Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?

[SysError]

An interesting formal debate with real historians arguing the motion:  Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing

I must say that I found myself thinking about some of my long held notions.

 


For those of you without Flash here is a link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8

(Without saying were I came out of the motion, I must say that it was refreshing to see at least a few down to earth comments on Churchill!)

BTW: Right now, I am still thinking on how I would vote on the motion.

[zack1234]

The British establishment were more concerned about Stalin than Hitler.

Chamberlain and Halifax were a disgrace.

Academics get paid serious coin to tells what we already know, we have bills to pay and don't have time for this chatter.

In twenty years time their will statues of Hitler in Berlin.

"Rise and fall of the third Reich" by William Shire a colonial but who was there in the beginning.

[bozon]

Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?

A certain western leader is currently running a similar experiment. I guess we shall see how it turns out this time.

[SysError]

I have the feeling that both of you are responding to the debate motion in late 20th century terms.

What was interesting in my mind is that the debate is, for the most part, accounting for the context of what was possible in the minds of everyone in mid to late 1930s.

I think that we are all guilty of viewing Chamberlain through a convenient post-WWII lens.

I think that we are being lazy when we do so.

History is often more interesting than we often give it credit for.

 

[Hajo]

I always wondered how someone could give away something that was not in their possession to give.

Didn't work then, won't work now.

[jeep00]

I always wondered how someone could give away something that was not in their possession to give.

Didn't work then, won't work now.

Lousiana Purchase, Northwest Territories, etc. The list goes on and on.

[Motherland]

Lousiana Purchase, Northwest Territories, etc. The list goes on and on.

the Treaty of Tordesillas

Westerners' favorite thing to do is divvy up and barter with things that don't belong to them

[SysError]

the Treaty of Tordesillas

Westerners' favorite thing to do is divvy up and barter with things that don't belong to them

Westerners are also quite good at conveniently misconstruing or completely ignoring (forgetting?) histories that don't support their own current vision(s) of themselves. 

(The Treaty of what   Trodvialles... Tortillas.... Tord..._what )

Google  ^{Hit Return} Wikipedia oh right.. 

(Well, in school we all really just skipped anything to do with Spain unless it somehow impacted us.  i.e.  Catherine of Aragon, Spanish Armada, World Cup soccer.  Not remembering should help with world order but somehow it doesn't   ).

 

[Masherbrum]

Władysław Raczkiewicz would disagree with pretty much everything said in this thread, except for Hajo.   

[Ratsy]

Westerners are also quite good at conveniently misconstruing or completely ignoring (forgetting?) histories that don't support their own current vision(s) of themselves.

I really enjoyed watching this debate.  This kind of thing is not typically on American television any longer.  It's a whole new area of YouTube searches for me.  Thanks for sharing.

As to the quote...

The old saw about history being written by the victors is long-evidenced by cave drawings, epic poetry, and today's text books.

I also liked, in the YouTube, the quote "...without hindsight, there is no history".  Gotta love Cambridge!

 

[Zimme83]

Politics now and then are often based on short term benefits for the politicians themself and the country they represent. Its about winning election and sending people to die in wars rarely win u any elections so leaders are not doing it for in special circumstances. People in Europe didn't want to fight another war in the 30:s and their leaders tried to avoid it by any means. But in a democracy its not only about the politics, its about the public opinion and its hard to convince people about sending troops to die in another country if it Isnīt any immediate threat to their own country.

[EagleDNY]

I have the feeling that both of you are responding to the debate motion in late 20th century terms.

What was interesting in my mind is that the debate is, for the most part, accounting for the context of what was possible in the minds of everyone in mid to late 1930s.

I think that we are all guilty of viewing Chamberlain through a convenient post-WWII lens.

I think that we are being lazy when we do so.

History is often more interesting than we often give it credit for.

 

Have to agree with you here.   Hindsight is always 20-20.  The British and the French were still full of people who had a personal experience in the hell of the "Great War" and had no desire whatsoever to ever see anything like that happen again.   What they failed to recognize at the time (and what we seem to fail to remember today) is that negotiation only works when BOTH parties want peace. 

[zack1234]

Why do i get a download when i open this thread?

Some strange file downloads

[bozon]

I get that too. It is because the OP tried to embed the YouTube frame in his post (or so I think).

[FLS]

If it wasn't for Chamberlain we wouldn't have a WW2 flight sim.