This isn’t a parallel to the Munich Agreement.
The appropriate and correct historical parallel is the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
This isn’t a parallel to the Munich Agreement.
The appropriate and correct historical parallel is the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact.
The thrust of the article is good. However the Chamberlain/Munich "appeasement" is a bad reading of history.
First, Chamberlain had a mandate to prevent another war. 1914-18 was fresh in his constituent's minds. Second, he had fresh intel that if a Czechoslovakian resistance existed, Britain was not in touch with it. Thirdly, Chamberlain had zero leverage because Britain was powerless to prevent German tanks from rolling East. The idea that Chamberlain didn't do enough implies there was something else he could have done. Something Churchill would have done! But what was it that they could do?
Czechoslovakia was not "given away" by Chamberlain any more than Poland was "given away" by Churchill. What Chamberlain achieved was to make Britain 5 years behind when war broke out instead of 10 years behind.