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

To: Homer_J_Simpson

“The ruling Conservatives believe that if Great Britain refuses to negotiate with the dictators now, she will lack a moral case, such as that which she found so helpful in the United States and elsewhere in 1914. The dominion Prime Ministers apparently feel that same way, for as long ago as last June they urged the British Government to “conciliate” to the utmost.”

I consider this statement extraordinary, but it makes sense.

In the First World War, Britain’s own army was more than doubled in size by contributions from its empire, and from the US. So Chamberlain’s concern to make absolutely certain that these folks would be on board once again, when war finally came, would be more than understandable.

And if that required Neville to play the fool to Adolf... well, so be it.
On the other hand, I think most historians strongly suspect that Neville really LIKED being a fool.
Has anyone ever argued otherwise?


6 posted on 03/09/2008 8:46:14 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK

Chamberlain played the fool so well that he became one. But it is not exclusively his fault — a lot of people believed in wishful thinking rather than in the unpleasant facts. Some things never change.


9 posted on 03/09/2008 10:03:36 AM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK
On the other hand, I think most historians strongly suspect that Neville really LIKED being a fool.

I feel a certain amount of sympathy for poor old Neville. In 1938 we were not quite twenty years past the World War. In 2008 we are over thirty years past our Vietnam experience. Now compare the casualties from those two events. Our 58,000 dead in Vietnam over ten years or so would have amounted to a fairly good month for the Allies in WWI. Yet the anti-war types are still using Vietnam as a rallying issue to this day. If I was a Brit in 1938 I would have required a lot of convincing before I would be willing to go to the continent of Europe to fight the Hun. Threats to Austria and Czechoslovakia would not have done it. I realize it is a leader's job to anticipate emerging problems and convince the people of the need to take painful steps when necessary, but for Chamberlain it would have been a tall order. Especially in a democracy, where the leader first has to be elected. Hitler and Stalin didn't have such constraints.

10 posted on 03/09/2008 10:30:30 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("I’m not liking the way the 21st Century is shaping up logic wise." - AU72)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK; Homer_J_Simpson

Added to which, the year’s delay bought time for Britain to build at least the foundation of credible war-fighting forces, especially the air force - without which, in 1938, war might have been near suicical. Perhaps not quite such a fool after all.


13 posted on 03/09/2008 11:56:57 AM PDT by Winniesboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

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