Rethinking Neville Chamberlain

[Ad Orientem]

Seventy-five years ago, on Sept. 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact, handing portions of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler's Germany. Chamberlain returned to Britain to popular acclaim, declaring that he had secured "peace for our time." Today the prime minister is generally portrayed as a foolish man who was wrong to try to "appease" Hitler—a cautionary tale for any leader silly enough to prefer negotiation to confrontation.

But among historians, that view changed in the late 1950s, when the British government began making Chamberlain-era records available to researchers. "The result of this was the discovery of all sorts of factors that narrowed the options of the British government in general and narrowed the options of Neville Chamberlain in particular," explains David Dutton, a British historian who wrote a recent biography of the prime minister. "The evidence was so overwhelming," he says, that many historians came to believe that Chamberlain "couldn't do anything other than what he did" at Munich. Over time, Dutton says, "the weight of the historiography began to shift to a much more sympathetic appreciation" of Chamberlain.

First, a look at the military situation. Most historians agree that the British army was not ready for war with Germany in September 1938. If war had broken out over the Czechoslovak crisis, Britain would only have been able to send two divisions to the continent—and ill-equipped divisions, at that. Between 1919 and March 1932, Britain had based its military planning on a “10-year rule,”? which assumed Britain would face no major war in the next decade. Rearmament only began in 1934—and only on a limited basis. The British army, as it existed in September 1938, was simply not intended for continental warfare. Nor was the rearmament of the Navy or the Royal Air Force complete. British naval rearmament had recommenced in 1936 as part of a five-year program. And although Hitler’s Luftwaffe had repeatedly doubled in size in the late 1930s, it wasn't until April 1938 that the British government decided that its air force could purchase as many aircraft as could be produced.

Read the rest here...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... venty.html

[Benko]

Given that liberals have a habit of re-writting history, I would read that article and check out the details and sources carefully before believing it on face value.

[Mdraf]

Not to mention the ever increasing outrageously ridiculous blog posts all over the internet to elicit "impressions" (ie clicks)

[RuralEngineer]

Didn't Britain get thoroughly spanked anyway after it had completed whatever preparations it had felt were necessary?  All that was accomplished was that Czechoslovakia was sold out, Poland was caught with their pants down, and France got bent over the fence.

I don't see how even the non-interventionists could get behind Chamberlain.  Signing a treaty selling out another country doesn't really qualify as "non-intervention."

[Benko]

Given that liberals have a habit of re-writting history, I would read that article and check out the details and sources carefully before believing it on face value.

Ad hominem

Either my statement about liberals is factually true, or it is not.  In either case my statement which follows: "I would read that article and check out the details and sources carefully"

Is quite reasonable advice for any article by any person ( and especially today given the Pravda like state of the media).

[Coffee]

This truth about Chamberlain is not a new revelation, you know.  Pat Buchanan (NOT A LIBERAL) has discussed Chamberlain's demonization for a while now.

Buchanan is a well-known isolationist, paleo-conservative and sometimes Nazi-apologist.  To say, "he's not a liberal" is like saying, "He doesn't wear socks." 

[MediumTex]

Let's be courteous please.

[Coffee]

Let's be courteous please.

Are you referring to my post?  If so, I'm going to need a point of clarification on forum rules:

Since when is pointing out that something is factually irrelevant to an argument considered discourteous?

[Kshartle]

Let's be courteous please.

Are you referring to my post?  If so, I'm going to need a point of clarification on forum rules:

Since when is pointing out that something is factually irrelevant to an argument considered discourteous?

I'll go you one further. Sometimes people will say 2+2=5. If you point out that 2=1+1 and therefore 2+2 = 1+1+1+1 = 4; that is discourteous because it is the other person's opinion that 2+2=5. All opinions are welcome and should not be pointed out as completely false with logic. To do so is discourteous, not the refusal of the original person to recognize the simple logic that 2+2 = 4.

I understand why, it's to keep the forum from turing into personal attacks. It's difficult to balance the frustration that comes from listening to the irrational or to people who change the subject as soon as their postion is exposed with the importance of staying calm and overly polite in your discourse. I have been guilty of letting frustration get to me with certain folks.

Probably best to not point out to someone that they are just changing the subject and just ignore it and change it right back.

[Coffee]

Oh, hell... I give up!

[Pointedstick]

Kshartle, the problem with your premise, and the reason why your contributions are often so frustrating and polarizing, is your insistence that everything can be deduced by logic and there is one correct answer to every question which is eventually discoverable through this process of logical deduction.

You may not realize it, but it's actually a fairly insulting premise because it ignores the role of nuance and human opinions. You like to use the metaphor of a mathematical expression, but math is abstract, and the real world is messier. Often we don't have all the information available. Often what is true one day is rendered false by events in the next one. Many things depend heavily on one's point of view, and we all have differing notions of what is good and what is bad. None of these things can be said of mathematical formulas, which is why their logic is often simply inapplicable to many of the things we discuss.

* * *

Benko: MT was talking to you, I think. The knee-jerk "liberals have a habit of re-writting history!" response was totally out of place and does nothing to foster dicsussion. At least read the article before you judge it. Slate publishes crap, but they also publish good stuff too. Same as any news organization.

[MediumTex]

Let's be courteous please.

Are you referring to my post?  If so, I'm going to need a point of clarification on forum rules:

Since when is pointing out that something is factually irrelevant to an argument considered discourteous?

Sometimes discussions just feel like they are getting too hot and I like to cool things down if I can so that the discussion can remain productive.

So far in this thread we've got liberals re-writing history, a mention of ad hominem (which on the internet is often code for "you're getting on my nerves"), and Pat Buchanan is a Nazi apologist.

That all adds up to "hot", which made me ask for "cool."

[craigr]

Next thing we know, people will be out claiming John Lennon was some kind of libertarian-conservative type. Imagine!

http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1980 ... atles.html

[on doing charity concerts]

PLAYBOY: "But the fact is, $200,000,000 to a poverty-stricken country in South America..."

LENNON: "Where do people get off saying the Beatles should give $200,000,000 to South America? You know, America has poured billions into places like that. It doesn't mean a damn thing. After they've eaten that meal, then what? It lasts for only a day. After the $200,000,000 is gone, then what? It goes round and round in circles. You can pour money in forever. After Peru, then Harlem, then Britain. There is no one concert. We would have to dedicate the rest of our lives to one world concert tour, and I'm not ready for it. Not in this lifetime, anyway."
...
PLAYBOY: "The question is, How does that jibe with your political philosophies? You're supposed to be socialists, aren't you?"

LENNON: "In England, there are only two things to be, basically: You are either for the labor movement or for the capitalist movement. Either you become a right-wing Archie Bunker if you are in the class I am in, or you become an instinctive socialist, which I was. That meant I think people should get their false teeth and their health looked after, all the rest of it. But apart from that, I worked for money and I wanted to be rich. So what the hell... if that's a paradox, then I'm a socialist. But I am not anything. What I used to be is guilty about money. That's why I lost it, either by giving it away or by allowing myself to be screwed by so-called managers."

[dualstow]

... John Lennon ... Imagine!

I got it, I got it! 

[Benko]

* The fact that the traditional telling of the Chamberlain story seems to hold so much sway in foreign affairs.  Nobody wants to be the next Neville Chamberlain, so politicians (and public dialogue) are pre-disposed toward action, which generally means violence.

Edit: let me put it another way, why do YOU believe than anyone would actually change their behavior based on this?  Neither the left nor the right likes the "PR problems" posed by their behaviors, but I am not convinced that anyone changes their behavior based on said "PR problems".

[Benko]

"U.S. presidents are far more disposed toward action than inaction"

1. I totally agree that the US takes way too much action for reasons that best I can tell are not justified.  I don't fully understand the circumstances that lead to this.  Perhaps information available only to the president accounts for some small percentage, but I would suspect not most. 

"U.S. presidents in particular) seem to care a great deal about their legacy, and that U.S. presidents are far more disposed toward action than inaction."

This means that they must be assuming that action is more likely to lead to favorable outcomes than inaction.  Pity no one reads history anymore. 

2.  That said, I am far from certain that Iran's nuclear weapons should not be an exception.  Unlike many in a previous thread, I am not certain that there will not be a mushroom cloud down the line and history will hold Obama and whoever else was complicit responsible.  I'm speaking of a surgical strike to take out the weapons (if I am correct that such a thing is possible).

"I think it is hard to deny that the Chamberlain meme is frequently invoked"

Intervening overseas to "spread democracy" or other such silliness is one thing.  I view Iran nucs as something different.  Chamberlain is a convenient label to describe not acting when to do so is or may very likely be vital. 

If one is pacifist, or non-interventional (not saying you are) under all circumstance (or all except US is attacked) than one needs to accept the implications of one's beliefs. 

[Mdraf]

I think that more than inaction and pacifism Chamberlain is symbolic of naïveté in foreign affairs. He is famous for, upon his return, waving the pact with with Hitler and exclaiming "We have achieved peace in our time"

[notsheigetz]

2.  That said, I am far from certain that Iran's nuclear weapons should not be an exception.  Unlike many in a previous thread, I am not certain that there will not be a mushroom cloud down the line and history will hold Obama and whoever else was complicit responsible.  I'm speaking of a surgical strike to take out the weapons (if I am correct that such a thing is possible).

According to U.S. intelligence agencies there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons nor has any intention to do so, so what do you mean "a surgical strike to take out the weapons"?

[Benko]

According to U.S. intelligence agencies there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons nor has any intention to do so, so what do you mean "a surgical strike to take out the weapons"?

1.  I should have said reactor.  However,

2.  "there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons nor has any intention to do so"

I believe the credibility of such statements to be up there with the credibility of any set of recent  employment numbers put out by the gov't. 

[Coffee]

2.  That said, I am far from certain that Iran's nuclear weapons should not be an exception.  Unlike many in a previous thread, I am not certain that there will not be a mushroom cloud down the line and history will hold Obama and whoever else was complicit responsible.  I'm speaking of a surgical strike to take out the weapons (if I am correct that such a thing is possible).

According to U.S. intelligence agencies there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons nor has any intention to do so, so what do you mean "a surgical strike to take out the weapons"?

I suppose you were pro-intervention in Iraq because the government said their were WMDs in Iraq?

[Benko]

1.  You are putting words into my mouth, that I didn't say, and don't believe.

2.  " I totally agree that the US takes way too much action for reasons that best I can tell are not justified"

That should give you some clue that I don't favor most interventions.

3. So maybe U.S. presidents think exactly like you do:

"I don't have information to support military action, but I just know that I'm right.  BOOM!"
[/quote]

I am a physician, and docs make lots of decisions based on incomplete information.  There is something called risk/benefit.  In my view the risk of letting a fanatical country like Iran have a nuc bomb is not acceptable. I have no clue if I'm correct or not, but in my view the odds are not all all zero of them using it, and the consequences of inaction are too high.    We will find out if you are right or not since Obama has done the usual and prevented Israel from intervening.

[MediumTex]

We're talking about a military strike on a nuclear reactor?

Couldn't that trigger a Chernobyl-type incident that would be unlikely to achieve anything useful?

[Mdraf]

1.  You are putting words into my mouth, that I didn't say, and don't believe.

I hope I haven't done so.  What are you referring to here?

2.  " I totally agree that the US takes way too much action for reasons that best I can tell are not justified"

That should give you some clue that I don't favor most interventions.

I understand.

I am a physician, and docs make lots of decisions based on incomplete information.  There is something called risk/benefit.  In my view the risk of letting a fanatical country like Iran have a nuc bomb is not acceptable. I have no clue if I'm correct or not, but in my view the odds are not all all zero of them using it, and the consequences of inaction are too high.    We will find out if you are right or not since Obama has done the usual and prevented Israel from intervening.

I understand.  I do this as well in my work.

Maybe my point wasn't clear, so I'll rephrase

Iran appears to be a case where you are willing to ignore evidence (US intelligence says there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear bomb) in lieu of other factors and think that military action is warranted (i.e. the benefits you perceive outweigh the costs you perceive).

OTOH, you also believe most interventions are unjustified, and don't understand why U.S. presidents intervene as often as they do.

My point is that, in the end, I suspect U.S. presidents' decisions on whether or not to intervene are exactly like your opinion on Iran: they don't have complete information, they don't trust the information they do have, but other softer information (as well as their own natural orientation and world view) leads them to they think the benefits of military intervention outweigh the costs.

Note that "US Intelligence" does not publicly release what it does or doesn't know. What you read in the press is released by other branches of the Administration which presumably leaks only that which is in its interest to be released.  Other countries disagree.

[notsheigetz]

Note that "US Intelligence" does not publicly release what it does or doesn't know. What you read in the press is released by other branches of the Administration which presumably leaks only that which is in its interest to be released.  Other countries disagree.

This document was published in March of 2013 and the title is

Statement for the Record
Worldwide Threat Assessment
of the US Intelligence Community

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/130312/clapper.pdf

I am well aware of the government's propensity for lying but usually the lies involve claims of weapons that don't exist, not the opposite.

[Benko]

What you read in the press is released by other branches of the Administration which presumably leaks only that which is in its interest to be released. 

+1

"This document was published in March of 2013 "
Do you believe that Bengazi happened because of some videotape?
Do you believe the unemployment figures published under uncle Barack's regime?

"I am well aware of the government's propensity for lying but usually the lies involve claims of weapons that don't exist, not the opposite"

USUALLY??

So you believe that the gov't tells the truth when it says things which agree with your bias, and lies when it does not?