CS Lewis:

““We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

I’m not sure there’s been a time in our history when our political class has been grosser.

Chamberlain was trying to calm people.

In addition, I can’t quite imagine anyone who had done what he did coming back and saying something like, “I don’t trust Hitler but I had to appease him because we’re not strong enough yet to fight him.”

I also can’t quite imagine anyone in his position saying something like “Well, maybe giving away the Sudetenland will work to stem the tide of war against this terrible person. I’m not sure, but I’m hoping for the best.”

Lastly, if you look at his actual speech, I don’t think it sounds like some over-the-top brag. He is hopeful but does not state it as an absolute. Instead he uses phrases such as ” in my view” and “I believe it is peace for our time.”

Lastly, what is the following about from you?:

I am shocked, appalled and even awed that anyone capable of graduating high school could disagree. There must be some really, really serious psychological issues at work here. C’mon man. It’s okay to admit error. You can, if you try.

Quit insulting people like that.

Did you even go back and read Chamberlain’s speech? Perhaps it is you who needs to admit error? Not the possible error of believing what you believe about Chamberlain, but the error of insulting anyone who disagrees with you about it.

I am shocked, appalled and even awed that anyone capable of graduating high school could disagree. There must be some really, really serious psychological issues at work here. C’mon man. It’s okay to admit error. You can, if you try.

Let’s start with the simple stuff. Explain why Chamberlain had no choice but to make such an extreme claim. Surely you recognize that significantly less grandiose assessments were available.

Try impossible. 99% of “alternate history” is somebody trying to squeeze yesterday’s events into today’s politics.

What Churchill did during WWII to defend Britain from a conventional war takeover by the Germans (or to warn against Germany prior to that) has no connection to what he would have done in the completely different nuclear world and nuclear standoff with the USSR.

Neither you nor anyone else has a clue what he would have done. But Churchill was neither an appeaser nor suicidal.Maybe with Churchill at the helm, the standoff wouldn’t even have happened, because you may recall that most people thought Khrushchev did what he did because he perceived JFK as immature and weak. Churchill was neither.

Try looking in an
mirror when you throw out “always” and “every” statements, you may see The Scarecrow staring back at you.

I’ll try harder to engage you on the infantile level you seem to understand history. Chamberlain was wrong but using 20/20 hindsight to proclaim the only problem was his foolishness is a shallow and ultimately useless analysis of the man and his time.

Mike

From the JFK museum website:

“No one was sure how Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev would respond to the naval blockade and US demands. But the leaders of both superpowers recognized the devastating possibility of a nuclear war and publicly agreed to a deal in which the Soviets would dismantle the weapon sites in exchange for a pledge from the United States not to invade Cuba. In a separate deal, which remained secret for more than twenty-five years, the United States also agreed to remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey.”

Would Churchill have made that deal? Would he have trusted the Soviets to keep up their end? To echo that line from Braveheart, it’s easy to admire uncompromising men until they get you and everyone you’ve ever loved killed.

Winston Churchill was exactly the right man to save the civilized world in the mid-20th century, but if you think a man like him is ALWAYS the right choice for EVERY situation, you’re a fool.

Mike