Chamberlain should have got one, too

The Ottawa Citizen ^ | Oct 9, 2009 | David Warren

[Leisler]

Before we go anywhere, with the Nobel Peace Prize, I think something should be said in defence of Neville Chamberlain.

Chamberlain has received a bad press, these last 70 years, though famously it was a good press after he signed the Munich agreement 71 years ago with Adolf Hitler, and flew home to England promising, "Peace in our time." Let us grant, the result of his policy of appeasement was not what he intended; and let us allow, that Hitler negotiated in bad faith.........

[Leisler]

[Brett66]

He actually had a peace treaty signed, so it was an actual accomplishment.

[Leisler]

"Events spiralled out of Chamberlain's control so fast that the Nobel committee in Oslo were never able to offer him their peace prize -- although they had already given it to his half-brother, Sir Austen, for his work on the Locarno treaties; including the one Hitler casually abrogated when he remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936.

Beliving in paper, not acts. Must of been a family trait.

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

Vidkun Quisling probably should have one also.

[Sparky1776]

So True!

[dfwgator]

..And Lord Haw Haw.

[mojito]

There is broad speculation, among the sort of people I hang out with, that it was offered to Obama on the understanding that he would "do a Le Duc Tho," and decline it, thus showing the world his immense strength of character. (But how can such a narcissist pass up the opportunity to give a Nobel Prize speech?)

Interesting. Was the committee surprised by the depth of self-infatuation and self-regard of the Obamessiah?

[Bearshouse]

The left-wing, pacifist committee wanted to saddle the new U.S. president with their little "hope diamond," in case he got any ideas about killing more jihadis in Afghanistan. Or hesitated to do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain did to Czechoslovakia

Well said.

[Vanders9]

Actually, the Locarno treaties worked very well, and for a long time too, principally because they were signed when Germany was under decent leadership (Gustav Streseman) as opposed to the psychotic Bavarian corporal.

[Dick Bachert]

An exchange with my eldest son today got me to thinking (a rare feat, indeed).

He asked if tomorrow was a holiday. I responded that it’s Columbus Day. Sensitive and bright guy that he is, he came back with “Don’t you mean Oppression of Indigenous Peoples Day?”

He and I have debated the matter of the government’s treatment of the American Indian many times. He takes the position that we badly mistreated these original inhabitants of what we now call America. I agree with him that, sadly, we have done that, but also I remind him that throughout history, with precious few exceptions, when two cultures clash, the one with the superior and more advanced technology usually prevails.

That brought to mind a warning Mr. Jefferson issued over 2 centuries ago that “Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”

And THAT brought to my alleged mind Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.

“Peace” has several definitions:
1. The absence of war or conflict. (A desirable but, according to Scripture practically unattainable goal.)
2. The absence of RESISTANCE to efforts by utopian elitists to destroy traditional national sovereignty and blend all the nations of the world into some bizarre socialistic New World Order where all will be equal – but SOME will be more equal than others.

Obama received the nomination after less then two weeks in office. The Nobel socialists apparently listened to his campaign speeches more intently than the American electorate. It seems they understood what he was well before the election.

I’m 100% convinced that the Nobel was his reward for promoting a “peace” meeting not the first definition — but the second.

Obama’s constant apologies, his repeated remarks about our unexceptionalism coupled with his rapid moves to weaken – indeed, CRIPPLE – the United States in an increasingly dangerous and envious world more than confirmed the Nobel socialists’ fond hopes. And if anyone still thinks he’s simply a naïve fool, you’ve not been paying attention. He – and his global elitist handlers – know PRECISELY what they are doing.

Which brings me back to the clash between native Americans and the technologically superior Europeans who ultimately overwhelmed them.

At what point will WE assume the role of those early natives when some technologically superior culture – made so by endless streams of “foreign aid,” technology transfers and the rest — determines that we are ripe for conquest?

What’s even sadder is the probability that America’s obituary will declare the death of our culture a suicide.

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic
for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail,
there will be anarchy throughout the world.”
Daniel Webster

Get ready, folks, because that’s where we’re headed.

Dick Bachert
Sunday, October 11, 2009

[Vanders9]

Listen to what Winston Churchill said in eulogy of Chamberlain three days after the former PM died, viz:

It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart—the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.

[BobL]

Yea, but it is normal to say good things just after a person passes away, even if was a total idiot.

[ClaudiusI]

Wow, when I read this my first thought was: “Wilt Chamberlin”?

[Oztrich Boy]

He did bring about peace betweem Norway and Germany

[Vanders9]

True, and Churchill could afford to be magnaminous in victory, but I don’t think its an unfair assessment either.

I’ve often wondered if Chamberlain’s judgement was affected by illness. He died on 9th November 1940 (six months after resigning as PM). I think he knew he was ill at Munich, although I’m not so sure he knew the illness was fatal at that time.