creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
14 Feb 2012
On to Tehran -- or Is It Damascus?

Our War Party has been temporarily diverted from its clamor for war on Iran by the insurrection against the … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
Obama's Trampling on God's Turf Now

Yes, Virginia, there is a religious war going on. It is for the soul of America. And traditional Christianity … Read More.

7 Feb 2012
Who Wants War With Iran?

Appearing alongside CIA Director David Petraeus before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week, … Read More.

Munich, 1938

Share Comment

When President Bush, before the Knesset, used the word "appeasement" to label those who would negotiate with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he invoked the most powerful analogy in any debate over war and peace.

No man wishes to be regarded as an "appeaser."

But, as this writer has discovered since my book "Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World" was launched Memorial Day, there is a deep well of ignorance about what happened that September, 70 years ago.

Why did Neville Chamberlain go to Munich? How did Munich lead to World War II?

The seeds of the crisis were planted at the Paris peace conference of 1919. There, the victorious Allies carved the new nation of Czechoslovakia out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

But instead of following their principle of self-determination, the Allies placed under the rule of 7 million Czechs 3 million Germans, 3 million Slovaks, 800,000 Hungarians, 150,000 Poles and 500,000 Ruthenians. These foolish decisions spat upon Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points, under the terms of which the Germans, Austrians and Hungarians had laid down their arms.

By 1938, Germany had arisen, re-armed and brought Austria into the Reich, and was demanding the right of self-determination now be granted to the 3 million Germans in Czechoslovakia, who were clamoring to be free of Prague to rejoin their kinsmen.

Britain had no alliance with, and no obligation to fight for, the Czechs. But France did. And Britain feared that if Adolf Hitler used force to bring the Sudeten Germans back to German rule, France might fight. And if France declared war, Britain would be drawn in, and a second bloodbath would ensue as it had in 1914.

Chamberlain went to Munich because he did not believe that keeping 3 million Germans inside a nation to which they had been consigned against their will was worth a world war.

Moreover, Britain was unprepared for war. She had no draft, no Spitfires, no divisions ready to be sent to France. Why should the British Empire commit suicide by declaring war on Germany, to support a Paris peace agreement that he, Chamberlain, believed had been unjustly and dishonorably imposed on a defeated Germany?

Chamberlain believed not — and, after three trips to Germany that September, he effected the transfer of the Sudeten Germans to Berlin's rule, where they wished to be.

He came home in triumph to be hailed as the greatest peacemaker of all time.

Why, then, are "Munich" and "appeasement" terms of obloquy?

The answer lies in what happened next.

Chamberlain returned from Munich to a rapturous reception, waving a paper he and Hitler had signed, and declared: "For the second time in 60 years, a British prime minister has returned from Germany with peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time."

This was palpable nonsense. Hitler had already turned to the next item on his menu, Danzig, a city of 350,000 Germans, detached from the Reich at Versailles and made a Free City to give the new Poland an outlet to the sea. Hitler did not want war with Poland. Indeed, he wanted the kind of alliance with Poland he had with Italy. But, first, Danzig must be resolved.

Here, too, the British Government agreed: Danzig should be returned. For of all the amputations of German lands and peoples at Versailles, European statesmen, even Winston Churchill, regarded Danzig and the Polish Corridor that sliced Germany in two as the most outrageous. The problem was the Poles, who refused to discuss Danzig.

Then, in March, Czechoslovakia suddenly began to fall apart. The Sudetenland had been annexed by Germany. Hungary had taken back its lost lands, and Poland had annexed the disputed region of Teschen. Slovakia and Ruthenia now moved to declare independence, and Prague began to march on the provinces.

Hitler intervened to guarantee the independence of Slovakia and gave Hungary a green light to re-annex Ruthenia. Czech President Hacha then asked to see Hitler, who bullied him for three hours into signing away Czech sovereignty and making his nation the German Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

Chamberlain, now humiliated, mocked by Tory back-benchers, panicking over wild false rumors of German attacks on Romania and Poland, made the greatest blunder in British history. Unasked, he issued a war guarantee to Poland, empowering a Polish dictatorship of colonels that had joined Hitler in dismembering Czechoslovakia to drag the British Empire into war with Germany over a city, Danzig, the British thought should be returned to Germany.

It was not Munich. It was the war guarantee that guaranteed the war that brought down the Empire, and gave us the Holocaust, 50 million dead and the Stalinization of half of Europe.

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

2 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;
Thank you for the story; but I think you should look behind the logic that has been twisting our diplomacy for decades. We should not talk to the Persians without some concession. Why? Well, they would gain too much from the exchange, and if we do not force them to kowtow, then we lose face. Bullshet, sir. First of all, the world is too dangerous to not talk. Then, if there are real gievances against us the short and sure way to peace is dialogue. If anyone thinks they are going to gain inordinantly by having us sit down to dinner with them they are mistaken. It is not face that wins concessions, but credible threats of violence. We have thown away the very tool that might have earned us many concession, and still pretend we would be giving away too much by saying howdy do. This garbage should be tossed to the hogs. We should tell the world we don't play the face game, but the how to avoid terror and nuclear war games. A growing list of people who hate our guts, who have every reason to talk to us, who try to dialogue to an echoing silence or saber rattling means that we will find no solutions, and will pass greater and greater problems to the next generation. So what is new?
As for your story; you realize that by giving away all that was possible to give to avoid war, that the British bought the moral high ground without firing a shot. It is essential in war to do all within ones power to avoid it, and to bargain in good faith. When the British people saw what was given, and how little the Germans could be trusted they were united in war. The exact opposite position was ours going into Iraq. We were not bargaining in good faith, The buildup and push for war went on without hesitation. We talked only because we were not yet prepared to act. As soon as we were prepared we pounced, and now, many of us wish we could unpounce. Let me ask you; do you think the world is ignorant of our motives and methods? They are not, and we should not be ignorant.
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jun 3, 2008 8:54 PM
Mr. Buchanan, I have to thank you just as Mr. Sweeney did for this column . Actually, I have followed you for years. You are way to the right of me, but I have always valued your thoughtful analysis and often find myself edified by it. Your column provides a valuable insight that may be lost on many: The Middle East today is just one more example of how ethnic tensions and power imbalances have such deadly potential to turn world order on its head. Too bad those two draft dodgers in the Oval Office didn't see that coming when they knocked out Iraq as the bulwark against Iran. You know, the Iraq that represented about 3 decades worth of U.S. strategic investment.

Your column also suggests another proposition, though I don't really know if you meant it to or not: how hollow, nay, pathetic, Mr. McCain's line about preconditions for talking with Iran and other Evil Nations is, let alone his suggestion that opening condition free lines of communication merits comparison to the head-in-the-sand overtures for peace made by England prior to World War II.

How does that Joplin song go? "When you ain't got nothin, you got nothin to lose." Thomas Friedman recently pointed out in a New York Times piece that, of course, when you want to start negotiating in earnest, you have to have leverage of some kind. The fact is that right now we have just about zippo, and it's time to start cleaning up Bush's big mess and figure out how to get some of it back.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Sun Jun 8, 2008 2:04 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
John Stossel
John StosselUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Alan Reynolds
Alan ReynoldsUpdated 15 Feb 2012

9 Apr 2010 The New Intolerance

12 Jan 2010 Why Are They at War With Us?

1 May 2009 The Obama Flu?