OPINION:
A version of this story appeared in the On Background newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive On Background delivered directly to your inbox each Friday.
Even those little versed in history tend to have heard of Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister.
They know him to be the individual who met with “Herr” Hitler in Munich in the early fall of 1938 in order to ensure peace on the European continent in the face of German militarism and threats against its neighbors. They know that Chamberlain’s efforts to appease Hitler’s insatiable appetite for conquest, which Chamberlain characterized as the achievement of “peace in our time,” failed miserably.
Chamberlain is remembered as the quintessential fool, a well-intentioned, Chaplinesque bumbler. He seems to have believed that if words were elegantly written on a piece of paper and labeled a “treaty,” as between gentlemen, they would be respected by all parties. He also seems to have mistakenly believed that Hitler was a gentleman in the mold of British gentlemen.
As a consequence, Chamberlain has gone down in history as naive and foolish. His distinguished appearance only served to further ridicule his performance at Munich in those months before the beginning of World War II.
For all of his terrible misjudgment of Hitler’s true intentions and the awful consequences of this misjudgment, Chamberlain’s saving grace is that he did not make that mistake again.
In September 1939, Hitler’s troops invaded Poland, shattering the false hopes generated by the treaty signed by the British prime minister in Munich less than a year before. Even though, in response, France and Britain had declared war on Germany more than nine months earlier, Hitler bided his time as he consolidated his hold on Poland and conquered Denmark and Norway.
During this period, which would last until May 10, 1940, Hitler repeatedly hinted that he was prepared to renew the negotiations that had taken place in Munich. Such negotiations, he promised, would avoid a major conflagration.
This time, Chamberlain, the naive, confrontation-averse professional politician, was not taken in. He was not prepared to negotiate again with Germany’s leader or his representatives. Having been had by Hitler once, he would not deal further with someone who would not keep his word.
Thus, the individual who has come down through history as the ultimate appeaser was not prepared to engage a second time on a course of appeasement. He had learned his lesson. He would not repeat the experience.
Unable to confront the war which he had so ignominiously failed to avert, Chamberlain relinquished control of the British government, and it was taken over by Winston Churchill. Churchill was diametrically different from his predecessor. He was not one to be taken in by the promises of a warmongering bully.
Being a good judge of character and unconstrained by gentlemanly behavior, Churchill prepared for war and tried his best to prepare his people for the enormous sacrifices that he knew would be required and which ultimately were amply paid by the British people — in large part as a result of Chamberlain’s appeasement policy.
What lessons can we draw from Chamberlain’s experience in the art of appeasement? There is, of course, the evident error of reliance on the policy of appeasement itself when confronting aggressive ideologues and would-be conquerors. There is also an important reminder that signed agreements or tacit agreements, no matter how well-crafted, are worth only as much as the goodwill of the parties to the agreements.
But there is one other lesson, which is perhaps the most important. Having ascertained the perfidy of a party, it is wise not to repeat the attempt to reach an agreement with that party. The adage “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” seems apt here.
Perhaps, as he considers the consequences of his desire to appease the Iranian mullahs, who openly threaten the United States, who overtly and unashamedly continue to threaten the very existence of Israel, promoting terrorism and violence throughout their region and the world, President Biden would do well to think of Neville Chamberlain and to draw the appropriate lessons. Chamberlain foolishly engaged with Hitler and has been reviled for that engagement ever since. But at least he did not repeat the error.
The Biden-Harris administration has until now seemed intent on repeating the errors of the Obama-Biden administration, which believed that it could appease the Iranian mullahs and sought to do so repeatedly. President Biden has tried to revive the failed nuclear agreement with Iran. He has loosened sanctions against Iran. He has negotiated ransom for the release of hostages. Even he must now see that the results to date have been devastating.
Mr. Biden should now know that he must follow a different course, that he needs to demonstrate unbending strength and maybe even military force in confronting Iran. He must unflinchingly support a beleaguered Israel, not just with words but with actions, and he must unhesitatingly defend American interests around the world.
If he fails to do so, history will assuredly and justifiably judge him harshly. If he fails to do so, he will likely end up being compared very unfavorably to history’s most notorious appeaser, Neville Chamberlain.
• Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington office of a national law firm. His book, “Lobbying for Equality: Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights During the French Revolution,” was published by HUC Press last year.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.