218)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
JohnQPublic
2sidestoeverything
loverman
Shadowolf
Mdiar
LumFan
jimdoze
cowboygrandpa
AlphaGnosis
CRYMTYPHON
IneedIwantIgottahave
Eagle Eye
Ciera Marie
not2needy
Chuck The Canuck
david_nwpa
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Aplogies if this comment appears more than once, but props having a bad day losing posts !!!!
So, in context, how many people of the age of the "smackdown" victim (without imediate recourse to Google) would know exactly WHAT Chamberlain did (and WHEN) ? I doubt if it would be more than a few percent IN ENGLAND, let alone the US..... At least the "victim" knew that the word appeasment applied to one of the worst politicians the UK's ever had....
Er, can anyone remember "Peace In Our Time" ?????
This "interview" looked more like a shooting gallery to me....
Negged for the above, as this was NOT what I'd call an interview / debate, it was purely amd simply an effort to discredit.......
Anyone who took a history class that included world war II and the period and events leading up to it would know what Chamberlain did and what appeasement really means. Not knowing what occurred is no excuse for going on the air pretending like you do know what happened.
....grr.
Chris gave the moron every chance to admit his mistake/Bush`s/McCain`s mistake with dignity. But the guy chose the shouting no-nothing approach.
Appeasement; giving up something.
Talking, discussing, negotiating; something a decent president uses to avoid wasting GI lives and limbs on unnecessary and counterproductive battles.
No, Kevin James, attacked Obama over appeasement without even knowing what it means. Like every neocon moron who makes this fake argument, James deserves every bit of every ounce of national embarrassment they so eager seek.
Have you seen these NeoConArtists on Real Time???They continuously talk over, then yell over any rebuttal of their lies and smears...good on Chris!!!
I wish Chris Matthews would have told Kevin James, "An empty wagon makes a lot of noise", maybe that would have shut him up/
Or more like: "I've enjoyed every word.... you DON'T say."
Yes I can because I was there. It is debatable that Neville Chamberlain was "one of the worst politicians the UK has ever had". One school of thought thinks that he gave the UK time to re-arm so that we stood a chance later. Now after all this time I'm inclined to agree with that.
The worst leaders the UK... and all of Europe... had were the ones following World War I. The ones who demanded outrageous reparations of Germany for a war that wasn't even its fault, anymore then any of the other countries initially involved. That set the ground for Hitler's rise to power and for Chamberlain to display his attitude of appeasement at the Munich Conference, whether this was a good thing or a bad thing is debatable. I tend to believe that such things going on in your "backyard" so to speak should be clipped in the bud if possible. The question is whether Hitler could of been stopped at that point in history with fewer lives lost... the answer to that is the key point in where Chamberlain should stand in history. One should also consider the long peace that resulted from WW2 and factor that into the final calculations of how many lives might have been saved... or lost.
Interesting and expansive view.
You are absolutely correct.
It was the rapacious demands of the WW1 victors that totally laid the groundwork and nurtured a violent response from post-WW1 Germany.
Out of which (WWII) then arose the Marshall Plan and Pax Americana... to yield an extraordinarily peaceful and prosperous stretch of time in human history.
The most tangible artifact of Pax Americana is the European Union... an achievement beyond the wildest dreams of anyone from the perspective of a century ago.
Well that "pax americana" did involve us committing numerous acts of terrorism in Europe as well as supporting military dictatorships, so europeans have a rather different picture of that period. but you wouldn't be expected to have ever heard of that.
Secret Warfare : Operation Gladio and NATO's Stay-Behind Armies
After the Cold War had ended, Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti confirmed to the Italian Senate in August 1990 that Italy had had a secret stay-behind army, codenamed Gladio รข;; the sword. A document from the Italian military secret service, SIFAR, revealed that SIFAR had been running the secret army ... in close collaboration with the CIA. Suggesting the secret army might have linked up with right-wing organizations such as Ordine Nuovo and Avanguardia Nazionale to engage in domestic terror, the Italian Senate decided in 1990 that Gladio was beyond democratic control and therefore had to be closed down....
...The evidence now available suggests that in other countries the secret stay-behind armies linked up with right-wing terrorists and carried out terror attacks that were wrongly blamed on the political left...
http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/coll_gla...
Al taqqiya?
Historical records show that Hitler bet the farm on the outcome of that meeting... and that Chamberlain fatally misjudged the situation. "Fatally" meaning to the tune of 40 to 50 million lives.
Judging Chamberlain 60 years after the fact is kind of like playing Michael Moore, only without the video. Just the insinuations of what he must have been thinking. Exactly what the Right hates MM for, but with none of the facts that MM has.
For example, from what I have read England was no more ready to go to war at that time than America. Chamberlain was not responsible for the weakness of the British military at that time. Britain is a parliamentary system, which requires much greater debate and cooperation than our winner-take-all two party system. Cannot place all blame for nearly an entire nation`s wanting to avoid another WWI which was still fresh in their minds.
I'm glad that Matthews made a comment about getting someone on there who had a knowledge of history. I'm equally glad that he did not make a comment about Khrushchev and Kennedy meeting immediately before the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or about how FDR met with the enemies of the US to make things better. Or how Truman used these meetings with enemies to lessen wars effects. Those comments would have been absurd. Especially if they were made by a right wing radio host, but not so much if they were made by a liberal presidential candidate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/...
well man, there's a couple ways to look at it
if you were going on a national TV show, your credibility on the line, and were going to talk about Chamberlain appeasing Hitler, wouldn't you take those 10 seconds to Google exactly HOW Chamberlain appeased Hitler?
so like I said on the first page, I didn't know it
but if I was going to talk about it, you'd better believe I'd do the research
so It's not that he didn't know, it's that he wouldn't admit that he didn't know
and he kept sticking to his guns even tho he had no idea what he was talking about
that's the shameful part, not his not knowing something
now DM I'm with you on the assassination/hit thing[I could only sit thru half of it], but why bother debating someone who has no idea what they are even talking about, and are too lazy to take a minute to google 'Chamberlain appeases Hitler'
he brought it on himself by just repeating what other people say and not researching and thinking for himself
you reap what you don't bother to know
Well, I think he brought it on himself by spewing the party line that a certain type of negotiation EQUALS appeasement when:
1) we all f`in know it doesn`t
2) a slight variation on negotiation strategy (that any expert will tell you is a guarantee for failure btw) means it isn`t appeasement
Hypocritical, moving goal posts in the sixth inning, neocon anti-logic swiftboating.