Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rubin Reports

Last week, President Barack Obama proposed a policy of allying with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, and al-Qaeda against Syria.

What is amazing about Islamism parallels the debate on appeasing–rather than opposing–Hitler based on newly released British intelligence documents.

One of the themes then, as now, was to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, no matter what a violent and threatening past he had. Ideology is ignored.

The day after Hitler took power, on January 30, 1933, the Times of London (a newspaper like the New York Times) editorialized:

“That Herr Hitler who leads the strongest party in the Reichstag and obtained almost one third of the votes at the last election should be given the chance at showing that he is something more than an orator and an agitator was always desirable.”

About the same day, Guy Liddell of British intelligence, responsible for Germany, wrote in a secret report that while he knew about antisemitic persecution in the new Germany, there had indeed been too much Jewish political power there. Liddell was strongly anti-Nazi and not personally antisemitic, but he was a supporter of the appeasement bloc in the British government.

As opposed to the British international intelligence (MI-6, the equivalent of the CIA), British counterintelligence (MI-5, the equivalent of the FBI), wanted a strong stand against Germany:

“No reliance can be placed on any treaty which has been signed, or may be signed, by Germany or Italy….”  It took what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf seriously. He intended to conquer Europe.

One reason MI-6 knew this, was that it listened to anti-Nazi German agents. The main hero was Wolfgang zu Putlitz, a diplomat at the German embassy in Britain and later Holland. Along with John “Klop” Ustinov (father of the actor Peter Ustinov), the two men had no illusions about the Nazis.  In fact, they nagged British intelligence all the time about the need to get tough.

So did the second main agent, General Baron von Schweppenburg, the German military attaché in London. In the summer of 1938, he told Putlitz, “We simply must convince the British to stand firm, if they give in to Hitler now there will be no holding him.”

But although the British government was repeatedly warned, the prime minister and government knew better. There were two factions–which is more than the U.S. government has now regarding radical Islamism.

One of the factors in British policy was a hope that if the Germans were flattered and treated properly, they would not be aggressive. Another reason was that the British felt guilty that they had formerly treated Germany so badly after World War One (Germanophobia?).

An MI-6 document of the time said:

“There have been times that he [Putlitz] has said that the English are hopeless and it is no use trying to help them to withstand the Nazi methods which they so obviously fail to understand…”

It was these factors that convinced Hitler, in the words of a contemporary MI-6 report, that Britain was “decadent” and lacked “the will and power to defend” itself.

Hitler himself was directly quoted as saying:

“It is astounding how easy the democracies make it for us to reach our goal.”

He was also directly quoted as calling Chamberlain an “arsehole.” ( I wonder what Putin said about Obama.)

The prime minister’s own press aide, George Steward, told the German press attaché in 1939–no kidding–that Britain “would give everything Germany asked for the next year.”

Reminds me of Obama hinting that in his off-microphone remark.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, according to a senior British diplomat, “was completely bewitched by his German friends and reported myopically that ‘the German compass was pointed toward peace.’”

With Obama’s friends telling him that the Islamists’ compass was pointed toward peace, guess that proves the price of having an incompetent leader.

As late as February 19, 1940, Chamberlain wrote, “All the information I seem to get points to peace.”

In fact, we know this is not true. Even his former allies were jumping ship, horrified by what they had done and knowing war had become inevitable.

Robert Vansitart, a foreign policymaker who was one of the leaders of the tough position, along with Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, wrote:

“Nothing seems any good. It seems as if nobody will listen to or believe me.”

I’ve had days like that myself. But then the United States has never allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, or in Syria, al-Qaida.

Oh, and at least a lot of courageous people in the establishment denounced the policy and even risked their careers to do it.

All quotes from Christopher Andrew, The Defense of the Realm, The Authorized History of MI5, (London: Penguin Books, 2010).

Putlitz and Ustinov were given safe haven in Britain; General Baron von Schweppenburg fought in the war for Germany and later helped rebuild the West German army.

To quote another expert dictator and predecessor of Putin: ”Don’t scare anyone. But once you gain ground then move ahead. You must utilize as many people as possible who may be of use to us.” –Joseph Stalin to future Communist dictator of Hungary Rakosi, December 5, 1944.  Quoted in Victor Sebestyen, Twelve Days: Revolution (1956), p. 24.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (3)
All Comments   (3)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
inhumilable is correct noting the differnce betweeen Obama and Chaimberlain. Chaimberlain and his gov. warned Hitler of war should Hitler invade Poland. Once the invasion took place in 1939, Chaimberlain declared war! (Please look up in the internet Chaimberlain's speech on the matter in 1939). I will return to Chaimberlain vs Obama below. There is more ominous tragedy invovled in Chaimberlain's giving Hitler a chance to make "peace for our time". Chaimberlain ruined the planned removal of Hitler by a Gen. Ludwig Beck and some other militaries and gov. officials in 1938.

Gen. Beck was Chief of Staff of the German army until 1938. He was no democrat (someone like Gen. Sisi of Egypt) and was, like so many German generals, in accord with Hitler's tirades again the Treaty of Versaille, for awhile ..." (Hitler himself considered Beck to be a holdover of the Kaiser's Reichwehr and not a true Wehrmacht general.) Beck became disillusioned with Hitler's totalitarian leadership. But, on a purely military level, Beck knew that Czechlosovakia had a strong defensive position (ca. 30 divisions) located, alas, in the area of the Sudenten-Germans (i.e., the parts that Chaimberlain gave to Hitler and thereby rendered Czech resistance inpossible when Hitler decided to take over all of the country). [By the way if you watch any documentaries or films such as "The Soldier Ryan" you will see three pronged iron obstacles on Ohama beach placed by the German defense to block tank landings. Said objects were previously part of the Czech defense against an invation by Hitler.] To defeat the Czechs in 1938, Beck reasoned, it would be necessary to use the hugh bulk of the Wehrmacht and thereby leaving Germany open to any French and/or British invasion, all of which would have led to a swift German defeat. Gen. Beck saw Hitler effectively as a warmonger, and not so intelligent in military matters.

Gen. Beck and some other military and high ranking civilian figures concluded that Hitler must be removed, by killing if necessary, and indeed, a regime change was necessary. (He would have been the head of the new regime.) One must keep in mind that the general German population (like the British and French population) had not gotten over WW I with its mass slaughter of life and did not want war once again! When Chaimberlain surrendered Czechlosovakia to Herr Hitler in Munich he frustrated Hitler (who wanted the fight >> Hitler's scorn for his opponents) and, most telling, left Hitler still appearing as a "peace-time" Chancellor. That status simply broke the back of Beck's plot to remove Hitler!!! No support would have been forthcoming from a war-weary population. --In contrast to Gen. Beck, one can say that Gen. Sisi of Egypt, no democrat, removed with success the Egyptian equivalent to Hitler, Morsi. And Obama opposed said removal.

Gen. Beck tried to assinate Hitler twice in 1943 and was involved in the July 20, 1944 attempted liquidation of Hitler by Col. Stauffenberg. Indeed, evidence sugests that Gen. Rommel would have joined a successful coup if Beck then took power. The plot failed, Beck was allowed to do the German miliarty thing, i.e., he shot himself--alas not with full success and was given a coup de grâce by a colleague.

Back to Obama: Repeatedly in comments to Rubin's articles I have uttered my opinion that Obama is, well, not Chaimberlain. Just last night I saw on German tv a documentary on WW I with 8 miilion dead soliders (and posion gasings a la Assad--not like Hitler, who himself was a non-lethal victim of gasing, and who gased helpless people in camps of murder and not on the battlefield.) I can have sympathy with Chaimberlain as the European populations did NOT want another war. Chaimberlain for various reasons (some of which Rubin has just reported) rolled the dice in favor of "peace for out time" and LOST!!! Chaimberlain showed no signs of being pro-Nazi, being a supporter of Hitler within a German context. But, Obama has, as Rubin has repeatedly noted, been (and still is) pro-Islamic of the Brotherhood type. I just cannot accept the thesis that Obama has simply misjudged the Islamism of the Brotherhood, rather see myself forced to conclude that in someway Obama affirms positively Islamism and seeks to further it. This distinguishes Obama from Chaimberlain!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have reached the working assumption that Obama is in actuality much more anti-Israel that he lets on in order to keep the Jewish vote. His treatment of Bibi during his first term made me highly suspicious and his support for the Muslim Brotherhood after Morsi had failed in the eyes of the Egyptian people gave the game away. I think what is telling in Barry's account of the Chamberlain era is how frustrating is was for the people who saw Hitler accurately to watch Chamberlain see hope for peace where there was only war. I agree with you that if Obama had merely misjudged the MB, he would not have continued to support it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Chamberlain shouldn't be compared to Obama. Chamberlain gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt once, on the Sudetenland. After Hitler had conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain's policy changed 180 degrees, to one of principled resistance to further German expansion. Obama's support for the Muslim Brotherhood seems to follow no strategic calculation, it is simply his preference that they succeed.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “Startling Parallels: Obama Appeasement Policy and British Intelligence Files on Hitler”