Rarely has history afforded subsequent generations with as clear a guide to nip a mortal threat to its existence in the bud as the one that currently challenges the United States today.
The 1930s were a stark reminder of the failure of Europe, specifically Britain and France, to meet and defeat in time the Nazi design of Germany’s mastery of all Europe, or indeed the world. Today it is Iran that threatens world peace with its clamor of “Satanism” and its drive toward acquiring nuclear weapons. With these types of regimes, merely threatening military action is rarely enough.
US President Donald Trump has given Iran an ultimatum of days to agree to a nuclear deal or “bad things will happen.” He can look at the historical precedent of England in the late 1930s for guidance as to how the choices made during these unprecedented days may be looked back upon.
Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s prime minister from 1937-40, took Hitler at his word that he “merely” wanted to restore Germany’s unity, which had been torn apart by the Treaty of Versailles that concluded World War I.
Chamberlain spent much of his career as prime minister intent on persuading Hitler that the Allies, particularly England and France, were resolved on satisfying his design to restore Germany to its territorial status before World War I. Chamberlain believed that Hitler’s demands could be met with each concession that England and France could make.
Hitler’s appetite was insatiable, however, since his aim was an offensive that had no bounds. His first demand was the submission of Austrian attachment to the German nation. This was followed by the dictate that the German section of Czechoslovakia be restored to the “unity” of Germany, then demands on Poland for pre-war territory that had belonged to Berlin.
In each case, an argument was made that “this step” would be the sum total of German demands on Europe. Chamberlain, following the Munich agreement of 1938 that gave Germany the Sudetenland, went so far as to wave the agreement paper and declare “I believe it is peace for our time.”
Hitler’s ambition was the destruction of European unity
It became obvious to the Allies, however, that Hitler’s ambition was the destruction of European unity and he would not be dissuaded by the map the Allies drew up. Hitler’s scheme minimally was the dismantling of Europe and its integration with Nazi Germany; his ultimate goal was global supremacy. Had he managed to secure atomic weapons, the world would likely look very different today.
But there was one keen-sighted member of the British Parliament who looked at more than the geography and how this would endanger the unity of Europe, and that was Winston Churchill, who cited the annual German budget for the rearmament of its armed forces – land, air and naval. This, he said, revealed that Hitler’s ambition was much more than the peaceful redrawing of the European map; it was clear that the German leader had war in mind, war in planning, and war in execution.
As Churchill pointed out, there was no need for Germany to rearm its armed forces year by year after 1935 and to expand and rearm in particular the German Air Force. Hitler did not need military expansion if all this was merely to encourage Europe to agree to the restoration of the former German territory there.
It was at this point, in 1939, that Chamberlain finally realized that Hitler’s avaricious demands could never be satisfied. Within a short while, he resigned and was replaced by Churchill as prime minister. The confrontation with Hitler, revealed in all its scope, was now absolute.
This lesson from Europe gives us guidance for the current situation. Iran, by all indications, has been rearming itself since its war with Iraq ended in 1988, with the intent of threatening not only Europe, but the entire West, in particular the United States and Israel. For almost half a century, Iranian discourse has defined the United States as representing the “Great Satan” and Israel the “Little Satan,” both of which they declare are menaces to the fabric of society.
The Islamic Republic charges that America and Israel are corrupting the morals of humanity. Even if this was true, who appointed Iran as the arbiter of the world’s religion to threaten humanity with destruction? Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Tehran has explicitly called for Israel’s obliteration. Whereas Hitler’s rhetoric started in an almost subtle way with calls for return of land lost during World War I, Iran’s intent has been clearly stated for over four decades – to eradicate Western civilization.
What will guide Trump, and how will he act? If the current situation with Iran is a lesson to be learned from historical precedent, then the president has a fateful example in an earlier generation. Will he placate as the appeasers of the 1930s did, thinking that it would lead to peace, or will he examine the facts and respond with Churchillian resolve and act as a forceful leader?
Will Trump realize, as Churchill said, that an “appeaser feeds a crocodile, hoping he eats him last”?
The writer is the James G. McDonald professor of American history, emeritus, and former chairman of the Department of American Studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.