I agree. I recently did a case study in which the Munich agreement was prominent, and I believe Chamberlain got a raw deal in history. He wasn’t an appeaser. He just was a poor negotiator and he never trusted Hitler. In fact, he went up against the true Hitler appeasers in Britain at the time. Bathhouse Barry is a racist commie and will do anything to sell out America.
Agreed. There is considerable question whether Chamberlain refusing a treaty to Hitler would have avoided the bloodbath of WWII or just started it a year early. In which case he might be remembered as the warmonger who refused reasonable accomodations that might have prevented war.
It’s very seldom remembered that the Sudeten Germans had quite legitimate complaints. The self-determination of the Czechs had been respected, but doing so meant repressing theirs.
The discussion of Munich generally implies, without quite saying so, that if the Allies had stood up to Hitler the results would have been entirely positive. That ain’t necessarily so. Among other things, the Allies were much less well-armed than they were in 1939.
What’s the difference between an appeaser & a poor negotiator?
Would it help if everyone referred to the surrender being negotiated now as “The April Fools’ Treaty”?
I remember.
I will never know in my lifetime just how close an agreement could have been fashioned. True, Hitler was a liar and had lied twice. Pretty hard to judge whether the whole thing could have been avoided.
That is another story.