On the Road to Munich II

A cabal of appeasers and a leadership deficit could plunge the world into war

The grand illusion: “Peace in our time”

---

Thinking as I have been recently about that low, dishonest decade, the 1930s, and its lessons for today, I return again and again to one place, one moment in time: Munich, September 29-30, 1938. It was there and then that the Second World War, with all its horrors, became inevitable.

Reading accounts of the crisis that led to the Munich Conference leaves one astonished at the blind arrogance and stupidity of the British and French statesmen who thought they could secure peace for Europe by delivering a small nation into the clutches of a rapacious and brutal totalitarian state. But though the name of Neville Chamberlain is synonymous with this great betrayal, it must be said that he had many accomplices who for various reasons believed that appeasing Hitler was the only way to prevent a European war.

Both Chamberlain’s dismissive attitude toward Czechoslovakia and his faith in Hitler’s word bespeak the extent of his hubris and self-regard. From the very beginning of the Sudetenland crisis, he saddled the Czechs with the responsibility for preventing war, insisting that they must give in to Hitler’s demands, and alleging that if they did not do so, they were the warmongers. If Czechoslovakia refused to cough up the Sudetenland, he said, Hitler would have no choice but to launch an invasion.

Chamberlain’s self-confidence on this point was such that the French government eventually reneged on its promise, formalized by treaty, to come to Czechoslovakia’s assistance if that country were attacked. The Munich Conference followed, and Chamberlain was pleased: Now that Hitler’s demands had been met, all would be well.

The French premier, Édouard Daladier, had no illusions about Hitler and the consequences of giving in to his demands, but eventually succumbed to British pressure, supplemented by that of appeasers within his own government, to abandon the Czechs. When he returned to Paris from Munich in a mood of black depression, expecting to be lynched, he was taken aback by the rapturous reception he received. In London, Chamberlain’s return from Munich was greeted with equal enthusiasm. He of course basked in its glow, assuring the British people that he’d brought back from Germany “peace with honor” and “peace in our time.”

As he spoke those words, peace had less than a year to run.

Now, again today, we have a cabal of appeasers both in and out of government, who claim to be preserving peace by advocating the delivery of someone else’s country into the clutches of a rapacious and brutal totalitarian state.

Chamberlain’s demonization of the Czechs indeed reminds one of the American national conservatives, so called, who go out of their way to slander Ukraine while making excuses for V. Putin. These people—Tucker Carlson, Matt Gaetz, J.D. Vance, et al.—claim to be making a virtue of pusillanimity. They claim to be opposing “forever wars.” They charge the United States and NATO with acting aggressively against Russia. They claim to be championing the interests of the American people over those of corrupt foreigners. They employ antisemitic troupes to smear the President of Ukraine. They intimate that if V. Putin is simply given what he wants, all will be well. They are, in two words, despicable people—much the same kind of people whose arrogance and stupidity plunged the world into war eighty-four years ago.

It may be an exaggeration to say that history repeats itself. But from time to time it sounds an echo, and this is one such time.

The utter vacuity of the natcon/appeaser position on US and NATO support for Ukraine need not be restated here. I’ve covered the topic in an earlier article (see below). But since that article appeared, incidentally on the eighty-fifth anniversary of the Munich Agreement, the situation has become critical. A small cabal of natcon Republicans in Congress is blocking the aid package that Ukraine desperately needs to restore its deteriorated military position. This would not be a heavy lift for the United States. Our aid to Ukraine so far, cash and kind, is a trivial sum in the context of America’s GDP and the federal budget. Moreover, much of the money involved stays right here at home, to be spent on replacements for the equipment and munitions sent to Ukraine. This not only supports good-paying American jobs but gives a shot in the arm to defense industries that are crucial to this country’s national security.

One might expect the President of the United States to be loud and forceful in his advocacy of a policy that he initiated and has defended, truly, as being vital to US national security. But to be rudely frank, President Biden is no longer equal to that mission of leadership. His decline has progressed to a point where he’s incapable of making a cogent argument on any issue, even with the help of a teleprompter. He cannot be expected to rally the American people behind his policy with a hard-hitting press conference or a primetime television address. And preoccupied as they are with the upcoming election, Biden & Co. are no doubt loath to run the political risk of putting aid to Ukraine front and center.

How that leadership deficit can be made up is a question whose answer I do not know. But unless something is done, a larger European war may well be in the cards. For if Putin, like Hitler before him, gets what he wants—he’ll only want more.