Selective history revision that is meant to sway perception and published in a major news delivery apparatus as an opinion piece.
Just mention the name Neville Chamberlain and what is the very first thing that comes to mind?
Appeasement.
It is automatic.
Here we have some pussy motherfucker trying to make the argument that Chamberlain's decision to give up Czechoslovakia to Hitler as a means to buy time to prepare for war was "what we would want any responsible leader to do".
Neville Chamberlain Was Right
The maligned British prime minister did what we would want any responsible leader to do.
My first question to this quisling cocksucker is "who is we"?
Chamberlains decision gave Hitler free reign to fully implement his plans to exterminate the Jewish population in Europe.
Somehow this "Nick Baumann" conveniently avoids getting anywhere near that small point.
Fuck you Nick.
6 comments:
Heh, twatwaffle, :-)
I think you are forgetting that Britain's armed forces were not only run down but using antiquated weapons and techniques at that time.
He gave us time to design and build up men and materials before war actually started.
Just look at the difference in what the RAF were armed with in the mid '30s compared to 1939/ 40.
If he had announced "I'm just buying time because we can't fight for more than a few days" then the war would probably have started earlier.
Anonymous may have the right of it. The RAF quite possibly would have been swept from the skies. The primary RAF fighter at the time of the Munich Crisis was the Glouster Gladiator, a fixed-gear biplane. The Hawker Hurricane was only beginning to appear in any numbers and the Spitfire had just been accepted.
The Hurricane was arguably inferior to the Bf-109 and as for the Gladiator, sending them up against the Luftwaffe would be like sending out your aunt Mabel to gunfight with Thell Reed.
The hard truth of the matter was that Britain was not ready for a war against Germany in 1938. Chamberlain likely knew that.
And if you're looking for someone to blame, blame the French. When Hitler marched troops into the Rhineland, it was a gigantic bluff. If the French had treated it as an act of war and acted accordingly, the Germans would have had to have folded and Hitler's government would have imploded.
I do not disagree with the points that Britain wasn't prepared for war.
My view is that even if Britain was out gunned, letting Hitler have carte blanche without repercussions early on is what made things so much worse later.
The fact that the cheese eating surrender monkey's didn't take it seriously made it even that much worse.
I am at a loss to understand what the British could have done. They were not prepared for a war. Losing a short war to the Germans would not have improved things any for anyone.
The Brits couldn't have gotten any traction by talking about what the Germans were doing. After the blatant lies of British propaganda in the First War ("raping pregnant Belgian nuns"), nobody believed them.
Don't forget the context of this...
Both Slate and Huffpo have this argument in the past couple of days. Those 'evil Republicans' have shut down the government. If only they had tried to appease the Democrats.
Post a Comment