The Chamberlain Defense

Commentary Magazine ^ | June 19, 2008 | Abe Greenwald

[Jbny]

Samantha Power, former foreign policy advisor to the Barack Obama campaign, has penned a strange defense of Barack Obama's willingness to negotiate with America's enemies. In this week's Time magazine, Power argues that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's diplomatic engagement with Adolf Hitler in 1938 should not sully diplomacy's good name. She writes:

. . . instead of caricaturing diplomacy by invoking the Munich Agreement as code for spinelessness, it is worth studying Chamberlain's failed effort in the Munich talks for lessons in how not to negotiate. He was unprepared, unsophisticated and ultimately unsuccessful in preventing World War II. Having never before boarded an international flight, he flew three times to Germany in 1938, appearing to play supplicant to a violent dictator.

International flights do make up the bulk of Barack Obama's foreign policy experience, so in that respect he is more sophisticated and better prepared to meet with madman dictators than was Chamberlain. But--to go by Power's own list of Chamberlain's missteps--in that respect only. Barack Obama, having vowed to talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions, has opened himself up to the very same category of disadvantages incurred by the man whose name is synonymous with appeasement. Consider what Power cites as the Prime Minister's lack of preparation for negotiating with Hitler.

[stubernx98]

Yeah, Just like Obamanation

[SMARTY]

“He was unprepared, unsophisticated and ultimately unsuccessful...”

Obama isin’t???

[johnny7]

If Obama is Chamberlain... then the dude in the middle is Henderson.

[Gay State Conservative]

. . instead of caricaturing diplomacy by invoking the Munich Agreement as code for spinelessness, it is worth studying Chamberlain's failed effort in the Munich talks for lessons in how not to negotiate.

Oh,I get it.If only Chamberlain had been a little more forthcoming...or persistent....or clever...WWII would never have happened.Well,Miss Harvard professor,I'll just remind you of what my Dad (who managed *many* Harvard grads during his career) used to say....

"You can always tell a Harvard man...but you can't tell him much".

[schu]

Is this what she wants to say or would like us to hear?

Obamanation is better the Neville Chamberlain ... Achmeniwackjob is the same as Hitler

Hmm, maybe not that far off!

schu

[vikingd00d]

The association between Obama and Chamberlain doesn’t really fit well. Chamberlain was an ignorant, sissy nancy-boy, but at least he opposed Hitler’s agenda. Obama is an ignorant, sissy nancy-boy that would support the Muslim agenda in the WOT and help them destroy the free world. As such, I think Obama has more in common with Vidkun Quisling.

[CougarGA7]

Somebody needs to buy both Ms. Powers and B. Hussein a History book. Not only is this defense based on a failed policy, it is focus on only one piece of the failed policy which blinds these idiots to the reality of what the results will be if they take this path. (Reaffirming my theory that liberalism defined is "the inability to think things through to a conclusion")

Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister in May of 1937 and Britain adopted a policy of appeasement.

Chamberlain believed war could be prevented if he only agreed with some of the demands made by Hitler and Mussolini.

By November 1937 when Chamberlain had send Lord Halifax to meet with Hitler and Goering, Dachau, Sachsenhausen, and Buchenwald were already known concentration camps for political prisoners in Germany. Chamberlain didn't mind this since it was keeping Communism in Germany in check but had he read Mein Kampf it would have been pretty clear that Hitler had grander designs than just curbing Communism. (I recommend William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" for more detail on this.)

By 13th March, Seyss-Inquart invited the German Army to occupy Austria and proclaimed union with Germany. Everyone knew that this was orchestrated by the Nazi party and Hitler and it was in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Chamberlains response was to just let it go. There was hardly even a complaint by the British government. Churchill wanted to take action at this point.

Now add to this the fact that the British government knew that Hitler had intentions to take over Austria, AND Czechoslovakia to get "a free hand in Eastern Europe" way back in February of 1937. Hugh Christie - MI6

On top of that Christie reported in March of 1938 that the German military would oust Hitler if Britain joined forces with Czechoslovakia in defending their territory. So instead of the Munich Agreement (which was just a piece of paper) there could have been No More Hitler and consequently potentially no war in Europe. But Chamberlain elected to stick to his Appeasement policy.

By September the Sudetenland crises had come to a head and Chamberlain appeased Hitler and abandoned Czechoslovakia. There were two outliers in this decision too. First, Chamberlain didn't even invite Eduard Benes (Leader of Czechoslovakia) to the meeting to decide their fate, and second, by giving Hitler the Sudetenland he also gave him Czechoslovakia's strategic points of defense making the eventual absorption of the rest of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939 inevitable.

This was more than appeasement, this was outright betrayal in my opinion and did nothing but embolden Hitler. In March of 1939 when Hitler broke the Munich Agreement, Chamberlain finally abandoned appeasement.

Christie in August of 1939 reported that Hitler had decided to attack Poland in September. But even though appeasement was dead, Chamberlain still decided to do nothing and Poland was quickly overrun.

So far from what I see Obama is adopting Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy approach, Jimmy Carter's energy policy, and putting together a Clinton cabinet all of which were miserable failures. God help us if he becomes President.

[goldstategop]

Obama and the people around are blithering idiots. The only thing one can point out that's not very flattering is that Samantha Powers and Pat Buchanan agree there was no time for war in Europe. So did that generation of appeasers in the Western democracies and it ended up extinguishing 60 million human lives. You don't negotiate with evil; you destroy it before it destroys you!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[em2vn]

A great read in which this part of history is well covered is THE COLLAPSE OF THE THRID REPUBLIC by Wm L. Shirer. But I don’t think it states the events any better than you have. It is simply more in depth.

[CougarGA7]

I recommend “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by Shirer. He lived the rise of Hitler in Germany while working there. He witnessed many of the events personally and had the foresight to write about it while it was still all fresh in everyone's mind rather than let someone else do it in posterity.

[em2vn]

The book I suggested, gives as does Rise and Fall, a first hand view of appeasement on the part of the cowardly French political system and its cowardly military leaders.
I think it represents what we can expect from an Obama administration and the military it will deliver.

[CougarGA7]

I've read it. It also is a good reference. Another point that gets missed is that in April 1938 when Chamberlain signed a defensive pact with France he forced the French to accecpt Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, Britians policy on Spain, Britains policy of Appeasement, and a curbing of France's commitments to the Czechs. Freeper Homer J Simpson posted this article on this point Another worthwile read.

Chamberlain was very good at bullying his allies while at the same time he cowarded to his enemies. I expect Obama would be the same.