Neville Chamberlain Was Right (Essays in Leftism)

Slate ^ | 9/28/2013 | Nick Baumann

[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.

[mojito]

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

[Da Coyote]

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.

[Gaffer]

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.

[sr4402]

Slate is now chasing PMSNBC's ratings.

Wonder how the folks in the UK view this article?

[immadashell]

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.

[LibLieSlayer]

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

[lavaroise]

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.

[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. 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.

[USNBandit]

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.

[mojito]

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.

[Leaning Right]

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.

[mojito]

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.

[DPMD]

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

[driftless2]

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.

[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.

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

[rusty schucklefurd]

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.

[pabianice]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *wipes eyes* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[mojito]

Hitler drove tanks into Vienna earlier that same year.

Perhaps that might have been a clue to his intentions.

[chesley]

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.

[bandleader]

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