I read this revisionist piece of crap. It is a way to make Chamberlain seem brilliant rather than calling him out for being the weak kneed lilly livered coward he trull was
Is there any truth to the rumor that Boehner is a distant relative of ol’ “Peace in our time” Nellie C?
Was the Marquis de Sade really a sodomite?
Substitute McConnell for Chamberlain.
He was a Naïve fool IMO.
Yes.
He was also stuck in "gentleman politician" mode long after it should have been clear to anyone with a working brain that he was not dealing with gentlemen.
He was probably a nice guy. And once the bombs started dropping he took his place on the battlements like a gentleman. I give him credit for that.
The Progressive are really F*****G good at UN-Learning from past mistakes...
Sorry for my french, but I took John Kerry’s advice...
I agree that Chamberlain was no war time consiglieri, when one was desperately needed. Thankfully Churchill came along at the right moment.
But the fact remains that both England and France were effectively eliminated as great powers following WWI-—the losses both nations suffered in that war were devastating.
The one thing England had that France did not have was a body of water separating it from the European mainland.
If they think WWI had exacted a heavy toll, their naivete' much had larger consequences.
You’re going to see a bunch of these. Here’s another:
Neville Chamberlain Was Right
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/09/neville_chamberlain_was_right_to_cede_czechoslovakia_to_adolf_hitler_seventy.html
Interesting that these revisionist articles about Chamberlain come along at the same time that Obama back down on Syria and is talking to Iran.
I’m sure there’s no connection. /s
Of course he was a weak, useless, appeasing POS who emboldened the enemies of civilization. He has been outclassed in recent years by subsequent British Prime Ministers of the Labor persuasion and our own Quislings like Carter, Clinton, and most especially Der Fuehrer obama.
Really not much need to waste more bandwidth than that.
The only thing that is often not noted is that the lack of will caused by the revulsion to the carnage of WWI and expressed as “appeasement” was considered a positive force or sensible stance.
The program that Chamberlain was part of was a heartfelt attitude of all of the European government majority parties. It is a fact that while the denotation of the word “appeasement” did not change, the word itself did not bear such a negative connotation until after this period of time.
As often happens, the public, soon reflected in the press, reacted before the office holders reacted. The cries for Churchill began while they were still thinking that they would form a government with Halifax taking the place of Chamberlain.
If "fair" is the criterion, I would judge that he did his best to make up for a very public humiliation. Whether anything he could have done at that point would make up for it completely I'll let others judge.
Yep, BBC. It's fair.
And your lame attempts at history revision will not help the weak, appeasing, African communist p.o.s. Ubama.
No sale, BBC.
A laughable piece of apologia for the appeasement lobby. Are you sure that this wasn’t written by Pat Buchanan?
The point is NOT UP FOR ARGUMENT... neville was an appeaser and an idiot. This article comes from organized criminals that are still actively screwing America and the World with their globull warming con so........
A weak and terrible leader?
Oh, no. He was great and astute. A magnificent leader. He just got taken to the cleaners by a megalomaniacal liar.
Good thing our leader is strong and wonderful. Better that there aren’t any modern Hitlers he may have to confront.