Is Putin looking for Hitler in Syria?

One of the most interesting figures of political history is Arthur Neville Chamberlain. The time he spent at the Treasury, in an effort to rescue the British economy, which had reached the point of collapse after the Crisis of 1929, opened the door for him to become Britain's Prime Minister after Sir Baldwin.

The years when Chamberlain was Prime Minister were a period when Germany under Hitler's leadership challenged the international system formed after the First World War and demanded radical revisions. Chamberlain thought that meeting some of the demands of Hitler, who wanted to be rid of the armament limits and political restrictions envisaged by the Treaty of Versailles signed with Germany after the First World War, could "appease" Germany.

In the end, by 1938 there was no longer a problem like Versailles for Hitler. When he began to implement the second phase of his policy, that is, when he put the "Living Space" policy into effect, Chamberlain still kept his hope that the appeasement policy could succeed. When Hitler invaded Austria with the aim of bringing the German elements together, not only Chamberlain but also France, which was then wrestling with a government crisis, and the USSR were unable to put forward a clear reaction.

This inaction brought Hitler's move on Czechoslovakia. Since 3.5 million Germans lived in Czechoslovakia's Sudeten region, Hitler considered it legitimate to claim rights in this region even though it was the territory of another country.

After it was decided, through Chamberlain's mediation and with the approval of France, Britain and Italy as well, that the Sudetenland would be given to Germany in instalments, Chamberlain had returned to London with the pride of having prevented war. If you type "Chamberlain returns from Germany with the Munich Agreement" into the video-sharing site YouTube, you can see Chamberlain's enthusiastic reception and the proud expression of the British Prime Minister at the door of the plane.

When Hitler fully occupied Czechoslovakia in 1939, Chamberlain was only just beginning to realise the mistake he had made. When, following the signing of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, Hitler this time set about invading Poland, using the Germans living in Poland as a pretext, Chamberlain's appeasement policy collapsed and the fuse of the Second World War was lit. Although his supporters argue that Chamberlain bought Britain time for war, he has always been remembered in political history in the following years as a negative figure because he failed to assess German revisionism correctly. That Churchill, who replaced him, promised the people of the United Kingdom "blood and tears" in his first radio speech may give an idea of what Chamberlain's political legacy is.

The most functional argument Germany used as the basis of its revisionist policies was the protection of the German elements in the countries it occupied. This approach was later also supported by the argument of protecting the Reich's national interests, and the two began to be used synonymously.

In the repetition of this tragedy of history, as Hegel also foresaw, we have before us historical figures who assume the roles of Chamberlain and Hitler. In our earlier articles we dwelt on President Obama's being compared in the US to Chamberlain and Gorbachev. Indeed, the Obama administration thought it could quell the Russian bear's demand for "honey" by meeting a number of Russia's unjust revision demands, but when Putin began to invade Syria, it experienced a disappointment similar to the one created by Hitler's invading Czechoslovakia by not abiding by the Munich arrangements.

Hitler's version in this phase of history is Putin. This analogy had earlier also been drawn by former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Prince Charles. Looking at the arguments Russia used in its intervention in Georgia, its intervention in Ukraine and its invasion of Syria, one can see that they are exactly the same as Hitler's arguments.

When it was reported that Prince Charles had compared him to Hitler, Putin said this comparison was unacceptable. Had Hitler too, in 1938, been told the meanings his name would carry after the Second World War, he would most probably have found those meanings unacceptable as well. Whether Putin accepts it or not, he reminds everyone more and more of Hitler today.