You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Eventual understanding opposed to total blindness
2006-09-03
By John Burtis
We all remember Mr. Chamberlain as the great appeaser, which he was up to a point. But he finally understood the Nazi menace, while the Democrats utterly fail to grasp the true horror offered by militant Islam.

Neville drew his line in the sands of shifting fortunes and honored his commitments to Poland on September 1st, 1939, when the panzers and the Luftwaffe, in their first real test, crushed the Polish cavalry and massacred the Polish air force in the air and on the ground in record time.

In the time leading up to this drama, however, the government of Mr. Chamberlain had witnessed the re-occupation of the Rhineland in 1936, the delirious Anschluss with Austria in March of 1938, the swallowing of the Sudetenland in late September of 1938, followed by the occupation of the remaining rump of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939.

Gradually, the early zest for appeasement lost its taste along the timeline of Hitler's continual lust for land, peoples to enslave, industries to steal, and national treasures to plunder.
Posted by:Fred

#15  no offence Flea, but I have to speak out against the false spring Chamberlain promised on the backs of Jews, Czeks, and Poland.
Posted by: RD   2006-09-03 22:38  

#14  going against the grain here but Chamberlain has been resurrected by the Tranzis.

Wiki has had it's battles back and forth with the revisionists.

Chamberlain is perhaps the most ill-regarded British Prime Minister of the 20th century, largely because of his policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany regarding the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich in 1938.

Posted by: RD   2006-09-03 22:30  

#13  ;-)
Posted by: Frank G   2006-09-03 22:24  

#12  cutting slack to save bandwidth.....jeebus...
Posted by: Frank G   2006-09-03 22:22  

#11  tip to Flea, your revisionist history will not cut it here or resurrect the back stabbing to all that is decent.
Posted by: RD   2006-09-03 22:20  

#10  agreed
Posted by: Frank G   2006-09-03 22:16  

#9  A small reminder to my American cousins: It is one thing to criticize Chamberlain for taking action only at the 11th hour. He was still years ahead of the United States. With no disrespect to President Roosevelt who did come through in the end.
Posted by: Flea   2006-09-03 21:59  

#8  You are weak or strong only in relation to what the enemy has; you don't go to war in function of your readiness but in the relative difference between your readiness and the enemy's.

So what you are saying, JFM, is that you go to war with the army you have, not the one you'd like to have? Interesting: another brilliant man said something like that recently... ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-09-03 20:24  

#7  I have to say in Chamberlmain's discharge that the Germans were masters in making their opponents believe the Germans were far stronger than they were. In at least one occasion they didcovered a French spy and instead of arresting him had a high ranking Nazi befriend him and make him visit a couple impressive fortifiactions in order to make the French believe the Sigfried line was unassailable. It wasn't, in fact it was very weak and there was nearly nothing between a few Potemkine fortifications built for the benefit of allied spies (GHermany put her money went into tanks and planes not into fortifications).


As a side note in 1941 Rommel used cars with canvassses making them look like tanks in order to force the British to retire from el Agheila.
Posted by: JFM   2006-09-03 18:01  

#6  
One thing to remember is that Britain in 1936 and 1938 simply wasn't ready for war.


Pleaaaaaaaase. Teh one who was not ready for war was Germany: her ground army was so weak that it had orders to withdraw in front of any french reaction to the invasion of Rhenania. Eeven a platoon of Gendarmerie into Kehl (who doubles its police-like functions with light infantry, MP role) would have kicked a Gerpma&n hasty withdrawal from Rhenania. Its airforce was equipped with biplane fighters (Galland spent most of his time in Spain hiding from the Spviet planes until he got his hands on an ME109 in 1938). The Navy was equally pathetic: the Schrnhost and Genisenau has been floated but unfinished, few if any U-boots, only a few destroyers and cruisers.

So no the weakness of British defences was NOT a justification in 36 and to a lesser degree in 1938.

You are weak or strinbg only in realtion to what the ennemy has and you don't go to war in function of your readiness but in the realtive differnce between your readiness and the enenemy's.
Posted by: JFM   2006-09-03 17:12  

#5  Yep, a nitwit, but nowhere near as dangerous as Stanley Baldwin who whistled into the wind for years thru his socialist sockpuppet.
Posted by: 6   2006-09-03 16:57  

#4  One thing to remember is that Britain in 1936 and 1938 simply wasn't ready for war. Neville had no way to back any threat he might have made to Hitler. Of course, the Germans weren't really that far ahead, but bad intel and wrong advice clouded the Brits and French to that.

My guess is Neville went to Munich thinking he had a weak hand, and he tried to make the most of it. But after Munich, and especially after the rest of Czechoslovakia was gobbled up, he knew that war was coming and tried to get ready.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-09-03 11:23  

#3  The more I read about 1938, the more respect I have for Chamberlain. He was wrong, but he probably acted to the best of his ability on wrong advice. Even while bringing "peace in our time," he was boosting funding for the military by large amounts.

All the (vastly overblown) horror stories about Guernica and the RAF's own men saying that "the bomber will always get through" made a difference.

Plus, Fighter Command was still converting from biplanes to Hurricanes and the Spitfires were just trickling off the production lines. The Radar stations were still being worked up, with the all-important control centers still not ready.

Germany's problems were at least as bad, and the combined Czechs, UK, and France could have pounded her flat, but people always overrate the enemy and underrate your own side.
Posted by: Jackal   2006-09-03 09:30  

#2  Well damn said Joe.
Posted by: 6   2006-09-03 05:41  

#1  Chamberlain is grudgingly respected by many in political science for his well-meaning "war is the last resort/option" naivete vv Hitler and Stalin. Yes, he has become symbol for the detrimental failures of appeasement, but ironically also a symbol for the determination of elected political leaders to work for peace until the bitter end, no matter the effect of success or failure on himself. *Big difference between honest but failed leaders like Nelville vs WOT policrats-wafflecrats whom refuse to admit to any kind or nature of mistake. FOX > new term DEFEAT-CRATS!?
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-09-03 02:13  

00:00