It was never OK to carve up Czechoslovakia
posted at 8:40 am on May 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
In the middle of the sudden debate over the very settled historical judgment on appeasement, a curious defense of it appeared in yesterday’s Seattle Times. Bruce Ramsey wrote about the historical context of appeasement for the editorial-board blog, Ed Cetera, and argues that we have judged Britain and France too harshly for its actions at Munich. The two nations tried to avoid another devastating war the only way open to them at the time, which Ramsey excuses after the catastrophe of World War I:
The narrative we’re given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state. His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe–and ones that thought of themselves as German –be under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.
We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. We have learned the hazards of it. But 1938 was only 19 years since Germany’s borders had been redrawn, and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following the historical lesson they had learned 1914-1918: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.
In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless. He made a promise and broke it within about six months. And so when Bush recalls the unnamed senator who, in September 1939, lamented that he had not been able to talk to Hitler, he hits an easy target. But the moment of September 1939 is nothing like today.
In September 1939, when Germany started the war, it had no just claim to any more territory. But the Palestinians who fight Israel do have a just claim to territory. We can argue what it is; we can argue about the justness of their military tactics, and so on. And the same for the Israeli side, which is equally arguable.
Ramsey accuses people of ignoring historical context, but he ignores quite a bit of it in this passage as well. The German problem did not suddenly present itself in October 1938. Hitler and the Nazis violated treaties in increments starting almost immediately on their rise to power in 1933, rearming themselves, expanding their army past the 100,000-man limit of Versailles, producing large warships, reoccupying the Rhineland, and so on. Had Britain and France enforced the terms of the treaty at these pre-Munich stages, they would have avoided a devastating war, rather than stand up to a reinvigorated German war machine in the fall of 1938.
But, Ramsey says, all is clear in hindsight. We know now that appeasement doesn’t work, but in the context of the times, neither Britain nor France thought Hitler would go past the Sudetenland, where Ramsey argues Germany had a legitimate claim to the territory — because its inhabitants spoke German. He claims that the Austrian anschluss was bloodless, which only is true if one ignores the violence perpetrated by the Brownshirts in intimidating Austrians into submission. And he finally argues that carving up Czechoslovakia was a legitimate expression of the nation-state, pre-Munich.
That is simply hogwash, and it attempts to rescue Neville Chamberlain by ignoring his greatest crime. No nation has ever had the right to dismember an allied nation without its approval, or even its participation. The ministers of Czechoslovakia were barred from the Munich negotiations by Hitler, and Chamberlain presented them with the loss of the Sudetenland as a fait accompli, warning the Czechoslovakian ministers that Britain and France would break the mutual defense treaty if they refused to sign away their territory.
The Wehrmacht high command was stunned at this turn of events. They knew, as did the British and the French, that they had forcibly removed the one great impediment to German ambitions in the East. The mountains of Moravia and Bohemia presented a formidable natural defense against German invasion, and the Czechoslovakians had added modern military fortifications that would have stopped even a blitzkrieg cold, leaving Germany’s western frontier open to assault from the much larger French Army. Any thought of stopping Hitler from within ended at Munich and didn’t seriously reappear until the senior German officers realized the war was lost after Normandy in 1944.
They had given the natural defense of eastern Europe away for a promise, thanks to politicians who dreamed of peace at any cost, and who sold Czechoslovakia out to get it. Six months later, the same two nations wouldn’t even lift a finger to protect the rump Czech state as Hitler rolled across it, preparing for his assault on Poland and eastern Europe.
The historical context does not acquit Chamberlain, Britain, or France at all. It convicts them, especially in their haste to carve up an ally to appease a dictator who had long since shown his true colors. It was an act of cowardice set in motion by a series of capitulations that everyone pretended didn’t exist. It shows the folly of coddling dictators who dream of world domination.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Well spoken, CAPN Ed.
Subsunk
Subsunk on May 17, 2008 at 8:52 AM
No they don’t. Any territory that would be given to them is an undeserved, extremely generous gift on behalf of Israel.
Darth Executor on May 17, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Well said.
29Victor on May 17, 2008 at 8:59 AM
You’re on FIRE, Ed!
I would never have thought Hitler to be “reasonable.”
drjohn on May 17, 2008 at 9:00 AM
The old canard that WWII was the fault of the victors of WWI because they treated Germany so badly.
Blame America first.
29Victor on May 17, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Chamberlain was no hero, but the devastation of the Great War weighed heavily on Britain. It’s possible that containing Hitler would have given his military more time to develop, and since it was advancing technologically at a faster rate than Britain or France the results might not have been positive. Hitler also likely would have continued his mistreatment of German Jews.
dedalus on May 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM
President Ronald Reagan was the greatest appeaser of them all…
John Sidney McCain III is absolutely, totally “out to lunch”!
J_Gocht on May 17, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Actually blame France (US had nothing to do with it and IIRC, Wilson advised against it but nobody listened to him), and it’s partially true. The sanctions sunk the German economy leading to desperation and Hitler’s election.
Darth Executor on May 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I had never heard this before.
JiangxiDad on May 17, 2008 at 9:12 AM
And all of it happened against the backdrop of people like Churchill warning Chamberlain not to believe Hitler and Churchill was called a warmonger for doing so. Hmmm…sound familiar?
acleaver on May 17, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Hitler and the Nazi’s started out as a joke to many Germans but the party was able to tap into the feeling among Germans that the country wasn’t defeated militarily in WWI but was unfairly treated by the Treaty of Versailles.
The economic impact of the Treaty of Versailles was very real to the German people, and whether they were right or wrong to blame the WWI victors nevertheless enough did to enable the crazies in the Nazi party to seize control of the country.
dedalus on May 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Off topic. No trolling. - Ed
J_Gocht on May 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Hey, I’m all set to blame France for just about anything. But the Nazi’s were the Germans fault and no one elses.
Every single group that commits crimes and attrocities blames someone else. Whether it’s modern African attrocities blamed on European colonial powers or homicide bombers blamed on Israel and the U.S.
I blame France and Brittian for not stopping the Nazi’s when they should have, but it was the Germans who started them.
29Victor on May 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM
As Churchill put it:
feeding your neighbor to the crocodile in the hope he’ll eat you last.
The logic of lickspittles.
profitsbeard on May 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Did this clown ever read a book with the title Mein Kampf?
corona on May 17, 2008 at 9:22 AM
It appears that Mr Ramsey also has no idea of the mechanics of Anschluss which resulted in that bloodless takeover of Austria. It was exactly the method that Iran has used in setting up Hezbollah in Lebanon by twisting the Austrian democratic machinery against itself.
Limerick on May 17, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Hitler wasn’t elected, Hindenburg appointed him chancellor in 1933.
Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM
After the war, the Czechs and Poles threw out the native Germans in their territories. This is what Meir Kahane proposed in the 1980’s and had he become PM of Israel, he would have done it.
RobCon on May 17, 2008 at 9:33 AM
The rest of the editorial (linked on LGF) basically says that Chamberlain was right, in that war is something to be avoided at all costs, and if it can be done without risk to those doing the avoiding, all the better.
This I have always considered to be equivalent to the old Russian boyars’ custom in the wintertime of bringing peasants along on their sleighs so that when the wolves chased them- they could throw one or two off the rear for the wolves to tear apart, thereby buying themselves time to get away. (This is just one of several reasons the “noble boyars” were never popular with the fundamentally sensible Russian people- see Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible, Part 1 and 2 [1943/46] for several more.)
Jimmy Carter also practiced this sort of “throw everyone else to the wolves and hope they eat us last” foreign policy, in Nicaragua, Iran, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe aka “Mugabestan”) and Taiwan. By a miracle, Taiwan survived.
(In case anyone has forgotten, Nixon went to China- bad idea. Carter got Taiwan thrown out of the UN- worse idea. If not for the combined idiocy of the two, China’s Communist regime’ might have died with Mao. Instead, we got Tianenmen Square- plus the continued existence of Lil’ Kim in North Korea, and major supplies of arms to people who don’t like us, notably in the MidEast. Not exactly what Nixon had in mind- I’m not so sure about Ex-President Jimmy-Earl.)
As for Chamberlain, the main thing he did was to increase the size of Hitler’s war industry. By letting him annex Austria and Czechoslovakia, he was also letting him annex the largest munitions plants in Europe outside of Germany itself, notably Steyr in Austria and Brno in Czechoslovakia. Or to put it another way, when the Wehrmacht drove to the English Channel in June of 1940, almost half of their armor strength was Czech-made Model 35 and 38 medium tanks, which were superior to the Germans’ own Panzer IIIB/C model in speed, reliability, armor, and firepower. In Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, the Czech-made tanks still accounted for at least 30% of the Wehrmacht’s Panzer divisions, and made a better showing against the Russian BT-5s and BT-7s (which they were analogous to) and the few T-34s (which they were nearly as good as) than the Panzer IIIEs and early Panzer IVs did.
The Czechs intended their tanks to stop Hitler from invading them. Instead, Chamberlain handed them to Hitler on a silver platter.
This is what “appeasement” gets you. Not peace- just a delay in execution. It’s very difficult to give an enemy “part of what he wants” when what he wants is you- either as a slave, or as a corpse.
And as a side note, only in “progressive” La-La Land would it be considered legitimate to defend the “philosophy” of Obama, Pelosi, Gordon Brown, et al.- by invoking the guy who set Hitler up to nearly take over half of the planet. As they say, “stupid is as stupid does.”
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2008 at 9:34 AM
No nation has ever had the right to dismember an allied nation without its approval, or even its participation.
That’s the part I never understood. We say the Brits ‘gave’ Hitler this or that piece of this or that country. Did they agree to it? Apparently not.
Nice work, Ed.
Tony737 on May 17, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Its amazing what one can learn from history…oh yea they don’t teach that anymore do they.
All Hail the Messiah!
dmann on May 17, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Great info about Czech munitions plants. Thanks.
JiangxiDad on May 17, 2008 at 9:40 AM
This is just wrong. Alsace/Lorraine, parts of Hungary, parts of Romania, and even some small areas of Russia where Catherine the Great had imported German farmers were speaking German. Not to mention areas in the New World in Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina and the United States.
And in Danzig, along with all the other areas mentioned German speakers were mixed with others. The whole concept of the laguage argument is flawed, and the author obviously doesn’t know squat about how far the language-based claims were likely to go.
forest on May 17, 2008 at 9:42 AM
why is it i never heard the word appeasement more then a few times in my 41 years until BO comes on the scene?
trailortrash on May 17, 2008 at 9:44 AM
You’re welcome, and thank you.
I might add that while almost half of Hitler’s Panzers came from Czechoslovakia, more than half of the support artillery he had came from Austria, and that Steyr and Brno together accounted for 45% of the Wehrmacht’s small-arms production by 1939. (I used to own a Mauser 98K in 8mm that came from Brno, dated 1941, and very good it was, too.)
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2008 at 9:46 AM
He may have also forgotten the good ol’ Nuremberg Laws. They were enacted in 1935 against the Jews. Unless of course, he was okay with the Jews of Germany having absolutely no rights whatsoever.
He needs to read “Mein Kampf” and hear Hitler’s early speeches. It’s fairly obvious what Ol’ Adolf intended from the very beginning.
It must be nice to be so ignorant of history. Scary to me, but nice for him.
mjk on May 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I dunno, maybe you weren’t listening?
Jimmy Carter
The WSJ
More JC
Bill Clinton
Hot Air
Whole bunch of stuff about lots of folk
Lots of talk over the years about appeasement. I’m sure if you look you’ll find it mentioned in relation to every president since Washington and most political candidates.
Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I know the free world is in grave danger when someone who lives in that free world, with access to real history as well as the media, publishes a statement like this: “What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim. . .” This Ramsey fool has a case of historical ignorance, coupled with verbal diarrhea. Welcome to the urinalists’ brave new world, where support for a mass-murdering dictator is okay if used to prove a Palestinean point. Un-freakin’-believable. Clueless doesn’t begin to describe this Ramsey creep.
RickZ on May 17, 2008 at 10:15 AM
scottm on May 17, 2008 at 10:16 AM
lol, sorry….it wasn’t 1991 -DOH
scottm on May 17, 2008 at 10:17 AM
why is it i never heard the word appeasement more then a few times in my 41 years until BO comes on the scene?
Ask Ed.
Tom_Shipley on May 17, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Not sure if it was OK, but it clearly wasn’t a reason to go to war for the people of Britain, France or the United States. Even the bombing of Britain didn’t bring the U.S. into the war. The Allies would have stood by while Hitler enacted his ideas of racial hygiene even if they had contained him.
dedalus on May 17, 2008 at 10:17 AM
From the Debate on the Munich Treaty:
Read the rest here: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/munich.htm
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on May 17, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Even if we are to accept his premise and look solely at what when on in 1938, the lesson to be learned is not that Chamberlain didn’t think he was doing the right thing. Any sane man wants to avoid war. The lesson is that what he did to avoid war did not work and the results were devastating.
Kafir on May 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM
one thing we’ve learned is had they done then(1930’s) to Hitler what should’ve been done, Britian/France would’ve been absolutely scorned for doing so and called War mongers, etc. see Iraq
jp on May 17, 2008 at 10:27 AM
You’re sort of missing the point. The Nazis enacted the Nuremberg laws in 1935. Way before the Munich thing. True, no one batted an eye then about no mixed marriages, no Jews owning businesses, etc, etc. But this guy has conveniently forgotten (or didn’t know or didn’t care) about those laws, the endless speeches Hitler gave about how he was going to get back what the Germans lost BEFORE the Munich thing, the unabashed hatred he and the Nazis showed to the Jews BEFORE the Munich thing.
Nazi ideology was chock full of hatred and racism well before the Munich thing and for this editorial to conveniently ignored that to basically say “Hitler wasn’t completely wrong” is a ridiculous and childish view of history. They always say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it and this idiot is about to prove that old chestnut right.
mjk on May 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM
True. Though the lessons of WWI were nearly opposite where countries mobilized for war to quickly and the results were perhaps more devastating to the mind of Europeans who had yet to fully comprehend the modern era.
dedalus on May 17, 2008 at 10:33 AM
I know an old man whose family came to the United States from Czechoslovakia before the war. I got the impression from him that they did not think it was okay to carve up the old country. He ended up fighting in the US military in that war.
Terrye on May 17, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Interesting reads Ed and eon.
abinitioadinfinitum on May 17, 2008 at 10:37 AM
I agree with your points here. Hitler was clearly deranged even before he rose to power in 1933. We’d be better off he had been killed then, or in WWI, or in his crib. I agree that Chamberlain was ineffective, but he also was playing a fairly weak hand. But, even with hindsight, what should we reasonably have expected the leaders to do? Containment of Hitler arguably could have been worse for German Jews. Regime change would have been great but I don’t know if Britain and France could have pulled it off in 1938 even if the political leaders wanted to.
dedalus on May 17, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Hmmm, perhaps we should let Iran have the southern Iraq. That`ll calm them down.
ThePrez on May 17, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I have a theoretical question about the appeasement narrative. What if the Brits and French had remained firm about the Sudetenland and Hitler had decided to bide his time. Is it not possible that time could have brought Germany prosperity and an even better war machine?
Or let me really boil down my question. Was appeasement really the mistake or was the mistake even more basic? Wasn’t in the fact the real mistake the denial that Nazi Germany was an evil opponent of Western values?
thuja on May 17, 2008 at 10:44 AM
This liberal crony doesn’t realize he just made the case for preemptive war.
Richard Romano on May 17, 2008 at 10:53 AM
One thing that might be added to the historical picture: France and Great Britain had a defense pact with Poland and waved that in Hitler’s face to some extent (as in You’d better not invade Poland!). France and Great Britain were unprepared when Hitler’s tanks rolled into Poland. The Poles received no significant help from either nation.
The staggering ease of Hitler’s early success fed his megalomania, and the pact with Stalin assured that Hitler would turn his attention on Western Europe (after securing nations north of Germany with the aim of forestalling British attacks from Germany’s north).
crowtreboot on May 17, 2008 at 10:54 AM
The “Palestinians” are simply Arabs with absolutely no claim to Israel. They stand over the very bones of the Jewish patriarchs from thousands of years ago and say that the Jews have no claim to the land. Crazy.
Their bloodlust is brought about by the words of the Koran which says to kill all the Jews and Christians, and enslave the leftovers. This has nothing to do with Israel per se and everything to do with the words of the Koran.
Mojave Mark on May 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I despise appeasement, too, but your angry certainty about events known to us only through reports puts me off.
Kralizec on May 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Furthermore from Ed’s point
Historically, Germany hadn’t long been a united nation. Just as Italy remained a fragmentation of principalities until the early 20th Century and Fascism, Germany was a group of independent principalities until the late 19th Century and Bismark’s unification. That unification dream had begun a century before. Goethe wrote his poem to unite those whose native tongue was German as a unified German people. Hence, the original urtext of “Deutschland Uber Alles” was for those who spoke German to recognize each other as kinsmen rather than differentiation by regional principalitiy. For those following WWII to assume that Germany’s national anthem “meant” the dominance of the German race/nation over the world forfeits the historical setting and historical intent that belonged to Goethe. That Hitler usurped Goethe’s good idea and bent it to his own NAZI end is no revelation. Hitler was King Midas’ evil twin. Everything Hitler touched fell to ashes.
maverick muse on May 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM
“What if the Brits and French had remained firm about the Sudetenland”
Hitler addressed this after the annexation, saying that if the French and British had chased his troops back across the border it would have ended his political career.
The German Officer Corps were wary of Hitler, but with each success he became more “acceptable”. After Munich, they had no problem swearing an oath to Hitler. Not to the German nation, but to Hilter.
GarandFan on May 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Dear Mr. Ramsey,
Moronic, delusional, and feckless is not a good way to go through life, son.
If you had even a modicum of historical knowledge, you would understand that the German takeover of Austria was bloodless in the way an armed robber with a gun to a victims head receives his spoils.
In February of 1938, Hitler met with Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg. Hitler ordered the Prime Minister to allow the Nazis into the government or he would invade.
In early March, because the Austrians were obviously dragging their feet and resisting - implementing Hitler’s demands at a virtual snails pace - Hitler ordered that all governmental powers be handed over to the Austrian Nazis or an invasion would commence.
Chancellor Schuschnigg desperately sought help from France and Britain. These bastions of peace and hope did not want to further incite Hitler, so chose to appease him by abiding by his demands not to interfere with an internal Austrian matter.
Unable to justify succumbing to Hitler, and without support for a free Austria from France and Britain, Schuschnigg resigned.
Hitler demanded that his Nazi lackey, Artur Seyss-Inquart, be sworn in as Chancellor. The plan was that Seyss-Inquart would immediately declare a state of emergency due to non-existent riots, and ask for German troops.
Austrian President Wilhelm Miklas refused to appoint a Nazi government. Without a Nazi government, no request for German troops was forthcoming.
What is a psychopathic despot to do? Well, in Hitler’s case he ordered an invasion.
After the invasion order was given and troops were already entering Austria, Hitler had a telegram forged - ostensibly from the Austrian government asking for German troops.
To Austria’s shame, thousands cheered as the German troops rushed across Austria. There was ample support for the Nazis that spread beyond the mere 13% that actually considered themselves part of a greater German nation.
Austria was quickly under German control, and all regular party Austrian government members were rounded up and arrested.
That violent round ups of Jews and “others” occurred is common knowledge.
From Evan Burr Bukey in “Hitler’s Austria”:
This horror was a prelude to what would occur in Vienna and in Austria’s provincial cities during the Krystallnacht. Statistics for November 9-10, a nightmare period not easily matched in previous European history, include 267 synagogues destroyed, 7500 businesses and homes devastated, 91 Jews murdered, and 26,000 Jews rounded up. True, “Outside [Vienna] so little Jewish property remained to pillage or expropriate that the pogrom was limited by the success of previous purges,”(p. 144). No matter, “local Nazis raped and plundered, tortured and maimed, and in Innsbruck beat or stabbed to death four distinguished Jews,”(p. 144).
Austria did not have a large Jewish population, yet it is estimated that 65,000 Austrian Jews were killed.
20,000,000 people died due to Hitler - and this does not include military deaths.
Bloodless indeed.
maninthemiddle on May 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
As Cap’n Ed pointed out, the OKW (OberKommando Wehrmacht, what we call the “German High Command”) was pretty sure before the Anschluss (litrally, “onslaught”) into Austria and Alsace-Lorraine that, based on the 1919 Versailles Treaty, Britain and France would immediately move troops in to crush the German re-occupation of the Sudetenland (their term for the area, literally “southern land”). Why? Because it was written down in the treaty, that’s why- In fact, any German attempt to “re-militarize” the area was a specific “tripwire” built into the Versailles peace accords that would “set the clock back” to 1918, with Germany officially at war with France, Great Britain, and the British Commonwealth. (The United States and Russia were not mentioned- Russia under Lenin had of course concluded a separate and embarrassing peace with Germany in 1917, and the United States was not consulted due to a falling-out between Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson that was, frankly, both mens’ fault).
OKW’s intended procedure in event of France and Britain taking their side of the Versailles Treaty seriously was simple- a coup d’etat in which Hitler would have been “arrested”. (My guess is, he’d have been “arrested” about the same way he “arrested” Ernst Rohm and the Sturmabteilung’s leaders on the “Night of the Long Knives”. Think Excedrin Headache Number 7.65 courtesy of a Luger, at about 0200 hours in the sack with Eva Braun or whoever.) Along with similar procedures vis’ the rest of the Nazi Party’s hierarchy, whom the professional soldiers didn’t like, didn’t trust, and considered to be dangerously deranged as a group. (The only one in the bunch who was “mainstream” German military was Goering, and he was frankly considered a pompous a$$ and an overfed poseur by the generals.) After which there would probably have been some fairly intensive high-powered “wheeling and dealing” between the new “rump” government and their opposite numbers in London and Paris.
One point that often get overlooked is that at the time, under the Treaty, France had enough heavy forces in their northeast quadrant (based on Strasbourg) to do exactly what the German generals anticipated- move in to Austria and pound their (at that point very weak) forces into the ground. And under the Treaty, that was why they were there, and what their primary mission tasking was.
The French government (of Edouard Deladier’, IIRC) just never bothered to (a) read the Treaty, (b) pick up the phone to their Army Command and (c) tell them to drop the hammer.
And in doing so, they doomed several million people to death a decade down the road. Many of them Frenchmen.
And as Cap’n Ed states, the opposition to Hitler in his own military command pulled in their horns for another decade. And when they tried again, it was too late- Hitler had too much power in his own hands (think; SS and Gestapo), and in spite of nearly being killed by von Stauffenberg’s bomb, retaliated with a purge that made sure there would be no further attempts. (Taking a page from Stalin’s book, IMHO.)
Which is why today, historians regard the failure of the French and British to react to Hitler’s “Austrian initiative” as the incident that guaranteed a second war in Europe in a generation.
Hope this answers your (actually quite intelligent) question.
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2008 at 11:20 AM
As per Palestine, there has never been a Palestinian Nation nor a unified Palestinian People. There have always been a variety of nomads who wander through and about a region called Palestine. There have been Jews and Christians and Muslims in the area. Designating that region “belonging” to one tribe or another of nomads would be like taking Transylvania away from everyone who lives there in order to designate a sovereign nation for the Gypsies who wander the earth without borders.
maverick muse on May 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Ed, did I miss something? Czechoslovakia is on Germany’s east. How does this affect Germany’s western frontier?
snaggletoothie on May 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Ed, you should be ashamed. Your merciful undressing of Ramsey will look like a blitzkrieg to the leftists in Seattle, despite your restraint. Shame on you.
For my part, restraint is unfamiliar, so let me only add that only they are blind who will not see. The lesson of Hitler isn’t that appeasement sounded like a great idea because war is so terrible; it’s that appeasement doesn’t work and is both cowardly and stupid.
Our left is truly delusional and historically retarded.
Jaibones on May 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Excellent point, and directly analogous to iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions today.
techno_barbarian on May 17, 2008 at 11:27 AM
appeasement
The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.
Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles.
From today’s NYT’s editorial:
“Senator Obama has called for talking with Iran and Syria, as have this editorial page and scores of foreign-policy experts from both political parties. None have suggested surrendering to these countries’ demands, which is, after all, what appeasement is.”
“Diplomacy is simply good sense. There is no guarantee that it will change anyone’s mind. But Mr. Bush’s refusal to talk has made it far easier for North Korea to churn out plutonium, Iran to meddle in Iraq and indulge its nuclear appetites and Syria and Iran to back Hamas and Hezbollah. The list goes on.”
Those failed policies are one reason we yearn for the coming change of administration and for the next president to reject Mr. Bush’s bullheadedness.
We also yearn for a more civilized and respectful political dialogue. That is essential for a healthy democracy. It is also essential for regaining the world’s respect.”
We should all be thankful that the New York Times is looking out for our best interest when it comes to “worldly respect”
“We also yearn for a more civilized and respectful political dialogue”
Does the NYT’s mean that the McCain “hit-jobs” they’ve published over the past few months are an exception to thier hypocracy?
Rovin on May 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Isn’t Sarkozy the first of the French since friggin Napoleon who’s ready to strap ‘em on and fight for his country??????? All I have to say is Obama truly is representative of the nuts of his party……truly shameful…am guessing Jimmy Carter will be his VEEP.
ocbrat on May 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I’ll take this one, if I may.
It’s a question of allocation of offensive/defensive assets. If the Czech frontier defenses remain in Czech hands, Germany has to keep forces on that border to avoid one of two things;
1. The Czechs themselves invading south-eastern Germany (which, under the 1919 Treaty, they were authorized to do in event of a German violation of same- yes, another one of those “tripwires”), or
2. An “end-run” by French or British forces through Yugoslavia and Hungary, ending in a full-on direct assault on Germany’s soft underbelly by her two most powerful adversaries, operating with a safe and heavily-fortified frontier to their backs. (To a World War One-era general, this is pretty close to a gift from on high.)
Either one would have forced Germany to leave significant forces to secure their south-eastern flank- forces that would not have been available for offensive operations on the Western Front. In fact, the results (for the Wehrmacht) would probably have been a lot like what actually happened after the invasion of Russia- a “two-front” war that they simply could not win.
By giving Hitler Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain gave him a hunting license for the rest of Europe.
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Excellent and very educational thread! Thanks to all the knowledgable HA historian-types!
techno_barbarian on May 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM
So, just to be clear: annexing Austria and the Sudentenland, because the populations there were ethnic Germans, despite the fact that exactly none of the annexed territories had ever been part of the modern German state as was established in 1871 was okay,
BUT
Annexation of the Polish Corridor, territory which had in it’s entirety been a part of the modern German state established in 1871, land Germany was forced to cede by treaty to Poland after WWI, that was emphatically not okay?
The answer to both, then as now, is no. If this moron had two synapses to rub together, perhaps he’d come to the realization that the flaccid Anglo-French response to Austria/Sudetenland (along with that non-agression pact and partition agreement with Stalin that lefties wish we’d forget about) is exactly why Hitler felt emboldened enough to invade Poland to get the Polish Corridor (and then some) back a year later.
Did this guy even bother to read what he wrote before submitting it to his editor? Is he aware that in order to make an argument within a historical context one must actually know something about the history they wish to use as their context?
SuperCool on May 17, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Seems like Ramsey is just strengthening the argument of the people who are against appeasement. Probably not intentionally, though. He states that “it might seem to the be the best option; consider the context; etc.” and then follows up with the “in hindsight, we now know …”
Which is the whole point of not appeasing!
exhelodrvr on May 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM
But what do I know? Just career military. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
exhelodrvr on May 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM
At the level of the overt planning of Hitler’s assassination; but wouldn’t you agree that there were serious rumblings after the disaster of the Russian campaign?
A concise solid summery of the situation; something this journalist should have learned in a college class. So, what happened during his education? If you’ve been following the historical deconstructionism * movement in academia; it’s left a trail of destruction in the minds of college students. One such victim is current “reframing” of the actions of the German army.
*I despise this trend; it is not historical research, but overt propaganda.
Another interesting parallel is how many ethnic Germans within Austria and other surrounding countries worked as 5th-column operatives and contributed to the German annexation.* If you want to compare that historical situation to how Hezbollah and certain shia Iraqi groups work to overthrow their governments and enable an Iranian takeover; you wonder if Iran is consciously following Hitler’s playbook.
Of course there is oft-noted comparison with Hitler’s frequent announcements of his intentions towards the Jews. These parallels are many and very creepy.
I suspect that Samatha Powers, Obama and like-minded people understand exactly what Iran is doing and the consequences for Israel. Within that mindset, the subsequent destruction of Israel is desirable; in that Israel is an [inconvenient] “sore,” disrupting a cozier relationship with Islam.
*Historically, Germany and Austria had considered but rejected the opportunity merge when they had the chance back in the 19th century. At that time, although the Australian Empire was dominated by ethnic Germans but its population included over 15 large ethnic groups who would have rebelled at merging with a large German nation.
Ragnell on May 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM
eon
Thanks. That helps.
snaggletoothie on May 17, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Maverick_muse,
“That unification dream had begun a century before. Goethe wrote his poem to unite those whose native tongue was German as a unified German people”
Ironically, Napoleon probably did more for German unification than probably anyone else. When he conquered Europe, there were 400+ principalities, states, duchies, etc. in the area that eventually became Germany. He consolidated these into about 45, because it made it much simpler for administering them. This made Bismarck’s job MUCH easier.
exhelodrvr on May 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Also true, but again, the lesson of 1938 is not that war should be rushed into, but that avoiding war through appeasement does not work.
Kafir on May 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM
“I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street. This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government an official note stating that unless we heard from them by eleven o’clock, that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and consequently this county is at war with Germany.
You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything different that I could have done and that would have been more successful.
Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to arrange a peaceful and honorable settlement between Germany and Poland, but Hitler would not have it. He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland whatever happened, and although he now says he put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true statement. The proposals were never shown to the Poles nor to us, and although they were announced in the German broadcast on Thursday night, Hitler did not wait to bear comment on them, but ordered his troops to cross the Polish frontier next morning. His action shows convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will, and he. can only be stopped by force.
We and France are to-day, in fullfrnlment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack on her people. We have a clear conscience, we have done all that any country could do to establish peace. The situation in which no word given by Germany’s ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel safe has become intolerable. Now we have resolved to finish it, I know you will all play your part with calmness and courage. At such a moment as this the assurances of support that we have received from the, Empire are a source of profound encouragement to us.
When I have finished speaking certain detailed announcements will be made on behalf of the Government. Give these ‘your closest attention. The Government have made plans under’ which It will be possible’ to carry on the work of the nation in the days of stress and strain which may be ahead of us. These plans need your help you may be taking your part in the fighting Services or as a volunteer in one of the branches of civil defense. If so, you will report for duty in accordance with the instructions you have received. You may be engaged in work essential to the prosecution of war, or for the maintenance of the life of the people in factories in transport in public utility concerns, or in the supply of other necessaries of life. If so it is of vital importance that you should carry on with your job.
Now may God bless you all, and may he defend the right. For it is evil things that we shall be fighting, against brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution, and against them I am certain that Right will prevail.
crosspatch on May 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Thanks for jumping in, eon. You nailed it.
rtsidedragon on May 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM
My pleasure. One of the reasons I come to places like HA and LGF is the conversations that get started, this one being a case in point.
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2008 at 12:04 PM
It’s fairly clear that appeasing Hitler and giving him the Sudetanland was a bad thing to do, but whether it was an understandable thing to do is quite another question. Chamberlain could remember the First World War only too well: it was a horror like nothing Britain or France had seen before, and, as Dedalus says above, it was arguably caused by too many nations mobilising for war too quickly.
passingtramp on May 17, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Ramsey, then, legitimizes the carving up of Czechoslavakia while in the same breath hinting that Israel is to be faulted for carving up the West Bank?
DubiousD on May 17, 2008 at 12:07 PM
“Ramsey argues Germany had a legitimate claim to the territory — because its inhabitants spoke German”
I think you are misreading Ramsey here; I think Ramsey is telling us the thinking *of that time* - defending it doesn’t jive with what he goes on to say:
“We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. We have learned the hazards of it” [emphasis mine]. I don’t see Ramsey really trying to legitimize Chamberlain and appeasement so much as trying to explain what the hell they were thinking. He tells us they were in fact wrong.
Of course you are correct that the violations of the Versailles Treaty should not have been ignored. OTOH there is a whole area of discussion about the Versailles Treaty (and the unreasonable parts, such as reparations) and its contribution to setting up WWII.
I agree that Ramsey is totally wrong about a Palestinian state. It tells me Ramsey may understand the mechanics of appeasement - but not the lesson. And Ramsey surely cannot have forgotten whose side of WWII these folks (or their decedents) were on and why.
Shay on May 17, 2008 at 12:24 PM
For too long, the “elephant in the living room” regarding the MidEast policies of the “progressives” in the USA has been a not-so-secret wish that Israel would just disappear. The reasons are varied, and mostly stupid;
1. Some older “hard-line liberals” of the socialist school remember that in 1948, Stalin instructed Molotov to support the partition of the Palestine Mandate in the UN General Assembly vote, based on his idea that a Jewish state, with a population heavily leavened with immigrants from Russia, would be both socialist and a Soviet ally. Well, he was about half right- Israel initially broadly socialist (though more on the Swedish than the Soviet model), but it never even considered buddying up to the USSR. “Uncle Joe” forgot that the reason that most of the Russian Jews who came to Eretz Israel in the prior decade had been fleeing his purges, not the Wehrmacht. And most of the leadership, while liberal, came from the West, notably the United States (Golda Myerson, later better known as Golda Meir) and the UK (David Ben-Gurion).The new state cast its lot with the “capitalist” West, not the “socialist” East. This frankly enraged the trendy ideologues of the “progressive” crowd over here in the Fifties, and they passed their ire along to their successors. As far as they were concerned, Israel had “double-crossed” Stalin, and “betrayed world socialism”. The “enlightened elite” has been looking to get “payback” on Stalin’s behalf ever since. (Don’t tell Israel that “progressives”, especially the “Mid-Atlantic” pseudo-European American subspecies, don’t hold grudges.)
2. Another reason is purely “philosophical”. Israel is fundamentally a Western country, in which reason and logic tend to trump “belief”. The “progressives”, by comparison, are all about “feelings”- they are basically mystically inclined, and both distrust and dislike logic. Islam is, by nature, a mystical belief system which fundamentally rejects scientific fact and “Western”, linear reasoning. And in doing so, has remained stuck in the Dark Ages for the last 14 centuries. Put simply, our “progressives” are more comfortable with Islam, as it combines their two basic modern-day conceits; “simplicity” (ie., living “in harmony with Nature”), and a mystical worldview which does not require thought- simply belief. (”Wishing makes it so.”)
The parallels between the modern-day “progressives” and the “looters” in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged are almost too strong to be believed. And I’m quite sure that Cuffy Meigs & Co. would have had no use for Israel, either.
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2008 at 12:27 PM
I think that most historians agree that the punitive action of the allies after WWI against Germany very much contributed to the rise of Hitler. Not a whole lot of clean hands.
MB4 on May 17, 2008 at 12:28 PM
That should have been “Israel was initially broadly socialist.” Oops.
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Thanks again for the history lesson. I enjoyed this one too very much.
JiangxiDad on May 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Here it comes: revisionist history applied to the causes of WWII, courtesy of some Chamberlain-like nincompoop from the Seattle Times.
Well said, Ed! We need to counteract this dangerous P.C. trend as much as possible, especially since so many of our young have little to no knowledge of history… and they’re about to repeat it.
newton on May 17, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Except when it pulls the nation out of it’s worst depression in history, something that the vaunted New Deal was unable to do.
What is the most hilarious thing about the SeaTimes piece is that it demonstrates how the libs need to find and defend a victim no matter the situation. They are pathological in that regard. Here, poor Chamberlain is being portrayed as the poster child for appeasemnent by conservatives and other rational thinking people who know and understand history. Voila! He is now a victim and must be defended by the libs.
There really needs to be a study done on how to cure the libs of this victim-itis outlook where they can take any situation and find a victim to defend and champion. Maybe it could be referred to as “Tookie-itis,” as in, “The SeaTimes op-ed writer was suffering from a bad case of the Tookies when he wrote that piece defending Chamberlain.”
Mallard T. Drake on May 17, 2008 at 1:11 PM
How else are we suppose to know about history…. gaze through a time machine? Are you going to dismiss all history we did not view with our own eyes? What next, are you going to tell us we should burn the history books? Heil… von Kralizec !!
Maxx on May 17, 2008 at 1:12 PM
The lesson of all that isn’t just — or even mainly — that appeasement doesn’t work. It’s that letting nations get away with violating peace treaties is a bad idea. However, that’s the one lesson peaceniks would refuse to take, as it would mean that our invasion of Iraq was fully justified and, if anything, should have occurred earlier.
To be fair to Chamberlain, though, Stanley Baldwin had already refused to do anything about Hitler’s violations, and Chamberlain was the one who finally faced the Nazis after September 1939, when the USSR and the U.S. were each at an uneasy peace with Hitler. Granted, it was a “Phoney War,” but it was the beginning of WWII nonetheless.
calbear on May 17, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I wondered about that comment, too. I’m not going to rewrite The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for every post I do on Munich.
Ed Morrissey on May 17, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Ramsey is engaging in the garbage of revisionist history, and his words should be treated accordingly. Even if there were some truth to his concept of ‘not knowing but in hindsight’, it is clear by now in the early 21st century that appeasement is a failure, so his words only encourage a repeat of failed policies of the past.
Think_b4_speaking on May 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM
You brought up many interesting points. Thanks!
I apologize for having nothing specific to say back, but I must reflect on this entire issue much more, before I can say anything intelligent.
thuja on May 17, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Are you essentially saying that a Wilsonian response after WWI was closer to the remedy than what conservative Republicans supported?
dedalus on May 17, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Here’s another comparison between the German and Islamic Empires and the Third Reich and Iran.
German Historical Background:
Unification had been under discussion between the Austrian Empire and the multitude of German states-which were not a unified country or empire- during the 1800’s. Prussia had been absorbing or conquering neighbors (such dividing Poland with Russia and Austria) throughout the 1700s. As someone pointed out earlier, Napoleon’s armies jumped ahead of Prussia’s ambitions and through conquest; unified much of the remaining German states into a French-ruled confederacy.
In the post-Napoleonic Empire period, Prussia began merging, annexing or conquering its german-speaking neighbors. Eventually most german-speaking states were unified under the umbrella of Prussian rule. It’s important to emphasize that the Prussians and other German states had a long discussion over creating a greater German empire including Austria vs. a smaller German state excluding Austria. Chancellor Bismarck and his Prussian king, decided against merging with Austria and a competing dynasty; and so, the formal boundaries of the German Empire emerged.
So it is true that that Germans within and without Germany were still discussing the idea of a greater German empire, including Austria; even in the post WWII era. It was an old and powerful dream.
I’m sure many of us have noted the parallels with Ahmadinejad’s call to re-unite the old Islamic empires. The German and Iranian arguments that since their former empires conquered and controlled certain areas and peoples* earlier in history; this should validate them doing so again, are very similar ideas.
As noted earlier, however, all the non-ethnic German populations freed by the demise of the German and Australian empires, were given the right of self-determination by the Treaty of Versailles. Naturally, many Germans within and without Germany longed for their glory days of Empires and their subjugated peoples.
They considered Poland and other areas, as a legal part of Germany stolen from them by the treaty of Versailles. The Nazis played on this anger, and once in power made it clear that it did not recognize the rights of their once-conquered terroritories of the German Empire. One can understand why they felt that way, yet not validate their right to act on their feelings and desire to become an empire once again.
The British and French understood this historical background. Their response to German aggressions could indicate they agreed with German claims to their former and long-desired empire. The fact that many British politicians failed to differentiate between understanding the causes, and that of sacrificing the rights of other ethnic peoples to self-determination; as well as protecting British national security, was unforgivable.
If we fail to block Iranian expansion, we too will validate their claims. Once their first move is ignored; they will interpret lack of military response as implied consent. When Obama stated we should return to the days of realpolitik; he sent a clear signal to Iran.
ragnell
Ragnell on May 17, 2008 at 2:08 PM
This guy is either an idiot or doesn’t have much of an education. It’s a broadly accepted fact among historians that the break-up of Czechoslovakia was one of the most decisive errors leading up to WWII.
It’s hard to imagine what the country had become prior to WWII and then sovietization- a highly modernized economcy and advanced democracy. Czechoslovakia’s powerful military presented Germany with a serious problem. If Hitler had attempted an invasion, Germany would find itself mired in a dangerous 2 front war as France and other nations invaded Germany in response to treaty commitments.
There was no historical lesson being applied at the time- it was pure stupdity.
(At the same time, this has nothing to do with the broader war on terror, which won’t be won through conventional warfare.)
bayam on May 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM
*yes, I recognize there was more than one Islamic empire, and that Iran does not share the same area of historical empires as say, Lebanon. Yet, it is the same idea that “we have the right to unite all the people sharing one heritage”; the “Germans” or “Islamic peoples. Of course, Islam migrates and attempts to colonize new areas.
Ragnell on May 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM
That’s not a valid comparison. Germany and Iran aren’t comparable- and terrorism is a global movement, not a unified nation state that can be attacked and defeated through conventional warfare. The longer we try and apply cold war thinking to the war on terror, the longer it will take us to achieve victory.
bayam on May 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Just as Germany thought wise to “annex” Austria, Iran can impose its will over other people.
Not to mention that the Iranian mullahs have imposed themselves over the people: that country is the birthplace of Zoroastrianism, which has been all but eradicated there by those Islamic S.O.B.’s.
newton on May 17, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Change Germany to Mexico and German to Spanish, and suddenly La Raza has a point.
This is why liberals and liberalism must be stopped. We cannot, must not, appease them. Precisely like Hitler, the more you give, the more they want. They will never be rid of their need to take what is not theirs.
fourstringfuror on May 17, 2008 at 2:36 PM
But why not, Ed?
Seriously, great post and comments.
baldilocks on May 17, 2008 at 2:41 PM
“War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.”
Wow. It’s always our fault if someone wants to kill us. After all, they wouldn’t want to kill us if we hadn’t given them a reason to want to kill us.
To say nothing of all those girls out there who are just asking for it. It surely isn’t any guy’s fault for assaulting a lady, since he wouldn’t have done it if she hadn’t given him some kind of a reason.
It stands to reason.
This is why liberals scare me. They have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us.
JohnJ on May 17, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Well it is being won by conventional warfare so you empty leftist statement has no merit. And if not “conventional” warfare, what do you suggest…. nuclear?
Maxx on May 17, 2008 at 2:58 PM
An intriguing thought- how very fascist of them
The alliance between radical Islam and the radical left has bemused me. I attributed their relationship to a shared attraction to authoritarism and state-owned corporations as well. Once you have the governmental and economic structures in place; changing the ideology/religion at the top–from the perspective of different goals—might be easier to introduce. But your point about their mindset is quite true.
A very interesting summery highlighting the relationship between Stalin, Israel and the American left of the era. In that Israel has become the poster child of capitalism and western hegemony to western progressives; that connection would explain the level of their animosity. Which leads to the oft-repeated query: Why would any Jewish person ally with a political group that views them as an enemy? Can they be such ostriches to believe that they will not be impacted by the of Israel; despite living elsewhere in the world?
ragnell
Ragnell on May 17, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Exactly but liberals do not support arguements with the big picture. They take small snapshots and interpret them to fit their motives and agendas. Liberalism is a mental illness.
peacenprosperity on May 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Ragnell on May 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Since Iranians are Persians speaking Farsi, not arabs, you lack the parallel equation with Germany absorbing another German speaking territory.
maverick muse on May 17, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Pardon, not to be a spelling Nazi… but that could cause confusion.
Maxx on May 17, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Yet it happens. NATO carved up Serbia and gave a chunk to Albani… uh, the Kosovars.
aengus on May 17, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Few analogies are perfect; R. admitted as much, sheesh.
baldilocks on May 17, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »