Was there some hope on Chamberlin's part that Hitler would fight the Soviets before turning West?

From the wikipedia cache (link was down)

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:8LMUNGyVUTYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact+Molotov-von+Ribbentrop&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

The reluctance of the western democracies to form an anti-fascist alliance with the USSR, and France and the United Kingdom's pact with Hitler signed at Munich, was indicative of a lack of interest from the side of the West to oppose the growing fascist movement, already exemplified by the events of the Spanish Civil War. The Soviets were not invited to the Munich Conference of September 1938, when the French and British Prime Ministers, Daladier and Chamberlain, agreed to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. As the French had not honoured their 1924 treaty with the Czechs, the Soviets concluded that their 1935 alliance with France was valueless, and that the West was trying to divert Germany to the East.

In March 1939, Hitler's denunciation of the 1934 German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact was taken by the Soviets as a clear signal of Hitler's aggressive intentions. Soviet foreign minister Litvinov, in April, outlined a French, British, Soviet alliance, with military commitment against Fascist powers, but Chamberlain's government procrastinated (partly because the Soviets demanded too much – a guarantee to the Baltic States, complete reciprocity and the right to send troops through Poland). However, Chamberlain, who already on 24 March had, with France, guaranteed the sovereignty of Poland, now on 25 April signed a Pact of Mutual Assistance with Poland. Consequently, Stalin no longer feared that the West would leave the Soviet Union to fight Hitler alone; indeed, if Germany and the West went to war, as seemed likely, the USSR could afford to remain neutral and wait for them to destroy each other.

Scott's basic point that it is usually better to confront dictators sooner rather than later is a valid one. The problem is that 1938 versus 1939 are the wrong time periods to compare. The CRITICAL difference is between when war ACTUALLY broke out or COULD HAVE broken out, thus 1939 OR 1938, and when Hitler PLANNED for war to break out, 1945, when in particular the German Navy would have been MUCH stronger.

By that rationale it is MUCH better for war to have broken out NOW even if waged half-assedly by Israel and temporarily halted by ceasefire than when Iran PLANNED for it to break out: AFTER they had their nukes or in response to an attack on their nuke program.

The problem is, the alternate universe doesn't exist in this one. The USG, represented by Condi, had to deal with the Israeli Government as it really existed, not as we wish it were.

Six months from now, under Mofaz or Netanyahu, things will be different, but Condi had to live in the now.

Remember how Rumsfeld said we had to go to war with Army we had? Well We had to deal with the Israel we had.

I think Scot is missing a couple of important things. It is not 1938 and the Middle East is not Europe. That is just for starters. England had not occupied Germany for almost 20 years. The front was not seven miles away with the only thing standing between the British army and Berlin being a force of about 3,000 Nazis.

I do think that history can teach us lessons, but we don't live in it, we live in now. And I think that the guys at powerline have completely forgotten that when that whole thing started it was not about chasing Hezbellah all the way to Tehran if need be, it was about creating a buffer zone on Israel's northern border and hopefully gaining the return of the soldiers.

It seems to me that some people on the right are becoming as arrogant and simplistic as some people on the left have always been. If the Israelis could not completely destroy Hezbellah in the decades they occupied southern Lebanon was it realistic to think they could right now in this instance?

Condi Rice and John Bolton are diplomats,not Generals. Their job is difficult and often as not thankless.

No matter what they do there is someone out there who thinks they could do it better. Well maybe some of these critics should do that, they should run for office or enter the diplomatic service like Bolton did decades ago and then in all their wonder and wisdom they could show us how it is done. Instead of constantly giving hell to people who actually have the job.

I know I am getting tired of the constant bitching myself. Amazing as it might seem to certain bloggers and pundits it is just possible that there is more going on here than they know about.

Fred:

The idea that Iran is going to get nukes in a couple of days is not realistic.

This cease fire does not in anyway preclude the ability of the west to stop Iran getting nukes. Because if and when that happens it will not be done by Israel destroying Lebanese villages and chasing a thousand terrorists all over southern Lebanon.

In fact it could be argued that the US will have a better chance of gaining support in confronting Iran and its nuke program if Israel is not fighting an aggressive campaign against a neighbor. One thing that can keep the Arab states from supporting the US getting rid of Persian nukes, is hatred of Israel. I remember the US pressuring Israel to not retaliate when Saddam through scuds at them during the Gulf War and the invasion. If they had other regional powers might have joined Saddam in the fight.

Fred I should have added that the only way Iran will get a nuke that quick is through North Korea and if that happens, well that just makes the bombing campaign that much more likely.

The only reason the Israelis acceded to our request not to get involved during GW I was that we were already hammering Iraq. It made no sense for Israel to bomb a few targets here and there when we were flying hundreds of sorties a day. By the end of the air campaign we were out of targets. We were rebombing targets because our wing commander didn't want the headache of shipping ordinance back to England.

The idea that this is an international catastrophe like Munich is naive. Everyone knows about the history of other UN operations and the reliability of agreements with terrorists.

Strategy page has a good discussion on why Israel did what it did:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles/20060818.aspx

"The Hizbollah attack left Israel with two options. They could either launch a massive invasion, and overrun all of Lebanon and Syria, or do what they did (to encourage the Lebanese and UN to deal with Hizbollah.) The trouble with the second ("small war") option is that it takes longer, and that leaves Hizbollah intact for longer. But the first ("big war") option would leave thousands of Israeli soldiers dead, and involve the occupation, for months, if not years, of Lebanon and Syria."
...
There's always risk, it's a question of which one you estimate will do you the most good. Israel still has the "big war" option available, and Lebanon and Syria know it. If the small war option doesn't work out, Hizbollah, Lebanon, Syria and Iran know what comes next."

Churchill refers to this in history, and implies that things were dark but were not completely unprepared when he stepped in. But it was his execution of that preparation and his leadership to hold the Brits together and to build an effective alliance that made all the difference.
As to Iran, I think they already have nuke weapons. I think we have a history of being wrong about the true state of nuke programs. India and Pak both surprised us, as did the USSR many years ago. There is no reason at all to think we are different now. A reliable countr-indicator about how badly things are oging on this is that carter is out blaming the US and Israel for all the evils going on. He is till full of his loathing and bitterness and wants to make sure no one actually looks at how he helped the Iranian terror state be born by his irresponsible and treachorous policies. Nor how he has helped NK develop nukes. Whatever he sets his hand to is bound to get worse. He has has set his aged delusional hand to this wheel in a strong way. NK has had nukes for many years, and is likely to test one on or about August 22 as a supportive gesture for their Iranian pals. President Bush called it exactly right: Iran and NK are an axis.

I struggle a bit with posting comments here... The typical sequence of events is this.

I sign in with my userid (bigleeh) and password. A comment text area appears. I enter my long-winded comment. I hit preview. My posting appears to be ok -- or at least, it suits me -- so I click post. An error appears saying that login is required and offering a link to "sign in". I hit the back key and copy my comment to the copy buffer, just in case, then hit the forward button to return to the most recent page. I click "sign in" and am taken, not to the sign in page but to the page asking if it should share my email address. Next from there brings me back to the Post a Comment page with no idea if I have posted or not.

So, I write a grouchy note. Exactly like this one in every respect and paste my original comment after it, like this...

While I yeild to no one in my contempt for the UN we find ourselves in an odd situation where the UN may actually have a useful role to play.

It is widely said that the precipitating event of the Israeli-Hezbollah war was the killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by a Hezbollah commando team, but this is not the case. That was the proximate cause but not the underlying trigger. The triggering event was the creditable threat that the Iranian nuclear program would be brought to the UN security council.

The Iranian regime is rather insecure these days -- their domestic popular support is miniscule, especially in the upper echelons of society, and they have few real allies internationally, even in the Arab world. They can read the handwriting on the wall and they know that if the twelfth imam is going to return he had better come soon or he will find nobody left to put out the welcome mat. Finding themselves too much the subject of uncomfortable scrutiny they very much needed a distraction. The timing of the Hezbollah attack, days after the decision to go to the security council with Iran's nuclear program strongly suggests that the real purpose of the conflict was to distract the international community, and the Arab world, from the problem of Iran.

There are many who see the ceasefire as an instance of Chamberlainean appeasement. But I don't. Appeasement is when you give your opponent something that he wants in hope that he will be satisfied and leave you in peace. Iran wants a messy, protracted Arab-Israeli war. I don't think we should give it to them -- or at least, we shouldn't let them pick the time, the place and the players.

This story from Commentary Magazine provides an excellent perspective on Iran.

The only improvement for the UK in that year was the increase in their airforce. Why increase the airforce? To ensure that their navy would be able to guard the channel. Why guard the channel? To prevent an invasion from the much stronger German ground army.

But Checkloslovalkia had a large army in place to tie down the German army. They had mountainous terrain to fight a defensive battle in. It isn't clear that the battle of Britain would have been any earlier than it did arise. The German armies first big fight would have been an assault against prepared defenses in mountainous terrain, rather than a "blitz krieg" across an open Poland. It is not clear that Hitler's regime would have survived if faced with either backing down in '38 or a military campaign that didn't produce quick victories.

I think that Gaza is closer to the sudetenland issue. If we give them this, which they have some arguable right to, it will lead to peace in our time. When it doesn't lead to peace, then the choice is to recognize war is coming and move accordingly.

What were Churchill's words? "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

re. Stalin - so the Brits hoped the Soviets would do their dirty work? I'm not sure I buy that. Didn't the Soviets make a deal with Hitler to split Poland in half? So who is trying the get who to do the dirty work?

We throw stones at Chamberlain, but sheesh. No one except Hitler was anxious to re-fight WWI. I think Hitler counted on this, ultimately a little too much.

NK and Iran are counting on the U.S. being willing to re-start the cold war - i.e. let them have their bombs but practice containment. The Soviets ultimately lost the containment game, but maybe the axis of evil can win it.

But it is a fairly foolish ploy.

Terrye, I don't know where you got the idea that I think Iran is going to get nukes in a couple of days. Precisely BECAUSE I think their earliest possibility of going nuclear is months if not years away do I think it is BETTER for the war with Hezbollah to have been fought NOW even if the Israelis did a half-assed job of it. Hezbollah's ability to act as a deterrent against an Israeli or US preemptive strike against Iran's nukes is now gone because no amount of frantic rearming under heightened US and Israeli scrutiny can make them a hesitation-inducing threat before such time as a strike against Iran is likely to become necessary.

Fred:

My mistake. Since you seemed to think that Israel had to fight the big war right now... before Iran could get nukes, I made the mistake of thinking you felt that Iran was going to get nukes very soon. Anyway, I don't see what difference this upcoming war with Iranian nukes makes in regards to an invasion of Lebanon today. It will not be Hizbellah launching nuclear missiles, it will be Iran.

Terrye, you are missing the point that Hezbollah was SUPPOSED to be a deterrent to an Israeli or American attack on Iran's nukes. "Don't you DARE go after our nuke program or Hezbollah will rain rockets on northern Israel!" Well, the big, bad Hezbollah rain of rockets attack was launched too soon and turned out to be not bad enough that American leaders or future Israeli leaders need to factor it into their decision-making. Worse, it is going to take an enormous effort in rearming just to get Hezbollah back to the level of military ineffectiveness they held BEFORE the war. No matter how piss-poor a job Israel did in this war, Hezbollah has been exposed as a paper tiger that can be safely discounted in the launching of any future attacks to prevent Iran from going nuclear. THAT is a clear victory even if Israel didn't beat Hezbollah as badly as they should have.

If in fact the Munich Agreement meant that the war, when it came, was actually fought on terms more favorable to the RAF than the Luftwaffe, and if you're correct that Munich is analogous to the current ceasefire agreement, then....

Then it is like the old Russian story about tossing someone out the back of a sleigh to keep the Wolves occupied.

The result of this type of diplomacy, MIGHT indeed have put Britain in a more favourable position, but not the Czechs, in like manner the US may reap tactical benifits at the expense of the Israelis.

Your point is?

Fred:

I am not missing the point. Look at Lebanon, look at Israel, which one of them is in need of a handout right now? Israel turned Lebanon into a pile of rubble. And Israel has been living with Hezbellah in Lebanon for decades. Right now Hezbellah is back from the border,that was what Israel wanted.

Dan Kauffman:

Your point is?

That analogies are not arguments: they can only illuminate, not persuade.

Dafydd

The point is well made that no one knows the "might have beens" except God.

Still. On general principles, are bullies inclined to modify their behavior if someone punches back, or are they more likely to stop if the victim simply stands there and takes it?

It depends on the bully.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)