NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it's great when reactionaries talk about (american) liberal policies of "appeasement". They inevitably point to Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the UK from 1937 to 1940 , and his attempts to prevent war with Germany as their Exhibit A.

There's only one problem with this: Not only was Chamberlain the leader of the British Conservative Party (most dedidedly not liberal in the American sense of the word), but actually, his policies were the only viable option for the UK at the time.

I'm shocked! SHOCKED! that reactionaries don't know their assholes from elbows when it comes to history, especially when using that lack of knowledge to bash their ideological opponents.

I think it's great when reactionaries talk about (american) liberal policies of "appeasement". They inevitably point to Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the UK from 1937 to 1940 , and his attempts to prevent war with Germany as their Exhibit A.

There's only one problem with this: Not only was Chamberlain the leader of the British Conservative Party (most dedidedly not liberal in the American sense of the word), but actually, his policies were the only viable option for the UK at the time.

So.... the point would be more valid if Chamberlain has been a liberal?

(And the rest of that statement is debatable.)

I think it's great when reactionaries talk about (american) liberal policies of "appeasement". They inevitably point to Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the UK from 1937 to 1940 , and his attempts to prevent war with Germany as their Exhibit A.

There's only one problem with this: Not only was Chamberlain the leader of the British Conservative Party (most dedidedly not liberal in the American sense of the word), but actually, his policies were the only viable option for the UK at the time.

Let it be said that a Bushevik and their ilk never let objectivity and facts get in the way of good demonizings and demagoguery.

So.... the point would be more valid if Chamberlain has been a liberal?

(And the rest of that statement is debatable.)

The point would be more valid if Britain had been economically and militarily capable of standing up to Germany on its lonesome in 1937. The fact is that they couldn't have, and they knew it. Germany was the biggest, baddest motherfucker in the world in 1937, and everyone knew it secretly, even if they weren't willing to always admit it publicly. The way the war started should be proof of that--the Germans were handling everyone with ease at the outset, and had Hitler not gone eastward into Russia, who knows what would have happened? Maybe the US, when they eventually got involved, would have been landing troops in Britain instead of Normandy.

The point would be more valid if Britain had been economically and militarily capable of standing up to Germany on its lonesome in 1937. The fact is that they couldn't have, and they knew it. Germany was the biggest, baddest motherfucker in the world in 1937, and everyone knew it secretly, even if they weren't willing to always admit it publicly. The way the war started should be proof of that--the Germans were handling everyone with ease at the outset, and had Hitler not gone eastward into Russia, who knows what would have happened? Maybe the US, when they eventually got involved, would have been landing troops in Britain instead of Normandy.

Absolutely right, but this story doesn't begin in 1937. Hitler had been violating the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles almost since the day he took office as Chancellor. Germany didn't just wake up one day magically big and bad, and in fact the Treaty of Versailles was specifically designed to prevent exactly that. It failed because the Allies-who were responsible for enforcement of the treaty-failed to step up and do so.

All of which is beside the point. The OP seems to suggest that the argument that Chaimberlain was an appeaser is somehow predicated on the ides of him having been liberal. This is not so. When someone today refers to him as an appeaser (him specifically, mind you) they're using an example of weak foreign policy at a time when tougher reactions were called for. His liberal/conservatism is not relevant to that issue, only the poor example he set.

Absolutely right, but this story doesn't begin in 1937. Hitler had been violating the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles almost since the day he took office as Chancellor. Germany didn't just wake up one day magically big and bad, and in fact the Treaty of Versailles was specifically designed to prevent exactly that. It failed because the Allies-who were responsible for enforcement of the treaty-failed to step up and do so.

All of which is beside the point. The OP seems to suggest that the argument that Chaimberlain was an appeaser is somehow predicated on the ides of him having been liberal. This is not so. When someone today refers to him as an appeaser (him specifically, mind you) they're using an example of weak foreign policy at a time when tougher reactions were called for. His liberal/conservatism is not relevant to that issue, only the poor example he set.

Very well said.

Where are people saying that they are appeasers because they are liberal?

They just happen to be liberal and appeasers at the same time.

Your argument doesn't make sense.

I think it's great when reactionaries talk about (american) liberal policies of "appeasement". They inevitably point to Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the UK from 1937 to 1940 , and his attempts to prevent war with Germany as their Exhibit A.

There's only one problem with this: 1) Not only was Chamberlain the leader of the British Conservative Party (most dedidedly not liberal in the American sense of the word), but actually, 2) his policies were the only viable option for the UK at the time.

Looks like you think there were two problems. As long as we're avoiding the issues the only real problem you mention is that his policies might have been the only viable solution. It it certainly debatable whether or not the gift of the Sudetenland to Germany and the time it bought benefited the UK more than it did the Germans. Churchill certainly saw things differently.

Besides, I think there are many other examples of appeasement that are even more valid. While Clinton appeased the North Koreans, Carter managed to appease world communism.

Very well said.

Thank you :cool:

Absolutely right, but this story doesn't begin in 1937. Hitler had been violating the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles almost since the day he took office as Chancellor. Germany didn't just wake up one day magically big and bad, and in fact the Treaty of Versailles was specifically designed to prevent exactly that. It failed because the Allies-who were responsible for enforcement of the treaty-failed to step up and do so.I don't think I implied that Germany got big in a vacuum--it's more a case that the British and French especially had enough of their own problems that they overlooked Germany and didn't see how much of a threat they'd be until Germany was too big to be stopped. France, in particular, felt safe behind their ground defenses, and Britain was even farther away.

All of which is beside the point. The OP seems to suggest that the argument that Chaimberlain was an appeaser is somehow predicated on the ides of him having been liberal. This is not so. When someone today refers to him as an appeaser (him specifically, mind you) they're using an example of weak foreign policy at a time when tougher reactions were called for. His liberal/conservatism is not relevant to that issue, only the poor example he set.
I don't think he's predicating his argument on that at all. If anything, that seemed like a throwaway line to me, that it's liberals who are called appeasers like Chamberlain when Chamberlain wasn't a liberal. You're right that there's nothing inherently conservative or liberal about his decisions, but I think it's unfair to hammer Chamberlain as badly as he has been for doing what he did in re Germany in 1937. He really didn't have any good options.

...and had Hitler not gone eastward into Russia, who knows what would have happened? Maybe the US, when they eventually got involved, would have been landing troops in Britain instead of Normandy.
Not with the Sealion plan as it stood. The idea of using coastal barges towed by ships proper, though better than using the barges alone, was still bollocks from a military standpoint. Anything above Sea State 1 in the channel on D-Day for Dover, and the only place those Wehrmacht soldiers would be invading would be Davy Jones' Locker; and he's bada**, as anybody who's seen Dead Man's Chest knows.:D
OK seriously, Sealion was one of those plans that only work if absolutely everything goes right for the side doing the planning; or pseudo-planning, rather. First the Luftwaffe had to seize air supremacy (doable), then either annihilate or severely attrit Royal Navy surface forces (hard, but not impossible-as-such if air supremacy is obtained and Bismarck et. al. are active), and then land and support six-odd light divisions in a marshy area riddled with British defenses while they try to capture a port for supplies and Panzers to come ashore. In other words, the sort of plan that arises when a country actually starts believing it's own propaganda...:rolleyes:
And as far as the OP is concerned; Chamberlain and Woodrow Wilson (whose "Peace in our time" policies he was merely carrying on) have more in common with President Bush than any Democrat I know aside from (maybe) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Both tried to run a completely ethical foreign policy; and then got mugged for their trouble by that little, Machiavellian bastard named Reality. PWNAGE, in the old-school Greek Tragedy style...:p

You're right that there's nothing inherently conservative or liberal about his decisions, but I think it's unfair to hammer Chamberlain as badly as he has been for doing what he did in re Germany in 1937. He really didn't have any good options.
The argument about appeasment being inherently liberal is obviously a falsehood considering Franklin D. was very liberal and, at least I consider him to be, the best wartime president that the U.S. has ever had. However, Chamberlain definitly could have stood up to Hitler in 1937 when the Nazi army was clearly weaker than his own.

I don't think I implied that Germany got big in a vacuum--it's more a case that the British and French especially had enough of their own problems that they overlooked Germany and didn't see how much of a threat they'd be until Germany was too big to be stopped. France, in particular, felt safe behind their ground defenses, and Britain was even farther away.

I don't think he's predicating his argument on that at all. If anything, that seemed like a throwaway line to me, that it's liberals who are called appeasers like Chamberlain when Chamberlain wasn't a liberal. You're right that there's nothing inherently conservative or liberal about his decisions, but I think it's unfair to hammer Chamberlain as badly as he has been for doing what he did in re Germany in 1937. He really didn't have any good options.

Well, as for the merits of Chamberlain's approach that is definitely something that could be debated and I think, enjoyably. I think, if I'm reading your posts right, we agree that discussing the liberality/conservatism of Chamberlain isn't really useful with respect to the original post.

That might be a good topic for another post to avoid hijacking this one though... hmmmmmmmmm

To the OP:

I think the reason that liberal is being equated to appeasement is a sign of the times as opposed to a historical statement. As has been stated, President Roosevelt was a no-BS kick the bastards' arse President and was also arguably one of the most liberal we've had.

In current times, the left tends to be against the war in Iraq and hypothetical future wars in Iran and Korea, while Conservatives tend to be opposite. That's today, not necessarily historical.

The argument about appeasment being inherently liberal is obviously a falsehood considering Franklin D. was very liberal and, at least I consider him to be, the best wartime president that the U.S. has ever had. However, Chamberlain definitly could have stood up to Hitler in 1937 when the Nazi army was clearly weaker than his own.

If I remember correctly then it certainly wasn't weaker than his own and Chamberlain had at least half an eye on what Russia would do if the rest of Europe exhausted itself through war.

France and England could have destroyed Hitler in 1937; Chamberlain was utterly wrong in his decision to appease the vastly weaker German army. They could have destroyed the Nazis, rebuilt Germany, and prevented the Soviets from ruling over Eastern Europe...not to mention save the Czechs from Nazi aggression.

To the OP:

I think the reason that liberal is being equated to appeasement is a sign of the times as opposed to a historical statement. As has been stated, President Roosevelt was a no-BS kick the bastards' arse President and was also arguably one of the most liberal we've had.

In current times, the left tends to be against the war in Iraq and hypothetical future wars in Iran and Korea, while Conservatives tend to be opposite. That's today, not necessarily historical.

And I think the OP's point was that the kind of people who point to contemporary liberals and say "appeasers! Chamberlains!" are the types of people who have a rudimentary, at best, knowledge of history.

And I think the OP's point was that the kind of people who point to contemporary liberals and say "appeasers! Chamberlains!" are the types of people who have a rudimentary, at best, knowledge of history.

Not to mention the fact that appeasement goes back a hell of a lot farther than Chamberlain...