Posted on 04/18/2008 6:58:28 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
I guess History is repeating itself. Just ask Pelosi, Obama or Clinton.
"It is felt that some such argument would be useful not only to obtain the support of the British people in war, but also to win favorable opinion in the British Dominions, the United States and other neutral countries that might become Great Britain’s allies. "
First, we need to note that every article similar to this one, that you've posted so far, includes a statement along these lines. So, it is a consistent theme.
I am slowly becoming convinced that this idea is absolutely critical to understanding the whole elaborate "Kabuki dance," going on in the years leading up to September 1939.
With perfect 20-20 hindsight, we see now that what Britain and France should have been doing, instead of appeasement, was "push-back," even slapping Hitler around a bit.
Remember, the cost of appeasement was: for over five years, on average nearly a million people a month died world-wide (est. 55 million total) as a result of W.W.II.
Common sense tells us there had to be a better way to control Hitler's aggressive impulses. This quote, I think, suggests possibly why they never did it.
I have also seen at least one other statement along the lines of this one:
Finally, there is the desire, ever-present in the minds of the Conservative leaders, to win a general election, perhaps as early as next Autumn or Winter. A series of European pacts on the lines of the Anglo-Italian agreement could be pointed to with pride in an election campaign. . .
I guess staying in power has always trumped doing the right thing for future generations. Of course, this may just be the personal opinion of Ferdinand Kuhn, Jr.
After further reflection: There I go again, even after I'd vowed not to be overly judgmental.
This really just illustrates an unavoidable weakness of a free society. To overcome a general tendency to avoid armed conflict between nations, you must have politicians with both the wisdom to see the consequences of inaction and the persuasive power to convince a voting majority of the necessity for action. How often does that happen? Churchill might have taken steps to eliminate Hitler from the scene while there was still time to avoid the big conflagration, but he was not Prime Minister.
And thank God for the free press, but they don't have to get elected (or take responsibility for their opinions).
I have a wonderful book by Lynne Olson (Baltimore Sun), from 2007: "Troublesome Young Men -- the Rebels who Brought Churchill to Power and Helped Save England."
Turning to page 109, we read about just this time, 70 years ago:
"Churchill, the only other possible leader of the rebels, continued to denounce Chamberlain's failure to confront Hitler, but he [Churchill] was still tarred with a reputation for recklessness and lack of judgment.
"Even if the anti-appeasement backbenchers had been inclined to follow him, he too was absent from Westminster for long periods during the spring and summer of 1938.
"Hard pressed financially, he had retreated a bit from the political fray and closeted himself at Chartwell [his home], writing a succession of magazine pieces, finishing up "Marlborough" [history book], and beginning what became his four-volume work, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples."
So 1938 Britain's serious failure in leadership, sadly, included at least to some degree, Churchill himself.
Or, we might put it this way: during the spring & summer of 1938, Churchill was home writing about history, when he should have been hard at work making it! ;-)
It didn't make the newspapers, but on this date Hitler summoned General Keitel to update his plan for taking over Czechoslovakia. Case Green, a plan for a military surprise attack on the country, had been drawn up in June 1937, but Hitler thought current world opinion precluded such a drastic step. Instead he intended to manufacture an "incident," such as the murder of the German Minister in the course of an anti-German demonstration. (I don't think the German Minister got the memo on this phase of the plan.) German forces would then occupy Czechoslovakia "to restore order" before England or France could do anything prevent it. Once accomplished, Hitler thought the European powers would learn to live with it.
This is the background for the diplomatic efforts to keep the peace in Europe: Hitler wants Czechoslovakia. In order to prevent war the European powers must let him have it.
Two different takes on Munich:
Chamberlain: “Peace in our time.”
Hitler: “Our enemies are little worms-I saw them in Munich.”
The Germans used the same ploy before attacking Poland. Called it “Operation Canned Goods”. Heydrich ahd SS Maj. Alfred Naujocks fake an attack on the German radio station at Gleiwitz, using SS men [some Polish speaking], in Polish uniforms, w/ Polish ID [courteousy of the Abwehr]. They fired a few gunshots, yelled in Polish over the radio and left. They also left several bodies [concentration camp prisoners] that ‘Gestapo’ Mueller provided, also in Polish uniforms.
It’s only fitting that Chamberlain vacation with Lord Londonberry. Though Londonberry publicly stated that he was not a Nazi sympathizer his actions showed that he was at the very least a Hitler Apologist. His contacts with Goering and his own damning words proved to be his undoing when he was arrested when the war broke out based on a rumor that he was a Nazi spy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.