, maybe not. The Germany army got stronger due to Czech confiscations, but the Entente did close much of the Air Force gap with Germany (the planes that won the Battle of Britain were acquired during the Munich peace). One could credit the answer to the question either way without being incredulous.
It's less a morality play than one of difficult political tradeoffs and incomplete information. The Entente had already tried hard balling Versailles (the French occupation of the Rhine was a disaster) and pretty much all of the players were basket cases due to the depression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY_S9X5HdOM
Who is the aggressor? The American Empire? Rules based? Except we make the rules, and break them. We lied to Gorbachev and expanded NATO East 14 times to Russias border. Incompetent Neocon Joe Biden fresh from surrender pushed across a red line by advocating the corrupt government of the Ukraine for NATO. Joe bullied and never negotiated. He chose war. And you tough guy cheer it on.
It’s only 1938 if you are Russian and you are watching the Empire of America March NATO into a war with the nuclear power Russia.
Absolutely ridiculous. NATO poses no threat to Russia. That’s Putin propaganda and look at you, parroting it just as the old appeasers parroted Hitler’s propaganda.
Given the nature of V. Putin’s zombie Stalinist regime, one can readily understand why countries like Poland and the Baltic States desired to join NATO. Oh, and by the way, your hero isn’t about to start a war with the US and NATO, because he knows that Russia couldn’t possibly win it.
Perfectly said, nothing to add.
There is a simple way to expedite passage in the House of the bill providing assistance to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and various humanitarian programs. The aid bill should be attached to HR-2, the House immigration bill that was introduced and passed last year.
The Democrats in the House would almost surely vote “no” demonstrating their real commitment to supporting Ukraine. Once sent to the Senate, it would have zero chance of passing because Democratic Senators care about assisting Ukraine, but not so much that they are willing to do anything that might actually ameliorate the current immigration mess.
The so-called immigration compromise was a joke negotiated by a Republican clown (Lankford). The Republicans should give the Democrats everything they want (the entire $60 billion) in return for everything they want on immigration.
If the Democrats decide that appeasing illegal immigrants is more important to them than supporting Ukraine’s independence then at least we will know where they stand.
That’s what compromise is; acquiescing to something you hate to get something you want.
On the contrary, the natcon idiots in Congress should give up their opposition to aid for Ukraine, period. Linking it to a contentious issue like illegal immigration and border security is a recipe for stalemate—which is no doubt what they really want. They’re as stupid, duplicitous and delusional as the French and British statesmen who caved to Hitler. They say they don’t want war, but they’re making it far more likely that a major war will break out.
It’s true; immigration is a very contentious issue. Funding Ukraine is also very contentious. Many Americans support funding Ukraine and many oppose it. Most Americans don’t care one way or the other and even those who do care, don’t care enough to get riled up about it. Ukraine aid would pass tomorrow if HR-2 was attached to the legislation. All the Democrats have to do is relent. They don’t care enough about Ukraine to relent. They care about protecting a system that promotes illegal immigration more than they care about providing assistance to Ukraine.
It’s their refusal to compromise that is slowly, or maybe not so slowly, consigning Ukraine to what increasingly looks like a terrible fate.
Nope, I don’t buy that. It’s the natcons who are courting disaster by blocking aid to Ukraine for no good reason.
Yes, this is what Thomas has been saying about how what's happening in the US now is similar to 1930s France. Everyone is hooked on "narratives" and virtual screaming on social media, gazing at their navels. That's where all this crap is coming from.
I just read Guns of August. Reading about Germany’s march into neutral Belgium made me completely not understand how Chamberlain could underestimate Hitler. All he had to do was copy the Kaiser and there would be another world war. Could Chamberlain have forgotten how Germany drew the whole world into a war, including Belgium that was neutral?
You might be interested in my Great War series, which includes an article on the Schlieffen Plan. How and why Germany chose to violate Belgian neutrality at the beginning of the war is a story of absorbing interest. Here I’ll just note that the invasion of Belgium in 1914 was justified in the minds of Germany’s leaders on grounds of military necessity.
https://unwokeindianaag.substack.com/p/the-great-war-series-table-of-contents
Biden withdrew from Afghanistan in one of the most spectacular failures of America in recent decades. If he were doing as well now as he was then, would he not abandon Ukraine? Or half heartedly “help”?
The problem is that there are few consequences to politicians for bad behavior.
While general disgust with Congress is high, the reelection rate of incumbents is also very high.
Somehow "my representative" is not as bad as Congress generally.
Until Americans get past loyalty to their representative (and their party), we will continue to be led by third rate hacks.
It's in part because voter turnout is often low, especially in primaries. That's how kooks get into office BTW: low turnout in gerrymandered districts.