Neville Chamberlain, Architect of Appeasement: Hitler's Dupe or Nemesis?

...Chamberlain's inner circle backed his ill-judged 'Z Plan' – a flight to Germany to make a face-to-face appeal to, of all things, Hitler's vanity ... 'The right course", the Prime Minister argued, 'was to open by an appeal to Herr Hitler on the grounds that he had a great chance of obtaining fame for himself by making peace in Europe ..." In truth, this was the kind of fame Chamberlain coveted for himself. 

The War of the World, Niall Ferguson, 2006.

It is a matter on which there is very general agreement that, in the period leading up to Britain's declaration of war on Nazi Germany, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain pursued a disastrous course. 

Chamberlain's catastrophic errors, so it is held, were threefold. 

First, he induced the Government of Czechoslovakia to cede the ethnically German Sudetenland to Hitler's Reich. By this action he claimed to have secured peace by appeasing Germany resentment of the harsh terms of the post-World War I Versailles Treaty. But as a consequence of this transfer of territory, Czechoslovakia sacrificed the border fortifications it had constructed in response to the rising threat of Nazi Germany. It could not, therefore, have surprised many that within six months, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and annexed much of that country's remaining territory.

Second, Chamberlain declined to create the million-man ground force that some, including Winston Churchill, deemed necessary to contain Germany. Instead, Chamberlain, who served as both Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, applied the bulk of Britain's defense expenditure to the Air Force and Navy. Thus:

In October 1936, ... Chamberlain had told the Cabinet, "Air power was the most formidable deterrent to war that could be devised".[5] ...The importance of the RAF to Chamberlain can be seen by noting that its budget rose from £16.78 million in 1933 to £105.702 million in 1939, surpassing the British Army's budget in 1937 and the Royal Navy's in 1938.[6] (Source).

Third, following Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain gave Poland an unconditional guarantee of British armed assistance should Hitler resort to force in pursuit of access to, and control of, the formerly German city of Danzig. Thus, when Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, Britain was morally committed to war with Germany on behalf of Poland, a country of essentially zero geopolitical significance to Britain, and to which Britain had no means of providing military aid. 

For these reasons, Chamberlain's diplomatic course has been widely viewed as not only foolish but catastrophic. Yet there is a striking contradiction between that judgement of Chamberlain's response to the rise of Nazi Germany, and the actual consequences of his actions. 

And yes, by enabling Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain's policy of appeasement substantially enhanced Germany's military might by providing access to Czechoslovakia's substantial inventory of armaments, including the Czechoslovakia-developed Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) tank, which was superior to tanks then in possession of the German army. Furthermore, occupation of Czechoslovakia gave Germany control of that country's substantial armaments industry.

However, a fact this critique fails to address is that, prior to the outbreak of World War II, there was not one, but two brutal expansionist tyrannies in Europe, both arming at breakneck speed. Of these, one was headed by the megalomaniac Adolph Hitler, the other by the cold-blooded mass murderer, Joseph Stalin, who was committed to the goal of world Communist revolution. Not only was Stalin  providing material aid to the ultimately triumphant Communist revolutionaries in China, he was also providing financial aid to Communists in Europe, including crypto-communist members of Britain's Labour Party, British trades union leaders, and Britain's Communist newspaper, the Daily Worker. 

What then to do? Destroy German power through a preemptive war in a joint operation with France? But that would have left the way clear for Soviet expansion to the West? Or was it better to allow and even assist Germany in matching the Soviet military build-up, the latter achieved at the cost of millions of lives lost due to starvation as grain was exported to pay for strategically vital Western technology. Such imports included 16 oil refineries provided by America's Koch Industries; automotive production lines provided by Henry Ford, which were later converted to the production of tanks; hydro-electric turbines and generators supplied by General Electric; plus steel mills, tank designs and much else sold to the USSR by American, German and British companies.

Whatever may have been in Neville Chamberlain's mind when he sought to appease Hitler's appetite for territorial expansion, the consequences are indisputable. His actions facilitated Germany's breakneck rearmament, thereby creating a huge impediment to Soviet ambitions for territorial aggrandizement. 

That Chamberlain failed to anticipated this outcome seems hardly credible. There were abundant reasons to expect that, under Hitler's leadership, Germany would not merely block Soviet Westward expansion, but would invade the Soviet Union to fulfill Hitler's long-known objective of gaining living space (Lebensraum) for the German people in Eastern Europe. Confirming that this remained the plan, when Hitler's soon-to-be foreign Minister, Joachim Ribbentrop, visited England in 1937 and met with Winston Churchill at the German embassy, he showed Churchill a map indicating the swath of Russian territory Germany intended to seize. The vast extent of this planned land grab is evident from Churchill's reaction: "We don't like the Russians, but we don't hate them that much."

Thus, to Chamberlain, the alternative to confronting Hitler, would have been obvious: point Germany to the East and let the totalitarian bastards fight one another to exhaustion. Moreover, to assuage Hitler's fear of a two-front war, resist pressure for a build-up of British ground forces. As for Chamberlain's declaration of war on Germany, it was essentially meaningless, resulting, for more than a year, in nothing more than the deployment of heavy bombers to drop leaflets over Germany. 

But whatever its objective, Chamberlain's policy did much to facilitate war between the tyrannies Russia and Germany, tyrannies that threatened the Western world. Moreover, as that stupendous clash evolved, its outcome was materially influenced by Western intervention. At the outset, as German forces advanced deep into Russian territory, killing and capturing literally millions of Russian troops, both Britain and the United States shipped vast quantities of military equipment to the Russians. But then, as Russia turned the tide and advanced into Western Europe, the Anglo-American invasion force was there, in Berlin, to block Russia's further Westward advance. Four months later, reminding Stalin of what he was up against, the US exploded an atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. 

Though despised by all and sundry, it may thus be said that Neville Chamberlain was, more than any other statesman, the architect of victory by the free nations of the West against the threat of totalitarian domination, Nazi or Soviet.

Killing the Sovereign, Democratic, Nation State

What is a sovereign nation state?

It is a human community that asserts its exclusive right to the occupation of  a territory — the assertion of exclusive occupational right meaning the beating off of interlopers, whether they be armed invaders or economic immigrants. A sovereign nation state thus reserves the benefits of territorial occupation, however those benefits may be distributed within the community, to the indigenous population.

However, in today's politically correct Western world, such territoriality is treated as hateful xenophobia, bigotry and racism. Yet the defense of territory is normal and adaptive behavior not only in mankind, but throughout the animal kingdom. It is the means whereby individuals either alone, or in concert with their kith and kin, act to secure  resources for survival and reproduction and thereby maximize their chance of being represented in succeeding generations.

Because the sovereign nation state excludes settlement by outsiders, its people exist in a state of reproductive and cultural isolation from the rest of humanity. Such isolation is never total, but is sufficient to result in genetic differentiation among nations resulting from founder effects, genetic drift, and local selective pressures. Isolation leads also to linguistic and cultural differentiation. A sovereign nation is a thus a population with a unique racial and cultural profile. It is, in other words, the basis of the beautiful racial diversity of the human species.

A democratic, sovereign, nation state is a sovereign nation state where the government depends in some measure upon the approval of the populace at large, which is to say a government that is perceived to rule in the interests of the people. Democracy in its ideal form, which is to say a government serving solely the interests of the people as a whole, is a fiction, since those who rule will invariably grant privileges upon themselves, and moreover, those most advantaged in society will seek to secure their advantage by using their advantaged position to skew the political process in their favor by means of bribery, blackmail or murder. Nevertheless, since the emergence of mass democracy in the 19th Century, more or less popularly elected governments throughout the West have established a vast range of public services designed to bring the benefits of education, healthcare, police protection, and the higher culture to the masses.

Today, however, the advantage of the most advantaged over the mass of humanity has never been greater, this being so not only because wealth has never before been concentrated in such vast amounts, but also because technology, not only in the physical sciences but also in the social sciences, makes elite control of the masses easier than ever before. Naturally, therefore, the most advantaged, which is to say the plutocratic elite or Money Power, seeks to wrest control entirely from the hands of the people and establish absolute ownership of the resources of the World. To this end, the sovereign, democratic, nation state, as an impediment to profit maximization (and mass impoverishment), must be eliminated, this objective being approached in two ways. First, the nation state as a racial and cultural entity is to be destroyed. Second, powers of government are to be transferred from national goverments to global institutions such as the UN, the World Bank, the WTO, NATO, etc., all of which will be controlled by the Money Power via its existing hold over national governments and more directly by bribery, blackmail or murder.

The destruction of the nation state is a work in progress, the chief instrument of which is mass migration, particularly from the essentially undemocratic Third World to the most powerful democratic nation states, which are those of the West. In this way, the solidarity of the people is destroyed. In addition, reproductive failure of the indigenous population is induced through sex "education" and mass entertainment that serves to promote the vice and perversion that Thomas Malthus recognized as an alternative to starvation as a way of limiting population. As a consequence of such methods, the fertility of all Western nations has already been reduced far below the replacement rate, which means that, as a consequence of immigration, the people of the Western nations will soon be replaced as the majority in their own homeland by people from elsewhere. In London, and other major urban centers, the English are already a minority in their own home. This is a high-tech, stealth genocide, conducted in the name of liberal anti-racist values: no blood, no gas chambers, just psychological manipulation leading to self-hatred, reproductive failure, and ultimate self-annihilation.

By destroying the homogeneity of the nation state through mass immigration, the notion that the government of, say, France or Germany or the United States should operate in the interests only of the French, or the Germans, or the Americans is undermined. People from outside the territorial limits of the nation state, it is asserted, have as much right to enjoy the accumulated cultural and physical capital of a country such as Britain, as the descendants of those by whose sweat and ingenuity the wealth of the nation was created. This globalizing tendency gains further momentum from the immigrant communities, which, loyal to the nationalist sentiments of their ancestors, lobby for their own cultural and racial interests, including those of their co-nationalists abroad, thereby further destroying the sovereignty of the invaded community.

To combat the resentment of the indigenous community so disrupted, the elite impose a system of speech regulation or political correctness, first imposed in Russia by V.I. Lenin, and culminating there in the Stalin terror that killed millions, for nothing worse than a muttered word of dissent.

In the West, political correctness serves chiefly as a shield for the Treason Party and their agents, the Blair's, the Clinton's the JEB's and Rubio's, the latter intent on vast personal enrichment through service to the Money Power. Thus, to speak in opposition to mass immigration is defined as racism, and racism is defined as a crime. The process of thought control through political correctness has infinite ramifications, as illustrated by the deployment of police to intimidate a school pupil who used a school computer to check the immigration policy of a legal, democratic political party supported by a millions of citizens. And here's a quote on the subject of immigration from that party's election manifesto:

Britain is a compassionate, caring nation. In the course of our island’s history we have welcomed millions of people to these shores and we are proud of that record. UKIP does not have a problem with migration. What we do have a problem with is the uncontrolled, politically-driven immigration that has been promoted and sustained by Labour and the Conservatives.  

Wow! Is that racist or what?

Britain is clearly finished as a Sovereign, democratic, nation state. Well done Tony Blair and the Tory Party.

Related: 

Patrick Buchanan: Will the Oligarchs Kill Trump?

Philip Giraldi: Hating on Trump

CanSpeccy: Will Donald Trump Trump the New World Order?

CanSpeccy: Universal Genocide and the New World Order

CanSpeccy: The Financial Times: The Ethnic Cleansing of the English From Their Own Capital City "Deserves Attention" LOL