Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: the scotsman

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


2 posted on 09/30/2013 9:04:07 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Nifster

Yes, I am not buying it.

Read any biography of, say, Eden or Churchill, and you will see that old Nev tried to deliberately discredit men like Eden especially, who opposed him and were younger politicians whom he thought would be the men of the future.


5 posted on 09/30/2013 9:06:32 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Nifster

His government supported the development and acquisition of the Spitfire and Hurricane, and the development and emplacement of the Chain Low radar stations that defended the UK.
Unlike Obama, he was not a complete waste of skin.


15 posted on 09/30/2013 9:21:24 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Nifster
"Poor Neville" did come badly out of history - and largely because Churchill wrote that history to ensure his own carefully crafted version of the 1930s would become the one indelibly etched upon the collective consciousness.

It's Churchill's fault? Insanity.

Now I'm going to go out on a limb and read more into this opinion piece *and* this statement in particular.

It's the Republicans, and those like Ted Cruz in particular, who are making Obama and Kerry look weak. We just don't know & understand all the variables he has to consider when he bows and ass kisses despotic murders. That his appeasement of animals like the Iranian rulers is really a calculated decision that is being slandered by conservatives for political gain.

Anyone else agree?

21 posted on 09/30/2013 9:28:49 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Nifster
Well, it did take him less than one year after Munich to come to his senses. And he had the decency to resign, make way for Churchill and keep his piehole shut thereafter.

Show me any modern appeaser who can measure up to any of those qualities.

26 posted on 09/30/2013 9:37:47 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Nifster

Churchill didn’t think Neville Chamberlain was the problem. He thought that the unreadiness foisted on Britain by Stanley Baldwin was the problem.

Chamberlain certainly made mistakes, but the Munich agreement was in fact a peace treaty that made peace, at the cost of Czech defenses. Hitler went beyond the agreement and took over the rest of Czechoslovakia (except for bits handed to Poland and Hungary), but that wasn’t Chamberlain’s fault.

It should be noted that German war production was vastly over estimated, as Germany intended, with conventional intelligence reporting that, for example, tank production was as high as 1400 tanks a month, which led to an understandable caution. Only after the war started were some German tanks captured, and from analysis of their serial numbers a better estimate was derived: No more than 275 a month. That is a big difference.

There is a nice article in Wikipedia on “The German Tank Problem”.


28 posted on 09/30/2013 9:49:05 AM PDT by donmeaker (Youth is wasted on the young.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson