An Amicus Brief for Neville
On Sept. 30, 1938, 70 years ago, Neville Chamberlain visited Adolf Hitler's apartment in Munich, got his signature on a three-sentence declaration and flew home to Heston Aerodrome.
"I've got it," he shouted to Lord Halifax. "Here is a paper which bears his name." At the request of George VI, Chamberlain was driven to Buckingham Palace, where he joined the king on the balcony to take the cheers of the throngs below. An unprecedented honor.
Then it was on to 10 Downing Street, where, to choruses of "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow," Chamberlain declared: "This is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time."
This was Munich, the summit of infamy, endlessly invoked as the textbook example of how craven appeasement leads to desperate war.
That is the great myth. And like all myths, there is truth to it.
Chamberlain had indeed signed away the Czech-ruled Sudetenland to Germany, rather than risk a new war like the one of 1914-1918 that had taken the lives of 700,000 British and 1.3 million Frenchmen.
Modernity spits on the name of Neville Chamberlain. Yet, consider the situation confronting the British prime minister that September.
The seeds of Munich had been planted at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, in the treaties of Versailles, St. Germain and Trianon.
Though Germany agreed to an armistice based on Wilson's 14 Points and principle of self-determination, millions of Germans had been consigned to alien rule. Some 3.25 million Bohemian Germans (Sudetenlanders) were handed over to Prague, as were 2.5 million Slovaks, 800,000 Hungarians, 500,000 Ukrainians and 150,000 Poles.
Germans will be "second class" citizens, President Masaryk told his parliament. Not a single German was in the National Assembly that drew up the constitution. Repeated protests by the German minority to the League of Nations were made — to no avail.
Lloyd George said the Czechs had lied to him at Paris when they had promised to model Czechoslovakia on the Swiss Confederation, with autonomy for ethnic minorities.
By the 1930s, most British and the Tory government believed an injustice had been done to the Sudeten Germans that must be rectified by diplomacy if a new war was to be averted.
After the Saar voted 90 to 10 to rejoin the Reich, and Austria had been annexed, the Sudeten Germans began to agitate for secession and annexation by Germany. And as Chamberlain wrote his sister, he "didn't care two hoots whether the Sudetens were in the Reich or out of it." The issue was not worth a European or world war.
As Britain had no alliance with Prague nor any vital interest in East-Central Europe, where no British Army had ever fought before, what was Chamberlain even doing in Munich?
He feared that if war broke out between Czechs and Germans, and Prague invoked its French alliance, a Franco-German war might follow, dragging Britain in as it had in 1914.
Three times that September, Chamberlain flew to Germany to negotiate the peaceful transfer of the provinces of Czechoslovakia where Germans were in the clear majority. After his second trip, to Bad Godesberg, where Hitler had threatened to march, Chamberlain had ordered mobilization of the fleet.
Hitler had backed down and urged Chamberlain to continue his pursuit of a negotiated settlement, which was finalized at Munich.
Why did Chamberlain not tell Prague to defy Hitler and commit Britain to fight for a Czech Sudetenland?
Because Britain was utterly unprepared for war. The Brits had not a single division in France, no Spitfires, no draft and no allies save France. Britain's World War I allies were gone. Italy was with Hitler. Japan was now hostile. Russia was lost to Bolshevism. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa were unwilling to fight, if the issue was keeping Germans under Czech rule.
And the Americans had gone home. Indeed, FDR had warned, "Those who count on the assured aid of the United States in case of a war in Europe are totally mistaken." Roosevelt's aides informed Paris that, if war broke out, America, under the neutrality acts, would not even deliver the planes France had already purchased.
Why should Britain declare a war it could not win for a cause — Czech control of 3.5 million Germans — in which it did not believe, a war certain to bring death to millions and the ruin of Britain?
We Americans did not go to war for the Czechs in 1938, or the Poles in 1939, or the French in 1940, or the Hungarians in 1956. Last month, Russia marched into Abkhazia and South Ossetia — the Sudeten lands of Georgia. Did we declare war?
If the Russian majorities in east Ukraine or Crimea demand the right to secede and return to Mother Russia, will we go to war to keep these millions of Russians under Ukrainian rule?
If not, upon what ground do we stand to condemn Chamberlain?
Chamberlain's failure was that he trusted Hitler at Munich, as his great rival Winston Churchill would trust Joseph Stalin at Moscow, Tehran and Yalta.
Patrick Buchanan is the author of the new book "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

|
 |
Comments
|
9 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Sir;..You have answered a lot of question here. I have one more for you. Why can't capitalism seem to get by without war? If you need markets for export, you must deny markets to other exporters, but why can't people create new markets as soon as they create new technologies, and then create the money primitive gentle hommes in distant lands might pay for them? It's all paper; Right? It isn't that we are trading gold for goods. What does it take to make a dollar, and to treat it as good as gold? Far better I think, to live in illusion than to die in war... We could give to those we consider our friends and deny all to our enemies. To plainly state the question: If capitalism is all just faith piled on faith, why don't we forget all about exchanges of values in distant markets and just trade faith for faith? Do we need to war for markets that we can buy?... And another question. Do you think those dirty Nazis were blind to the fact that people like Barnard Baruch, beloved of God like our own Barack Obama, -speculator, financier, and Chairman of the U.S. War Industries Board who did so much to help England against Germany, and Churchill personally- Do you think they were blind to the fact that this bankroll for England was Jewish. If there is a single person most responsible for the creation of Israel the State, it would have to be he, and next in line would be Churchill. Another question I have for you, and anyone who will answer is... Do you think the people of this country, if they can get free of Capitalism, its wars, its pollution, its frustration of the human spirit, its panics, its gluts and booms that leave the people behind, its wasting of the common man; do you think they will over look the Jewish aspect to all of this, our marching into war, our marching into inflation, and our marching into poverty and our powerlessness while they excel?.. My Son is Jewish. You could literally put my house inside of his house, and my property inside of his. He is intelligent and hard working, and kind of a bottom feeder, as a bankruptcy attorney. I tell him to stay away from those Jewish people. Naturally, he thinks I am a bigot. Why should he get caught in a trap he did not set? Some day the world is going to see how much power these people have sought for themselves, and what they have done with it, and how much war they have stired up. I don't want my child and grand children caught in another holocaust. I want my children to be able to say that they are Americans first, last, and always, no matter where their people came from.... Hitler played with his economy the way we will now have to play with ours. He pushed for war, and his economy pushed him into war because it was always a war economy. Behind his rise to power was a magic token, with anti semitism on one side, and anti communism on the other. People can be united by what they hate, and whether we admit it or not, America has a deep antipathy of what the Jews in America stand for. In finance, business and in government they are represented out of all proportion to their numbers in the population. Are they that good, that intelligent, chosen, blessed, all of the above; or What? If we start to see government as the enemy, as they are, and see bankers as the enemy, as they are; how can we avoid seeing the Jewish people as the enemy too? ... I don't want this country to turn fascist. No one ever wins making an enemy of the Jews. Still, whether we are chosen or not, we all need our fraction of Justice....Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:08 AM
|
|
|
|
The more I read, the more chaotic it all seems. I don't need hindsight, just a smattering of history to realize after just coming out of WW1, no country was prepared to be dragged into another. Men have been the decision makers throughout and they've mucked it all up. But Chamberlain's decision did make sense as did America's decision to let Europe work out its own issues. The rulers of today, seem to me like those of ancient times. Each president has their "Merlin". Religion and politics have so merged in this country it seems ruled and occupied by religious zealots each trying very hard to fulfill their own understanding of "prophesy". Bring on Armagadden! As for the rest, I can't answer questions or offer up an intelligent response to this article or posts without exposing my ignorance, but what is the "enemy" garbage? What meaning, "enemy"? If this "jew" is my enemy, should I fear him or try to subdue or overpower him? My small world shows my enemy as the teacher who doesn't teach, the contractor who cheats, financiers and politicians who aren't good stewards of our wealth; religious leaders who teach confusion. Why is the Jew my enemy? Are we talking about the Jewish race or each and every Jew? Who say's so? With one hand you could speak to their faults, with the other to their virtues. The same is true of most. I have my own quesions. The one I've carried for years is, why are the very wealthy so quick to take and so slow to give? Why do they support the economies of other countries, yet borrow and plunge us in debt when asked to support the economy of the country that gave them opportunity and allowed them to rape and plunder it during the process ? Why didn't Buffett and the other billionaires put up their own money to bail out their own companies? Oh ye of little faith! Why should I or any of the other labor force have to bend over and let these blood sucking vampires get their last pound of flesh?
Comment: #2
Posted by: liz
Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
AP News story of 9/30: "The first thing I would do is say, 'Let's not call it a bailout. Let's call it a rescue," McCain told CNN. He said "Americans are frightened right now" and political leaders must give them an immediate solution and a longer-term approach to the problem.
Question: What's wrong with Americans being frightened? In a regime that has practised fear mongering the past eight years, pushing for us to be frightened and fearful to support the political agenda, why so worried that we're frightened now? Our fear fueled the fire of war with Iraq, maybe they don't want to fuel the fire of war with our representatives. We have every right to be frightened, not by our economy, but by those in charge and making the decisions. What is this call from McCain: let's change the name. Does he think we are frightened children and that a name change will ease our fears? What we gonna call it, omnipotent one? And if we call it by a different name, will it all go away or will you still be taking the majority of my money and assets and telling me how to spend what I have left? I don't need an immediate solution, you do because you've had years on a gravy train and right now you're actually having to do your job and fulfill your obligations to the American people. With Bush trying to get in on the action to avoid being "marginalized", is it possible they will pass the bailout against our wishes?..... Peace.
Comment: #3
Posted by: liz
Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:01 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: liz;... Ma'am, the true religion of America is Capitalism. It relies as much as any religion on faith, and looks at its vicitims as deserving their suffering, or as the vicitims of fate. It has its myths, its martyrs, and its magic; and no one knows exactly how it works when it works, or why it does not work when it does not work; but as in olden days, its priest are inclined to burn those without faith for the displeasure of the Gods. In fact, as in all religions it is humanity that feeds the god, and not the god that feeds humanity. And people devote themselves to it, in the true meaning of the word, of sacrificing their life for the god... No; Christianity is only an older form of relationship that people retreat into because the form of our economy, capitalism leaves them feeling hopeless, and empty. But Christianity at its soul would be Socialism if Protestantism had not turned it back toward Judaism. As a form of Judaism, Christianity accepts tangible justification. -God blesses who God sees fit to bless on this earth with wealth, and power, and all others must try the harder to show they too are blessed, or accept that God does not love each with equal intensity. We cannot believe as human beings in the equality of human kind, love all, forgive all, and hope for all and call ourselves Christian -because without the dogma, the orthodoxy, and the hierarchy of priests and popes and puppets the whole sham drama of that form, and structure would be revealed, and no one feeding on it would accept. No one needs religion to love humanity and to treat all with kindness. But love and kindness do not answer any need for certainty as even false certainty does. Why the Just are punished and the evil are rewarded in this life is a mystery, and it is best to keep it mystical. After all, if honest and hard working people cannot find work; what hope would there be for priests? If the people do not feed them they would starve. And this, is equally true of bankers.. ..Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: liz;... Ma'am, the true religion of America is Capitalism. It relies as much as any religion on faith, and looks at its vicitims as deserving their suffering, or as the vicitims of fate. It has its myths, its martyrs, and its magic; and no one knows exactly how it works when it works, or why it does not work when it does not work; but as in olden days, its priest are inclined to burn those without faith for the displeasure of the Gods. In fact, as in all religions it is humanity that feeds the god, and not the god that feeds humanity. And people devote themselves to it, in the true meaning of the word, of sacrificing their life for the god... No; Christianity is only an older form of relationship that people retreat into because the form of our economy, capitalism leaves them feeling hopeless, and empty. But Christianity at its soul would be Socialism if Protestantism had not turned it back toward Judaism. As a form of Judaism, Christianity accepts tangible justification. -God blesses who God sees fit to bless on this earth with wealth, and power, and all others must try the harder to show they too are blessed, or accept that God does not love each with equal intensity. We cannot believe as human beings in the equality of human kind, love all, forgive all, and hope for all and call ourselves Christian -because without the dogma, the orthodoxy, and the hierarchy of priests and popes and puppets the whole sham drama of that form, and structure would be revealed, and no one feeding on it would accept. No one needs religion to love humanity and to treat all with kindness. But love and kindness do not answer any need for certainty as even false certainty does. Why the Just are punished and the evil are rewarded in this life is a mystery, and it is best to keep it mystical. After all, if honest and hard working people cannot find work; what hope would there be for priests? If the people do not feed them they would starve. And this, is equally true of bankers.. ..Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #5
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: liz; ..Good post by the way. And I don't know what a vicitim is. But I don't want to be one...I think my hand had a hiccup. But you are right about the fear. A lot of this problem is from the fact that to buy a stake in world capitalism our bankers sold America on foreign shores. But it is still here, and still a good market if we keep it for ourselves, and we can get enough of our capital back to produce for our needs. There is no reason for anyone to worry about their futures, their retirement, their children, their educations, their environments, or their next meal--- SO LONG as we take control over the economy that has so often controlled us. We don't have diamonds, and we are running out of tungston. That means no more lightbulbs, so no more night shifts, and no more marriages, or something. The larger meaning is that we must learn to change our behavior to discover what works and to avoid what does not work. Throwing more money after a bad economy will never bring it back home ready to behave. If capitalism wants to be international capitalism, then we have capitalized the world, and we will have to deal with the fact that they do not need us. But we still need us....Thanks..Sweeney
Comment: #6
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Sweeney, thanks, and great responses. I do indeed see the analogies re priests & bankers. You say Capitalism is our religion and pose the question why can't Capitalism seem to get by without war. My take: Capitalism is great when played by the rules. Maybe the very nature of the beast makes one forget the rules. With thoughtful implementation, it might have been successful. With the right checks and balances, we might have had a fair and profitable economy. However, they had to drum up a few wars and dumb down a few Presidents and politicians, not to mention the working, serving, dying class. In order to appease us for their bloodlust and achieve their profits, money and credit was flying fast and loose for the working class. Now it's collapsed. Revolt and revolution or suck it up, clean it up, try not to throw up.
It all creates an unappetizing future. On the menu: MANKIND (what a contradiction that word is).
To be served on his knees and bloodied from warfare; or on his knees, drained of blood from economic collapse. How about this one: on his knees, cowering, because he had the unfortunate luck to be born poor into whatever tribe or color or religion or orientation, or custom it is we've been taught to hate today. There was war long before there were Capitalist's. Capitalists have worked out war equals profit which is why all our wars lately are so meaningless except to the people who are dying and the lands we are destroying. Ah, but Capitalism rears it's ugly head. Soon we'll all be in bed together, cleaning up, rebuilding, fast buddies, good friends, let the dead bury the dead while capitalist's laugh their way to the bank.
Much ado about nothing. This society will fail and fall, The planet is littered with relics and remnants of failed societies and civilizations. It is only our inflated ego that is keeping us alive. The greatest nation on the earth, dust in the wind.
Comment: #7
Posted by: liz
Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: liz; Ma'am... Capitalism played by the rules is free enterprise, and that is anarchy, no government, no rules, and all profit. It is impossible to imagine what virtues might flow out of the vice of avarice, but we can see that while people seek every good they buy every evil. People need justice and not credit. You must undertand that the battle for just profits was fought long ago, and in trying to sweep unjust profits aside the church only swept itself aside. This class and this philosophy will not be governened, but the people will find that they must govern all events and forces that they will not be dominater by. We have reached the limits of the good capital can produce. Now they are just reaping what they have sown... Thanks again...Sweeney
Comment: #8
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Oct 1, 2008 7:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Buchanan, to stick to the topic (not that I find the colloquy between Mr. Sweeney and liz uninteresting) Chamberlain's failure and the opportunity to heap villification and ridicule on him has been way too big an opportunity to lose for the bloodhounds. His image, and the sentence to similar villification and ridicule of every advocate of negotiation over bombs, is one of the principle tools this country has used to justify just about every war we've gotten ourselves into since.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Masako
Wed Oct 1, 2008 10:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Author’s Podcast
|