Who's Neville Chamberlain?

I was talking about the levels-of-analysis problem in international relations yesterday, in my World Politics course. I mentioned that at the level of the individual decision-maker, political leaders are often influenced by historical analogies. And then I gave the example of policymakers often basing foreign policy decisions on the "need to avoid another Munich." I then asked my students if they were familiar with the Munich Crisis and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. I've got 45 students in the class and not one raised their hand. It's not unusual, that kind of historical illiteracy. I understand it and I take it in stride (students are in college to learn).

Still, I reflected on this. It was weird. Seems to me that understanding the significance of Munich, and its consequence in turning the term "appeasement" into a harsh opprobrium, is something students should know before the go to college. Or, more broadly, "Munich" is just one more essential lattice step in the complex construction of cultural literacy.



Years ago, just starting out at college, I read parts of Telford Taylor's, "Munich: The Price of Peace." I checked it out at the Orange Coast College library, although I wish I had my own copy. What a classic.

In any case, here's an article on the appeasement analogy, from Fredrik Logevall and Kenneth Osgood, at World Affairs, "The Ghost of Munich: America's Appeasement Complex":

Although the United States was not party to the 1938 agreement, Americans have nonetheless fixated on it for seven decades. “Munich” and “appeasement” have been among the dirtiest words in American politics, synonymous with naïveté and weakness, and signifying a craven willingness to barter away the nation’s vital interests for empty promises. American presidents from Harry Truman on have feared the dreaded “Munich analogy”—and projected an air of uncompromising toughness lest they be branded as appeasers by their political opponents...