Will the Munich analogy ever outlive its usefulness? It’s been seventy years since the notorious accord between Chamberlain, Deladier and Hitler, and it’s still reliable. Most people know the reference, and most don’t know enough about historical analogies to apply the first rule of dealing with historical analogies: separate what’s similar from what’s different. Take, for instance, the President’s comments in the Knesset yesterday:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
The analogy doesn’t fit on a number of levels. Negotiating with an entity is not the same as reaching an agreement with it. An agreement, if reached, is not automatically appeasement. And a refusal to negotiate is itself a form of negotiation. So the notion that negotiation equals appeasement is unsustainable.
Of course, the speaker who deploys the analogy rarely means it in any serious way. The purpose is to tar an opponent with the brush of appeasement, and ideally, to get the opponent to protest that so-and-so (in this case primarily Hamas and Iran) does not equal Hitler. Then the fun can really begin.
I’m not interested here in joining the political uproar. I just want to note the durability of the Munich analogy. In my World War II course, I tell my students that it’s the most overworked historical analogy of the 20th century. And as it enters its eighth decade, its potency shows no sign of abating.
9 Comments
In my mind whenever a politician invokes Neville Chamberlain, he’s already lost whatever contest he is in. Of course, these folks aren’t aiming at the likes of me.
Since President Bush is obviously aiming this at the idea of talks with Hamas, I think this clip of Senator McCain saying that we would have to talk to Hamas as the legitimate government of the Palestinian Authority.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/16/john-mccain-was-for-hamas-before-he-was-against-it/
Good point, Professor Grimsley.
I think we need a variant of Godwin’s Law dealing with appeasement.
Beyond that Chamberlain reference, how does the modern mind concretize World War II? It conjures up the image of “Nazi tanks”–looks like I’m in business for a few more years!
–RC
Nothing he says surprises me anymore. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
Did folks all see the Kevin James – Chris Matthews exchange on this? Clearly one does not need to know even the most basic facts of history to wave the Munich analogy around.
video: http://scotchandpolitics.com/2008/5/16/comedy-friday-kevin-james-on-hardball
transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24664512/
Well, at least James does know all you apparently need to know about Chamberlain — that he was an APPEASER. I mean, once you’ve got that fact down pat, any other information would be superfluous, wouldn’t it?
For those interested in more concerning the “Munich Analogy”, I invite you to read an essay I wrote for History News Network, March 3, 2003, and posted on my blog, Clio Muses, at cliomuses.blogspot.com/, November 28, 2007, entitled “Does the Munich Analogy Fit?”
Respectfully,
Robert Cook
There is a related article at Slate.com on “the inexplicable need to inject the Nazis into current political debate whether they belong there or not.”
URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2191698/