Posted on 04/02/2015 5:14:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Western capitulation to Adolf Hitler in the 1938 Munich Agreement is cited as classic appeasement that destroyed Czechoslovakia, backfired on France and Britain, and led to World War II.
All of that is true.
But there was much more that caused the Munich debacle than simple Western naiveté. The full tragedy of that ill-fated agreement should warn us on the eve of the Obama's administration's gullible agreement with Iran on nuclear proliferation.
Fable one is the idea that most people saw right through the Munich folly. True, Europeans knew that Hitler had never once told the truth and was already murdering German citizens who were Jews, communists or homosexuals. But Europeans did not care all that much.
Instead, the Western world was ecstatic over the agreement. After the carnage of World War I, Europeans would do anything to avoid even a small confrontation -- even if such appeasement all but ensured a far greater bloodbath than the one that began in 1914.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Ping
Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. - Winston Churchil
Excellent article. As usual, Hanson nails it.
Sorry I don’t accept the premise Obama is gullible.
This is the third dem administration that has bowed to Iran.
Peanuts let Iran rub our noses in it with the hostages.
Bill Clinton with his operation Merlin was providing Iran with the technology to get the bomb.
Now jug ears is not only allowing but pushing for Iran to get the bomb.
Nothing gullible about it.
Allowing Iran to get the bomb is democrat party policy.
The only question is what is the democrat party getting from Iran.
obama and Kerry seem intent on giving the mullahs the bomb and thereby ushering in a new Dark Ages. God help us.
I agree. I recently did a case study in which the Munich agreement was prominent, and I believe Chamberlain got a raw deal in history. He wasn’t an appeaser. He just was a poor negotiator and he never trusted Hitler. In fact, he went up against the true Hitler appeasers in Britain at the time. Bathhouse Barry is a racist commie and will do anything to sell out America.
Agreed. There is considerable question whether Chamberlain refusing a treaty to Hitler would have avoided the bloodbath of WWII or just started it a year early. In which case he might be remembered as the warmonger who refused reasonable accomodations that might have prevented war.
It’s very seldom remembered that the Sudeten Germans had quite legitimate complaints. The self-determination of the Czechs had been respected, but doing so meant repressing theirs.
The discussion of Munich generally implies, without quite saying so, that if the Allies had stood up to Hitler the results would have been entirely positive. That ain’t necessarily so. Among other things, the Allies were much less well-armed than they were in 1939.
What’s the difference between an appeaser & a poor negotiator?
For liberals, every potential conflict is Vietnam.
For conservatives, every potential conflict is Munich.
Sigh.
Would it help if everyone referred to the surrender being negotiated now as “The April Fools’ Treaty”?
George Santayana, not Winston Churchill
For conservatives, every potential conflict is Munich.
Sigh.
"Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it" - George Santayana
As always, VDH nails it.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana
This famous statement has produced many paraphrases and variants:
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.
Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.
Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
I prefer Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
Always good to read VDH in the morning.
But did Neville give Adolph a hummer? I don’t think so!
VDH ping ...
So which history should we apply in this case? Vietnam or Munich?
Appeals to history are seldom much help. People pick an historical episode that lines up with what they believe anyway.
IOW, history is used as ammunition, not as a teaching moment. Which is why Henry Ford, who said, “History is bunk” was to a considerable extent correct.
Actually, it’s not history that’s bunk. I have probably read closing on a thousand historical works. It’s the way we generally use history that’s bunk.
IMO, of course.
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.