Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neville Chamberlain Was Right (Essays in Leftism)
Slate ^ | 9/28/2013 | Nick Baumann

Posted on 10/01/2013 9:29:15 AM PDT by mojito

Seventy-five years ago, on Sept. 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact, handing portions of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler's Germany. Chamberlain returned to Britain to popular acclaim, declaring that he had secured "peace for our time." Today the prime minister is generally portrayed as a foolish man who was wrong to try to "appease" Hitler—a cautionary tale for any leader silly enough to prefer negotiation to confrontation.

But among historians, that view changed in the late 1950s, when the British government began making Chamberlain-era records available to researchers. "The result of this was the discovery of all sorts of factors that narrowed the options of the British government in general and narrowed the options of Neville Chamberlain in particular," explains David Dutton, a British historian who wrote a recent biography of the prime minister. "The evidence was so overwhelming," he says, that many historians came to believe that Chamberlain "couldn't do anything other than what he did" at Munich. Over time, Dutton says, "the weight of the historiography began to shift to a much more sympathetic appreciation" of Chamberlain.

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Germany; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: czechoslovakia; hitler; munich; sudetenland
The left is now rehabilitating appeasing Hitler. 0bama would have done it.

Here's all you need to know:

Nick Baumann is a senior editor in the Washington, D.C., bureau of Mother Jones

1 posted on 10/01/2013 9:29:15 AM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mojito

Whether or not the author is leftist, he did portray the appallingly weak status of the UK pretty accurately.

It’s interesting to note that we’re not in the position of the UK with respect of the word -—— yet —— but the Dork is desperately trying to weaken our military in order to make it so.

I personally disrespect and f*rt in the general direction of ANY US military individual that does not loathe, hate, and despise their laughable Cretin-in-Chief.


2 posted on 10/01/2013 9:36:30 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Can Mr. Baumann explain exactly just how he can legitimately translate and interview with David Dutton in to the giant leap that “most historians have taken a more sympathetic view towards Chamberlian?”

No other ‘historians’ cited, just Dutton. Well then, I guess that makes everything just hunky dory and the collected throngs of people since then who consider Chamberlain an appeaser just plain out flat wrong.

In the same vein, I guess we all just need to take Al Gore’s word for it on Global warming because Slate found a single historian that says we should.

Horseshit.


3 posted on 10/01/2013 9:37:02 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
Slate is now chasing PMSNBC's ratings.

Wonder how the folks in the UK view this article?

4 posted on 10/01/2013 9:38:42 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
The modern day equivalent would be Soetoro/Seared-brained John ceding Israel to Iran. Oh, don't publish that, it might be picked up by the NSA. Sorry, my bad.
5 posted on 10/01/2013 9:40:52 AM PDT by immadashell (The inmates are running the asylum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

BULLSHIT! YOU ON THE LEFT CAN HAVE YOUR OWN OPINIONS BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS!


6 posted on 10/01/2013 9:41:30 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

THe difference between leftism and nazism is that nazism was manipulated by leftism and used its language without really understanding in the end its real meaning.


7 posted on 10/01/2013 9:41:36 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
First, a look at the military situation. Most historians agree that the British army was not ready for war with Germany in September 1938. If war had broken out over the Czechoslovak crisis, Britain would only have been able to send two divisions to the continent—and ill-equipped divisions, at that. Between 1919 and March 1932, Britain had based its military planning on a “10-year rule,” which assumed Britain would face no major war in the next decade. Rearmament only began in 1934—and only on a limited basis.

So, this a$$hole wants to claim Chamberlain was "right" to bow down to Hitler, because Britain's military was underprepared? But, WHO was it that made sure Britain's military was weak? Why, Neville Chamberlain and his lib-tard friends, that's who.

8 posted on 10/01/2013 9:42:46 AM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
Premise: Neville Chamberlain was right to negotiate with the soon to be most evil little man in modern history because Britain wasn't ready for war.

Corollary: Obama is correct to negotiate with a two bit dictators when he is backed up by the most powerful, over the horizon, projectable, military might ever created.

Yeah, right.

9 posted on 10/01/2013 9:42:55 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Yes, the UK was in a weak position. But Chamberlain made two additional and unforgivable mistakes: he made little effort to correct that weakness, and he concluded that appeasing Hitler at Munich would bring “Peace in Our Time,” rather than whet Hitler’s appetite.


10 posted on 10/01/2013 9:44:57 AM PDT by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mojito
The Czech region that was awarded to Hitler (the so-called Sudetenland) was heavily fortified by the Czechs. Furthermore, the region was mountainous and so was ill-suited for panzers.

If the West had not stabbed the Czechs in the back at Munich, the Czech army would have given Hitler one heck of a bloody nose, or worse.

And there is a second point to consider. Stalin saw the results of Munich and concluded that the West was too weak to oppose Hitler. And that's one of the reasons Stalin decided to ally with Germany in 1939. That alliance give Hitler the opportunity to start WW II.

Nothing good came out of Munich.

11 posted on 10/01/2013 9:46:46 AM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
Slate is now chasing PMSNBC's ratings.

Slate has been chasing a long time. They are, or were, until the WaPo sale, part of the WaPo/DailyBeast/Newspeak conglomerate of MSM lefty groupthink.

12 posted on 10/01/2013 9:48:20 AM PDT by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mojito

No, Neville Chamberlain was Left. And Left is always wrong.


13 posted on 10/01/2013 9:49:08 AM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

The fly in the ointment as far as Baumann’s argument goes is that Hitler’s aims were obvious from the time he took over the reins of government. They could have stopped him when he militarized the Rheinland, but they didn’t. Everything he did he had signaled he was going to doing many years before. Only Churchill sounded the alarm. But of course, he was just the crazy, old fool who thought up Gallipoli. Let’s ignore him. Baumann is a disingenuous dope.


14 posted on 10/01/2013 9:53:04 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Great job, Chamberlain bought an ill prepared Britain a whole eleven months to do the preparation they should have started in in 1933. If William Shirer could see what was coming and Winston Churchill could see the likely future, others should have also.

This article speaks to a justification for our current weak diplomacy.


15 posted on 10/01/2013 9:53:13 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Whether the UK was prepared for all out war in 1934 is beside the point. Germany wasn’t either, though far more ready than Britain.

But, even so, Chamberlain turned over the Czech’s, an ally, to that bastard Hitler without a whimper. The Czech leaders weren’t even allowed to attend the “conference” with Hitler and Chamberlain where they diced up their nation like a piece of pie, and Hitler got the whole pie.

Whether the British military was ready or not, Chamberlain sold out a friend for the return of nothing - time he got, but Hitler got the very same gift of time as well.

No, Chamberlain was no unsung hero. Had he stood up to Hitler at that particular time, it may have greatly shortened WW2 before Hitler had fully developed his military.

You do the right thing no matter what. You go down swinging. Chamberlain did neither.


16 posted on 10/01/2013 9:54:05 AM PDT by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *wipes eyes* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!


17 posted on 10/01/2013 9:55:49 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

Hitler drove tanks into Vienna earlier that same year.

Perhaps that might have been a clue to his intentions.


18 posted on 10/01/2013 9:57:36 AM PDT by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mojito

The reasons the Left always has “narrow” options are two.

1: Generally, they want the result that they get, a constriction of freedom, and more control. When this isn’t the case there is the second reason;

2: They are too cowardly to take the steps that are needed to stop the problem.


19 posted on 10/01/2013 10:46:26 AM PDT by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

What a “LOAD OF RUBBISH”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


20 posted on 10/01/2013 10:55:42 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

The real story is probably that Germany hadn’t built up enough at that time to really provide JPMorgan, Nat City et. al. the opportunity to really make a killing off another long bloody conflict so Neville had to give them some breathing room to refine their tactics and come up with better material...

Recall, those banking institutions would have been footnotes in history if we hadn’t spent ~250,000 young men on collecting their British and French war loans in the first world war, setting the stage for the second.

/cynicism...


21 posted on 10/01/2013 11:07:28 AM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Whatever Neville Chamberlain was, he was no liberal. He was the hero of the Conservative Party, the hero even after Churchill took over as PM, whose aim, futile as it turned out to be, was to direct Hitler into a war with Communism that would destroy both evils.


22 posted on 10/01/2013 11:18:02 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPMD

The heart of opposition to Chamberlain was the socialist Labour Party, men like Atlee who brought the welfare state to Britain after the war.


23 posted on 10/01/2013 11:21:42 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

—First, a look at the military situation. Most historians agree that the British army was not ready for war with Germany in September 1938.—

This guy forgets that the Brits would have relied on the French Army to fight the Germans in 1938. They had the largest army on the continent at the time, if memory serves.


24 posted on 10/01/2013 12:42:34 PM PDT by JoeTheGeorgian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DPMD

Neville Chamberlain was not a “left”ist. He was a Conservative MP, just like Churchill.


25 posted on 10/01/2013 12:43:32 PM PDT by JoeTheGeorgian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Chamberlain was a conservative in much the same way that Lindsey Graham is a conservative.


26 posted on 10/01/2013 12:46:31 PM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mojito

the left has to rehab chamberlin. mein kamf is a best seller in the arab world these days.


27 posted on 10/01/2013 12:46:35 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
Great job, Chamberlain bought an ill prepared Britain a whole eleven months to do the preparation they should have started in in 1933. If William Shirer could see what was coming and Winston Churchill could see the likely future, others should have also.
Yes, but do not underestimate the demoralization caused by the Great War. Nobody wanted a reprise of it - and I’m talking about the “victors!” Even in 1941, entry into WWII polled no more than 20% among Americans before Pear Harbor.

The reality of the historical situation is that nobody had the vision and the moral authority to act in 1933. Churchill was humiliated by Gallipoli; would you in 1933 have been enthusiastic about having your son drafted into a war against Germany then - only 15 years after your older brother had returned in a coffin from WWI?

for another Gallipoli?
The only thing which would have prevented WWII would have been prosperity. Absent the disastrous decay of American - and British - industry due to the policies of Hoover which were doubled down on by FDR, even as FDR blamed the results of those policies on Herbert Hoover, it wouldn’t have taken so much time to ramp up production of war materiel.

The little-known story of the American buildup of war materiel production is told in

Freedom's Forge:
How American Business Produced Victory in World War II
Arthur Herman
It’s not politically correct for you to know that FDR - with his Under Secretary of the Navy experience of the signal failure of US industry to produce and deliver war materiel to Europe before WWI ended - ramped up war production from the fall of France (May, 1940) right through Pearl Harbor and US entry into WWII. He did it by hook or by crook, and US entry into the war - nominally on the timetable of the Japanese, and of the Germans who declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. But it is an interesting coincidence that, after FDR had been told by GM’s Wm Knudsen that it would take 18 months to ramp up American war materiel production, the Japanese happened to attack in December of 1941. A coincidence which could lend credence to the theory that the Japanese were played like a Stradivarius by FDR’s diplomacy, and got us into WWII on FDR’s timetable.

The reason that, notwithstanding American ramped up military production starting in mid-1940, America had very weak forces on hand in December 1941 is simply that American production (and, in the case of obsolescent bolt-action rifles, existing inventory) had been devoted to keeping the British war effort afloat. But with the preliminary 18 months behind him, Knudsen was in a position to say in December 1941 that America could produce 50,000 warplanes in 1942. The administration was throttling back on military production well before the war was over.

Presumably, then, in the absence of the Depression American production potential would have made it far easier to dominate a contest of war materiel production in 1933. But in 1933, FDR was not Winston Churchill.


28 posted on 10/01/2013 1:06:30 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (“Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
Stalin saw the results of Munich and concluded that the West was too weak to oppose Hitler.

Exactly.

Stalin was feeling out the West for allies against Hitler but seeing the actions of Britain and France, rightly sized them up as weak, fickled and gasping whereas Hitler, an foe he knew the communists would have to fight eventually, made the devil's bargain with Hitler to buy time to get the Red Army's (whose leadership was decimated by Stalin's purges)ready to fight.

Hence poor Poland, whose fredom from forgeign dictarship the war was started, was damned in the end to the same results.
29 posted on 10/01/2013 2:02:44 PM PDT by RedMonqey ("Gun-free zones" equal "Target-rich environment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
Neville Chamberlain was not a “left”ist. He was a Conservative MP, just like Churchill.

To try and comparable European's "Conservatism view" vs. an American viewpoint of conservatism is ripe for folly as their starting point is based upon ancient viewpoint of royality and Divine Right of kings, whereas ours start from an Constitional Republic.

They are not easily comparable, and like hammering a round peg into an square hole.
30 posted on 10/01/2013 2:13:03 PM PDT by RedMonqey ("Gun-free zones" equal "Target-rich environment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
But, WHO was it that made sure Britain's military was weak? Why, Neville Chamberlain and his lib-tard friends, that's who.

This was the depression, when money was scarce.

Europe had disarmed itself after WWI. It wasn't really an ideological thing in the 1920s. Everybody was sick of war and nobody in the democracies wanted to prepare for another European war.

After Hitler took power, British rearmament had begun under Chamberlain, but it took time to get up to speed.

31 posted on 10/01/2013 2:15:45 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Very good points.


32 posted on 10/01/2013 3:22:05 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mojito; Colonel Kangaroo; JimSEA; conservatism_IS_compassion
A few thoughts here if I may. Possibly the only Freeper on this thread that remembers those years. Father was a Platoon Sgt Major at Aldershot, Hampshire at the time.

The horror of WW1 was still with Britain. 160,000 women widowed by that war. My two grandfathers had served. One could see men still suffering shell shock. They twitched and shook and tried to hide it. Poor devils still had lung problems from the gas attacks. Amputees a plenty.

The high ranking Nazis were interrogated by the Americans after 1945. I have read some of the transcripts. Obviously they desperately wanted to tell the Americans exactly what they wanted to hear. To this day I will never know the truth. What they said was that Hitler took a bit of a fright after the invasion of Czechoslovakia. If what they said is true, then had Neville Chamberlain had delivered his ultimatum Hitler could have backed down. Chamberlain did not know this- if it was true.

Now for the figures of the British Aircraft strength. The all metal planes were indeed on the drawing boards. The Spitfire and the Hurricane, also the Boulton Paul Defiant. Six were operational. When the ultimatum was given to Herr Hitler in September 1939, the British industry had 1,200 all metal fighter planes in service.

Molders, the German air ace had 187 kills against the WW1 vintage aircraft flown by the Dutch, French and Polish air forces. Plywood and canvas against an all metal aircraft. Even then the British had canvas covered bombers to bomb the Germans. Shot down left and right. They soon got better bombers from overseas of course.

I will take one quick thrust here. During that war, a war of propaganda, we were told one of the reasons for declaring the war was to "save the Jews". We will never know if Germany was willing to negotiate a peace. Rudolph Hess could have shed light on this. He was murdered/ or suicide before his release.

Well anyway I thank Americans for the Lend-Lease and everything. Still grateful from this corner.

33 posted on 10/01/2013 7:45:32 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra
Correction.

Werner Molders (1913-1941) had 101 kills before the German Propaganda Ministry pulled him out of action. This included flights against the Russians. He was killed as a passenger in a non-combat crash.

34 posted on 10/01/2013 7:57:38 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey

Good point.


35 posted on 10/02/2013 4:10:05 AM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: x

True enough.

But why would anyone be foolish enough to NOT be prepared for war.

The world was no less evil or dangerous then than it is now.

I guess it all goes back to: “They who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”, doesn’t it?

After all, the U.S. had let their military strength lapse a bit since WWI also.


36 posted on 10/02/2013 4:13:32 AM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra
The horror of WW1 was still with Britain. 160,000 women widowed by that war. My two grandfathers had served. One could see men still suffering shell shock. They twitched and shook and tried to hide it. Poor devils still had lung problems from the gas attacks. Amputees a plenty.
. . . and no one of them voting for another war in 1933 - when, as Churchill knew, it would be much less costly - or even in 1938. My knowledge is from books; I was a small child during WWII.

There is a similarity in the history of WWII to WWI, w/ respect to this morale issue. It is seen in a postcard I received from my uncle, a tanker under Patton. It read, “Your uncle is finished fighting. We licked the Jerries.”

At the time, of course, it seemed like a simple declaration of triumph. But in historical perspective, WWII was still going on in the Pacific, and it would certainly have seemed logical to planners in the (then-new) Pentagon that the experienced veteran soldiers no longer needed in Europe would be of signal use in the contemplated invasion of Japan. Had they undertaken to actually require those veterans to serve in the Pacific, tho, they might very well have turned mutinous. In person later, and not in that context, my uncle stated that “If they want me to fight another war, I know where I can hide that they’ll never find me.”

So I conclude that this business of fighting wars is very easily overrated. And that’s if you win them.

Well anyway I thank Americans for the Lend-Lease and everything. Still grateful from this corner.
Gratitude is a virtue and a blessing. And it is for us to be grateful that we didn’t go through what Britain did. And in historical perspective, America at that point still had a chip on its shoulder, even then, for the attitude of superiority that it perceived in Britain. Our navy wasn’t inclined to learn from the Royal Navy, for example, and in the early going the U-boats unnecessarily had their “happy time - during which hundreds and hundreds of freighters were sunk off our coasts. For the loss, in the first nine months, of zero U-boats to American arms. The Roosevelt Administration kept those figures as a military secret, though - so fortunately the Germans didn’t know that. </sarcasm>

And historically Americans, being anti-imperialist, underestimated the virtues of the British Empire. We could have done a lot worse than to have been more supportive of it. The reality being that America’s preferred option before the American Revolution was to be a part of a British Commonwealth - but when Benjamin Franklin proposed that, he was laughed out of London.

What a different turn history would have taken, had it been otherwise! No American Revolution, no War of 1812, no American Civil War. And no Louisiana Purchase, either. But pretty certainly, Britain would ultimately have fought France (as it in fact did do) and win Louisiana. And then Mexico, because the pickings were just too juicy to have passed up. Just as the US fought Mexico for that very reason ahem, because they attacked us, yeah, that’s it.


37 posted on 10/02/2013 8:39:16 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (“Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JoeTheGeorgian

Spoke right, acted left. Like McCain is a conservative.


38 posted on 10/02/2013 10:36:46 AM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DPMD

McCain would’ve bombed Berlin during the remilitarization of the Rhineland, though.


39 posted on 10/02/2013 12:01:23 PM PDT by JoeTheGeorgian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mojito

—The left is now rehabilitating appeasing Hitler. 0bama would have done it. —

The *actual* left didn’t just appease Hitler, they collaborated with him, until he violated the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, then the course changed, obviously.


40 posted on 10/02/2013 12:02:59 PM PDT by JoeTheGeorgian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; x
Your post much appreciate and there is so much information that it deserves careful analysis and I will not try to do that here. What does happen on this bastion of democratic discussion FR, is that one comment may lead to yet more research.

I could scarcely let go the comment by x because it rang a distant bell- or many bells. This is to digress, but I hope there may be some patience out there. In 1911 Britain possibly was the richest nation in the world along with the United States.

As American, Jack London found, when he visited 1908 East-end of London, the poor were utterly destitute. London was angered at the extremes of wealth and poverty. Reformer Lloyd George, the Liberal Prime Minister brought in old age pensions and work injury compensation in 1911.

I am informed that in the first three months of WW1, one department of the War Office spent a huge amount of money. It was as much spent by Lloyd George's new plan over three years. The gold sovereign was called in and a paper pound was exchanged for it. This plus a shilling piece. I believe Britain paid out huge amounts of gold. Destination possibly much at Fort Knox

In 1931 the new unemployment benefits bought in with the urging of the Labour Party were cut. A bit of a ramble on my part, but to try to put one in Chamberlain's shoes, the country was virtually broke.

41 posted on 10/02/2013 6:37:54 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JoeTheGeorgian

My own opinion is that he would have gone alone with the expected collaboration of his good friend Ted Kennedy with the Nazi regime, just like old Joe. McCain may talk, but, again, my opinion is that he’s been owned outright by the NVA/Democrat Party since Hanoi. We may very well have seen pictures of him visiting “friends” in Germany, as in Egypt recently, and him offering to send weapons to the SS.


42 posted on 10/03/2013 9:42:28 AM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mojito

“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.” - Winston Churchill to Chamberlain


43 posted on 10/03/2013 9:43:40 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

“Our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich” - Hitler to his generals.


44 posted on 10/03/2013 9:45:35 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Churchill was an outcast in the Conservative Party at that time.

I think deep down most Conservatives thought Hitler was useful as a bulwark against Stalin. Churchill was the only one who saw, even as early as 1934, how evil Hitler really was.


45 posted on 10/03/2013 9:47:12 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

—Churchill was an outcast in the Conservative Party at that time.—

The origins of his outcast state within the Tories had nothing to do with Hitler, however, and stretched back all the way to the 1900s.

As for bulwarks, Churchill also initially thought the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was justified, somewhat, due to the Soviet menace next door.


46 posted on 10/03/2013 12:32:54 PM PDT by JoeTheGeorgian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra
Your post much appreciate and there is so much information that it deserves careful analysis and I will not try to do that here. What does happen on this bastion of democratic discussion FR, is that one comment may lead to yet more research . . .

In 1931 the new unemployment benefits bought in with the urging of the Labour Party were cut. A bit of a ramble on my part, but to try to put one in Chamberlain's shoes, the country was virtually broke.

You are likely to find this link to Robert Mundell’s Nobel lecture interesting.
. . . World War I made gold unstable. The instability began when deficit spending pushed the European belligerents off the gold standard, and gold came to the United States, where the newly-created Federal Reserve System monetized it, doubling the dollar price level and halving the real value of gold. The instability continued when, after the war, the Federal Reserve engineered a dramatic deflation in the recession of 1920-21, bringing the dollar (and gold) price level 60 percent of the way back toward the prewar equilibrium, a level at which the Federal Reserve kept it until 1929 . . .
IIRC my takeaway from reading that lecture was that, weird as it would have sounded to everyone at the time, the US would have been ahead of the game to have preemptively forgiven all the debt, and returned all the gold, which the US had acquired from Europe during WWI. The cost of not doing that was the Great Depression. And part of the cost of the Depression was WWII.
But of course the US was not then comfortable and secure in its status as the economic powerhouse of the world. Its citizenry would have been incapable of accepting any such responsibility.

47 posted on 10/03/2013 1:52:35 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (“Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson