user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Appeaser and misunderstood
Definitely appeaser, definitely misunderstood, though to what extent he was either is where it starts to get cloudy.
Voted : Misunderstood
Remember, memories of the Great War was still fresh in the memory and avoiding war seemed very appealling.
The US were of a similar mind and had no stomach for another 'European War', yet noone accuses them of being appeasers.
FDR never met with Hitler and returned home with a document he waved in the air declaring "Peace in our time", now did he?
Is it just me, or is history even taught in some schools?
Come now FF, you know you can do better.
He was a great lesson, for those of us willing to listen, to the absolute stupidity of attempting to appease a psycopath.
Steel, for all his well meaning attempts, did he make the situation better or worse?
You tell me steelhamster. Your comment is ludicrous. FDR wasn't an appeaser. Neville Chamberlain was. He was sacked by his own party.
Your grasp of history:
The US were of a similar mind
No, they were never for appeasing Hitler. Of course there were peace movements like the ones with Lindbergh, but giving in to Hitler's demands was never US policy nor was any "peace" document signed.
and had no stomach for another 'European War'
That is also incorrect. It wasn't about having a stomach for another European war. It was that many Americans didn't want to get involved in what they viewed as the typical European squabbles that led to World War 1. That is what the polls of that time said.
Not many were of the mind that if Hitler were annex parts of Mexico or Canada, that the US should sue for peace.
Come on. Read your history books again.
Indeed, what can one say, when it is a matter of record.
Lets hope history is not even more rewritten by revisionist huh.
I don't recall the US giving away land to hitler in exchange for vague promises of not being particularly evil for a little while.
The sad thing is that the failure of appeasement is a matter of historical record, but still people deny it. Naive optimism or willful ignorance?
It was political expediency, the UK was not war ready and WWI was still a stain on the nation, millions of men slaughtered for dubious reasons
Like I've said before in a similar ballot, with hindsight Chamberlains actions were naive, and a mistake.
Without hindsight, they were entitrely understandable against the backdrop of the first world war, and reflect positively on the peaceful aspirations of the man.
Liek they say, with the best intentions...
Chamberlain was a weak, pathetic, disgusting man.
And appeasing Stalin was ok was it giving eastern and central European countries to the Communist Warsaw pact?
Yeah lets free the Europeans from the Nazi dictator then sign the Yalta agreement and let them suffer under another Dictator.
by isay on Wed Aug 30, 06 4:09am
[+]
^Yep
As Lil_ape said, at the time his actions seemed perfectly reasonable. Britain wasn't ready for war in 1937, she was barely ready in 1939, but what she did have owed much to Chamberlains rearmement.
George W. Bush is the greatest appeaser of the modern era.
After the Chinese came into international airspace and attacked an American plane, Bush practically groveled at the feet of the Chinese.
After Osama bin Laden ran to Pakistan, Bush stopped at the border, appeasing the military dictatorship that ran the country. Bin Laden is still at large, of course. Bush preferred instead to invade a country to steal it's oil and to prove his manhood, and to claim that this was the frontline in the war of terror, even though it had nothing to do with the war on terror.
And now Bush is appeasing the Iranians with his "big talk, no action" approach, preferring instead to hide behind Kofi Annan and squealing for useless sanctions.
Steel, it is also a matter of public record that Chamberlain believed the majority of Germans did not support Hitler and that doing things such as "bombing" Germany with propaganda would lead to an uprising or coup against Hitler. Why I even saw various cabinet ministers say this on the World at War series produced by your very own countrymen.
Neville's actions may have bought a little time, but he was certainly naive. Members of all parties were deeply concerned that aggressive enough action was not being taken.
It is also a matter of public record that the communists and socialists were very reluctant to support a war with Germany until the Soviet Union was attacked.
From someone such as yourself who believes that the King of Denmark wore a star of David armband in solidarity with the Jews, your claim of superior knowledge is rather ridiculous.
Chomsky makes a good comment. He did push for rearmament. This didn't excuse his other actions though as attested by the harsh criticism by members of his own party.
And so the underlying point of this ballot, which bashes someone for something he did in the 1930's, is what? That the United States should protect Israel by invading Iran immediately?
In my opinion Britains lack of preparation for WW2 is one of the biggest myths of the 20th century. In the 1930s we developed and implemented radar defences. We built the best Aircraft Carriers in the world. Our flat tops were only superceded by the Essex Class in 1943 so we were ahead of the game there. We developed and deployed the worlds best interceptors in the form of the Hurricane and the Spitfire. OK, so our tactics were 30 years out of date but the British and European empires faced the worst case scenario of having to deal with an enemy on our doorstep which required all of our attention to defeat (Germany) and an enemy on the other side of the planet which required almost all of our resources to defeat (Japan). If we had gone to war in 1938 we would have done so without the fighters we needed to defend ourselves with. Our radar network would have therefore been almost without value. Lets not forget that some of Hitlers demands were actually reasonable and were a response to the outrageously unfair Treaty of Versaille.
And I've really not studied enough of the man to make any sort of informed opinion.
Isay: neville chamberlain was wrong to give away half of europe to hitler and the allies were wrong to give away half of europe to stalin after the war.
Arguably the parts the USSR got were those that they already occupied, so we didn't actually give then anything so much as we conceded that they were there and we weren't going to force them back. So it's not quite as bad as Chamberlain. But we should have insisted, using force if necessary, that the Soviets pull back to their pre-war borders and free their newly aquired slave states. We didn't, and we spent the next half of a century risking WWIII because of it, kinda just repeats the whole 'appeasement is bad' scenario doesn't it?
Ok, in some situations appeasement is of course bad, but rushing headlong into a shooting war can also be wrong aswell. World War I could easily have been avoided if the main protagonists had opted for diplomacy over war, and over 14 million lives would have been spared, and the rise of Lenin (probably) and the Nazis prevented.
|
|
