Skip to comments.Does Appeasement look So Bad, 70 Years On?
Posted on 08/31/2009 11:29:24 AM PDT by nickcarraway
It is easy now to deride the efforts of Neville Chamberlain. But at the time there seemed to be a realistic chance of peace ) It is 70 years since war broke out in 1939, but historic questions remain. Appeasement is still a dirty word, but so is war-monger. President Bush repeatedly used the memory of Winston Churchill in 1940 to justify his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Revisionist historians question whether Neville Chamberlain, the architect of the 1930s appeasement policy, had any choice. One witness was Sir Nevile Henderson, who published his account in Failure of a Mission.
Henderson was Neville Chamberlains Ambassador to Germany in the period immediately before the outbreak of the Second World War. He arrived in Berlin early in May 1937. As Ambassador he came to know all the leading Nazis, and had several interviews with Hitler himself. He was chosen as the envoy for Chamberlains policy of appeasement.
Before he left for Germany, Henderson had interviews with the outgoing Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, and with his successor, Chamberlain. Both Mr Chamberlain and Mr Baldwin agreed that I should do my utmost to work with Hitler and the Nazi party and the existing Government of Germany ... nobody strove harder for an honourable and just peace than I did. But that all my efforts were condemned to failure was due to the fanatical megalomania and blind self-confidence of a single individual.
We are all familiar with a collective portrait of the Nazi leaders derived from Hitlers last days in the bunker and the Nuremberg Trials. Hendersons book was written in the period immediately after the war had begun, even before the fall of France. May 1937 seen from April 1940 is very different from May 1937 seen from our postwar perspective.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
I don’t think that the criticism is that Chamberlain needed to declare war. It’s that his dealing with Hitler telegraphed weakness and passivity.
Ronald Reagan didn’t start a war with the USSR, but he didn’t negotiate from a position of weakness.
Before anyone makes up their minds, watch this and watch it with an open mind. Don’t decide if it is right or wrong while you are watching it. Decide for yourself, after you watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
No, the justification of the Iraq war was the breaking of 18 resolutions, among other things.
Yes. Seventy years later appeasement still looks stupid. One of President Bush’s problems was that he tried to appease AND make war at the same time. You can’t “make nice” with the source of the problem (Saudi Arabia) while trying to kill their minions and have any really hope of victory. Its a great tribute to our troops and their leaders that they have done so well, while their enemies get supplies from Syria and Iran, and money and propaganda support from Saudi Arabia.
Agreed. You can never win the war of world opinion.
Today they say we shoud use sanctions against Iran. We sanctioned Iraq and they said we were hurting Iraqis in doing so.
Socialists lie. Always.
Socialists were against war against Hitler until he betrayed their beloved Stalin. Communism is NOT anti-Fascism.
A nation that barely stood for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was NOT going to support the US going to war with 1 billion Muslims. Attacking Saudi, cite of all the Muslim "holy places", would of triggered just that global confrontation
Contrary to the bellicose bellowing of the macho boy chicken-hawk caucus on Talk Radio, it is not possible for the US to go to war with everyone simultaneously.
He spent the rest of his life, brief as it was, supporting the man who replaced him.
It would be an entirely different world if today's liberals showed even a fraction of the class and decency as Chamberlain.
You really need to learn the concept of Operational overreach.
A nation that barely stood for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was NOT going to support the US going to war with 1 billion Muslims. Attacking Saudi, cite of all the Muslim “holy places”, would of triggered just that global confrontation
Contrary to the bellicose bellowing of the macho boy chicken-hawk caucus on Talk Radio, it is not possible for the US to go to war with everyone simultaneou
And, I said that where, exactly?
Tens of millions dead is still tens of millions dead, even if the genealogical vacuum is being filled in.
Such a question is built on the axiom “appeasement is a viable option”, and is designed to obfuscate history so the technique can be attempted again - with the same results.
Winston Churchill as banned from the BBC prior to WWII for speaking out against Nazism.
Sometimes there are unpleasant truths told.
The war against the theocratic Islamic empire is centuries old and the flames of Islamic imperialism still have not been snuffed out.
They can worship a rock if they want. They can’t fund interntational terrorism and wahabism. And they really shouldn’t discriminate against people who aren’t muslim in those nations.
The very concept of “muslim lands” is offensive. Is Indonesia “muslim land”? Is Spain? And what of the cultures that existed there before Mohammed?
Freedom of religion is a founding principle of this nation. Again we are trying to appease an intolerant supremacist ideology. As generations have done without much success.
Chickenhawk is a homosexual term as is teabagger. They were both knowingly used to ridicule “those on the right” (even though the support for the war and the opposition to Obama’s expanse of government extends far beyond those on the right).
This guy is a genuine fool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.