Neville Chamberlain - Cowardly man-girl or a man that did what had to be done?

[nobodyknows]

Is that what you got out of what I said?

Don't you know what you said? Answer the question and quit playing hide and seek.

 

[Blintok]

Are you one of those fools who thinks things don't change? Or are you just advocating for a "nuke first, ask questions later" policy?

well more of a....

it looked like he was going to hit me....so i hit him back first

 

[Genx87]

Don't you know what you said? Answer the question and quit playing hide and seek.

This is my exact quote

The German war machine was in no shape to take on the French and British army in 38. The German war machine wasnt ready to take them on in 39 either. Two massive blunders by the allies. The 30's really showed that "talking" things through can easily lead to a worse result than decisive confrontation.

Now if you can tell me how you got from that "Nuke first ask questions later".

 

[nobodyknows]

well more of a....

it looked like he was going to hit me....so i hit him back first

For want of a nail a shoe was lost.

For want of a shoe a horse was lost

For want of a horse, a rider was lost

For want of a rider a battle was lost

For want of a battle a war was lost

so nuke 'em hard and nuke 'em first!!

 

[nobodyknows]

This is my exact quote



Now if you can tell me how you got from that "Nuke first ask questions later".

So hide and seek it is. You have to read all the posts between us and I'm too lazy to go through all that work. Just answer my question, or is it too hard?

 

[Genx87]

So hide and seek it is. You have to read all the posts between us and I'm too lazy to go through all that work. Just answer my question, or is it too hard?

Perhaps bother yourself then ask where you got the idea I advocated a nuke first policy. Then you wont have to play hide and seek.

 

[Craig234]

Germany definitely didn't have the superior army/navy/air fleet that early on. That said, I still have sympathy for Chamberlain's situation. How could anyone have guessed at what Hitler turned out to be?

That's a well considered post. It prevents learning the wrong lesson that leads to all kinds of wrong things the other direction (never talk to your enemies, always use violence as soon as possible!)

We love to praise Churchill for getting this right, but we don't hear so much about Churchill getting to follow his views at Gallipoli in WWI.

It goes back to the these written by of all people Henry Kissinger - that democracies are not well equipped to deal with radicals. They tend to overestimate their reasonabless.

I first read of this, IIRC, in the introduction to Paul Kroguman's The GReat Unraveling, about how Bush was doing the same thing - a radical the country just kept thinking wouldn't do more, he must be reasonable.

 

[nobodyknows]

Perhaps bother yourself then ask where you got the idea I advocated a nuke first policy. Then you wont have to play hide and seek.

I don't have to,

If the question is too hard for you then just say so.

 

[werepossum]

Germany definitely didn't have the superior army/navy/air fleet that early on. That said, I still have sympathy for Chamberlain's situation. How could anyone have guessed at what Hitler turned out to be?

Hitler was telling the German people (and therefore the world) what he intended to do. Chamberlain and many others didn't want to believe him, so they didn't, even though the UK in particular had a very widespread spy network and knew about the preparations for conquest.

 

[Genx87]

I don't have to,

If the question is too hard for you then just say so.

It isnt the question is hard to answer. I want to hear how you came to the conclusion I advocate a Nuke first policy from what I wrote. I suspect at this point an ASSumption got the better of you.

 

[Craig234]

Hitler was telling the German people (and therefore the world) what he intended to do. Chamberlain and many others didn't want to believe him, so they didn't, even though the UK in particular had a very widespread spy network and knew about the preparations for conquest.

Prove where Hitler had annonced his plans to 'conquer the world' or all of Europe at that time to the German people. As for British intelligence, they told Chamberlein Hitler's military was far more powerful.

 

[nobodyknows]

It isnt the question is hard to answer. I want to hear how you came to the conclusion I advocate a Nuke first policy from what I wrote. I suspect at this point an ASSumption got the better of you.

Nothing "got" me. Certainly nothing you can throw at me.

I personally am not the kind of guy who takes any credit for having 20-20 hindvision, but whatever floats your boat. I'm more concerned with having 20-20 foresight myself.

 

[Genx87]

Prove where Hitler had annonced his plans to 'conquer the world' or all of Europe at that time to the German people. As for British intelligence, they told Chamberlein Hitler's military was far more powerful.

He wrote a book.

 

[woolfe9999]

Hitler was telling the German people (and therefore the world) what he intended to do. Chamberlain and many others didn't want to believe him, so they didn't, even though the UK in particular had a very widespread spy network and knew about the preparations for conquest.

Not only what he was saying and what he had written has far back as 1925, but what he had actually done prior 8/1938. That is 1) disobeying Versailles by massive build up of military, 2) militarizing the Rhineland in disregard for Versailles, 3) Anchsluss in Austria. Combine those things with what he had said and written, and anyone who did not understand that appeasing Hitler at that moment in time would lead to further territorial incursions was willfully blind.

- wolf

 

[Genx87]

Nothing "got" me. Certainly nothing you can throw at me.

I personally am not the kind of guy who takes any credit for having 20-20 hindvision, but whatever floats your boat. I'm more concerned with having 20-20 foresight myself.

Then where did you get the idea I want a nuke first ask question later policy?

 

[woolfe9999]

That's a well considered post. It prevents learning the wrong lesson that leads to all kinds of wrong things the other direction (never talk to your enemies, always use violence as soon as possible!)

We love to praise Churchill for getting this right, but we don't hear so much about Churchill getting to follow his views at Gallipoli in WWI.

It goes back to the these written by of all people Henry Kissinger - that democracies are not well equipped to deal with radicals. They tend to overestimate their reasonabless.

I first read of this, IIRC, in the introduction to Paul Kroguman's The GReat Unraveling, about how Bush was doing the same thing - a radical the country just kept thinking wouldn't do more, he must be reasonable.

I don't think we should take the wrong lessons from Chamberlain's appeasement because every situation is different. That, however, is not the same thing as approving of Chamberlain's decisions, either at the time or in hindsight.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

I don't think we should take the wrong lessons from Chamberlain's appeasement because every situation is different. That, however, is not the same thing as approving of Chamberlain's decisions, either at the time or in hindsight.

- wolf

Of course not; I mever said otherwise. Rememeber, Chamberlein had been told that Hitler's military was far stronger than it was. How responsible would have taking on themilitary he through they had have been?

 

[Zebo]

Revisionist history not to mention Chamberlain’s suggestion that Jewish refugees from Hitler might settle in Tanganyika puts all this talk of Chamberlain "doing the right thing" to rest.

 

[Craig234]

He wrote a book.

Who do you think is going to win with quotes from him at the time - you proving he was telling the German people he planned to conquer the world, or your opponent quoting him as after part of Czekoslovakia?

 

[nobodyknows]

Then where did you get the idea I want a nuke first ask question later policy?

I ASKED if you did, but your continual refusal to answer the question and now your attempt to put words into my mouth makes me not really care that your not man enough to answer it. You've been caught so we're done here.

Allie, allie, all in free.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Chamberlain was fucked. If he went with one decision it the results were certain to be bad. If he went the other it could have been even more disastrous. No one can say which choice would have led to what conclusion.

Even today it's hard to tell what was the "right" decision. Imagine if you lived then without the benefit of hindsight.

 

[wwswimming]

Big man-girl or a man that did the right thing for his country?

need more information.

Hitler had a lot of supporters, including Jews who wanted to get some land in Palestine and call it Israel. Described in detail by Edwin Black (a Jewish historian) in the book "The Transfer Agreement".
http://www.amazon.com/Transfer-Agree.../dp/0786708417

the Zionist Jews actually agreed with Hitler to leave Jewish people opposed to Israel in Germany - knowing that that would not be good for their health.

at the same time, the Union Bank in New York City was loaning money to Hitler. the bank was managed by Prescott Bush, though owned by Averell Harriman, as described in Tarpley & Chaitkin's book, "George Bush, the Un-authorized Biography".
http://www.amazon.com/Transfer-Agree.../dp/0786708417

Union Bank was not some renegade operation on Wall Street - they WERE Wall Street. i.e., a good part of Hitler's financing came from Wall Street. As it turned out, Wall Street also liked the idea of an Israeli state in Palestine.

these ugly alliances between Hitler and Zionist Jews and Wall Street is not taught in American schools, but it as real as the vesting order signed by FDR seizing the assets of the Union Bank in 1942, for "trading with the enemy".

Prescott Bush was the Teflon Don. he went on to become a US Senator representing Connecticut.

 

[werepossum]

Chamberlain was fucked. If he went with one decision it the results were certain to be bad. If he went the other it could have been even more disastrous. No one can say which choice would have led to what conclusion.

Even today it's hard to tell what was the "right" decision. Imagine if you lived then without the benefit of hindsight.

If you suspect you're screwed either way, then taking the principled route - standing up for your weaker friends, fighting evil, and honoring your word (i.e. treaties) - would appear to be the best course all around.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you suspect you're screwed either way, then taking the principled route - standing up for your weaker friends, fighting evil, and honoring your word (i.e. treaties) - would appear to be the best course all around.

Remember that you don't know what Chamberlain was told or knew. Yes, if everything was equal, then I'd agree.

The problem is that in the real world, sometimes one's personal convictions could cost the lives of your fellow countrymen.

I have no idea what to make of what Chamberlain did, however I've been in situations where all choices are bad. Deciding who lives or dies is always an evil choice, especially in the face of uncertainty.

I've always reserved judgment on him, and unless something comes to light I'm not aware of will continue to do so.

Believe me, you would not have wanted to be in his shoes.

 

[werepossum]

Remember that you don't know what Chamberlain was told or knew. Yes, if everything was equal, then I'd agree.

The problem is that in the real world, sometimes one's personal convictions could cost the lives of your fellow countrymen.

I have no idea what to make of what Chamberlain did, however I've been in situations where all choices are bad. Deciding who lives or dies is always an evil choice, especially in the face of uncertainty.

I've always reserved judgment on him, and unless something comes to light I'm not aware of will continue to do so.

Believe me, you would not have wanted to be in his shoes.

I certainly would not want to be in his shoes. However - principle is doing what's right when it's hard, not when it's easy. Everyone can do the right thing when it's fun and has no bad consequences. For that matter, no country would make an alliance or a treaty with the understanding that it wouldn't be honored if it looked like war might result. Instead it would just be evil countries knocking off the neutral ones one by one, while the neutral ones hoped the conqueror grew satiated before he came to them. Come to think of it, that's pretty much what happened, until Hitler took France and the Brits realized that he wasn't going to be happy with "Austria and just a little of Czechoslovakia - and maybe Poland." Peace in our time indeed.

Or as my pappy might say, "If you promise a thrashing then you'd best have a stick."