Posted on 02/16/2022 9:27:30 AM PST by Rummyfan
The city name “Munich” is already profoundly associated with cinematic moral confusion. It was the title Steven Spielberg gave his relativistic reflection on the way the Mossad avenged the murder of Israeli athletes in 1972. Now Netflix has given us Munich: The Edge of War, a prestige film that has gained a high-end audience and that has been hailed by many critics. At its heart is a quest to undo the legacy of one of history’s greatest heroes and to lionize one of its weakest statesmen.
The movie seeks nothing less than to celebrate Neville Chamberlain, a man whose name is eternally affiliated with appeasement. It focuses on the meeting between the British prime minister and Hitler when the latter asserted Germany’s right to the Czech territory Germans called the Sudentenland. Chamberlain conceded and returned home brandishing a signed promise by Hitler not to wage war on Britain.
This anti-Churchill thesis has been embraced by Jeremy Irons, the Oscar-winning British actor who plays Chamberlain. He told Variety: “Churchill was able to write the history of that period afterwards. It’s all very easy to look back at history and see what you want to see. But at the time, I believe Chamberlain followed the right path. He tried to prevent war. He tried to appease Hitler and got an agreement with Hitler that he would go no further. That was a canny thing to do because once Hitler did go further, he was able to say to the country, this man is not to be trusted and we’re going to have to fight him. I think Chamberlain should be praised for his pragmatic behavior. We shouldn’t view the Munich Agreement simply as the appeasement of a weak man who was fooled by Hitler. It’s the wrong way to look at it.”
* * * * * * * *
Chamberlain clearly did believe that he had made peace with Hitler, as did the English elite who cheered him in Parliament when he returned. And we must therefore understand why Churchill saw what so many others missed. The most interesting character in Munich is an aide to Hitler who as a student was enthusiastic about the “new Germany” and then becomes revolted by it. The role is based on Adam von Trott, who later attempted to assassinate Hitler. In the movie, it is the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews that wakes this young man to the danger posed by Hitler. This ironically highlights what is elided in the film. As Andrew Roberts has noted, the Anglo elite refused to fully face up to the horrors of Hitlerism because many of them cared so little for the fate of the Jews of Germany.
Let Hitler take the Rhineland. Let him annex Austria. Gave him the Sudetenland and he later took the rest of Czechoslovakia. Of course, the French didn't do anything either. As Churchill said..
You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.'
It’s not surprising that leftie movie makers would support cowardice.
Muenchen....................
“Night Train to Munich” was an EXCELLENT movie. Watch the Criterion edition if you can.
I don’t trust movies named ‘Eunich’.
Bravo. Thanks for the reminder. At the time of Chamberlains acquiescence, Czechoslovakia's forces had at least 5 divisions, France about 20 divisions. Germany had only about 5 or 6. Plus Czechoslovakia had it's own improved version of a Maginot line. When Hitler visited it, he was amazed that a country with such strong fortifications declined to defend itself.
Poland had dirty hands; they too helped themselves to a slice of the pie.
“… a prestige film that has gained a high-end audience…”
Lololol…that guarantees it’s a T in the punch bowl. Pass.
People today opine that Chamberlain should have been ready to go to war in 1938. That ignores two big facts. Italy and France wanted no part of that response and were fully on board. Second, with hindsight we know perfectly how it should have been handled. But had he suggested war in 1938, he would have been removed by a no confidence vote the next day.
There is no way the British people wanted a repeat of the horror of WWI a short 20 years later.
Things went the way the pretty much had to. It was only two years earlier that Lindbergh visited Nazi Germany and had nothing but good things to say. Two years before 1938 the British king who was pretty much a nazi abdicated and a lot of British aristocracy was not hostile to Hitler yet.
And though we don’t admit it now, neither England nor the USA both were deeply worried about the well being of the Jews. And nobody suspected mass murder was around the corner.
I don’t think Chamberlain had as many options as people think. And he would have been a poor choice once the war began.
I tried watching the Netflix one, but the subtitles were going by so fast that I couldn’t keep up with the dialog. I gave up about 20 minutes in.
If I have to READ, I’ll read a book, not read a movie.
Put yourself in London 1938. Twenty short years after the nightmare of WWI. Try to convince the people to go to war for something the Czechs and French were unwilling to join in on.
It wasn’t in the cards for 38.
There was still a lot of sentiment at the time that Hitler was a bulwark against the Bolsheviks, some would have even welcomed Hitler attacking in the East. Britain had her Empire, let Germany have hers’.
I’ll check that out.
I have the Criterion Channel and they have all the great War movies either in permanent or guest rotation. The best show how all men fail in war, no matter where they’re from.
One of my favorites on now is Alfred Hitchcock‘s LIFEBOAT written by John Steinbeck and starring Tallulah Bankhead , Hume Cronyn and William Bendix among other greats. It’s set in World War II and a German U-boat has sunk their passenger liner. It’s a tale of their survival with lots of strong USA patriotism (at the end credits “Buy US War Bonds!”).
The reason Rudolph Hess flew his Messerschmitt 110 in 1940 to Scotland was to meet with sympathetic Brit aristocrats and try to conclude a Brit/Nazi peace. His mission was not completely impossible. That is why he was locked up for life pretty much incommunicado.
Lots of dirty British stuff in that era, as there is today.
The same slice the Czechs helped themselves to in 1920, while the Poles were saving Europe from the Bolsheviks.
Hitler was never going to invade Britain, what he did hope for was the Brits turning on Churchill. The Blitz pretty much guaranteed that was never going to happen.
I’m kind of in the middle on chamberlain
I think he gets dumped on far too much....his desire was to avoid war and I think he misjudged Hitler
He did not arrange the pact by himself ....he was celebrated for it till it fell apart
Churchill indefatigable was always a hawk....that was his nature and his pride in the empire and his place in it drove that
It must have been quite a reckoning for him to see it all slip away in his final years,
I view Churchill warts and all the finest political leader of the 20th century
He also keenly understood the American south and wrote well of us in a few volumes ....rare
Despite my Churchill love ....he was half American btw....his gorgeous mother though was another story..let’s just say she had a publicly ribald appetite
Neville does not deserve the scorn and condemnation he receives...most of Britain ruling class always viewed Winnie as an outlier dependable war mongerer....with one huge failure on his record in the Dardanelles....but when they needed him....there was no substitute...
God put him there...and he and Clemmie knew it
Chamberlains failure was a required prerequisite for folks to accept war with Germany
Much like imperial Japan attack on us accomplished the same
In that sense chamberlain played a part
This is an excellent show about what happened after Munich...
Countdown To War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QdVLKrs7A4
I'm convinced that only two people knew of Hess' trip: Hess and Hitler.
Apparently Lindbergh traveled to Germany several times in the late 1930s - with the approval of the U.S. military. Some Americans could see war coming, and didn't want to remain completely in the dark about German capabilities...
Even in 1939 the headlines in French newspapers was “Mourir Pour Danzig ?”
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.