Re: Pearls Before Swine: Uncle Is Not Good With Money

Scott Lurndal wrote:

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Bobbie Sellers  <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>

>

If we had stood up to the Third Reich earlier
the Germans might not have advised the Japanese that
we were not fighters. Pacificistic Isolationists and
anti-semites kept Roosevelt from helping Europe until
we were attacked by Germany's Allies, the Axis.

>
Indeed.  On the whole, Chamberlain and Petain didn't go down very well
in history.

>
I think Chamberlain may be getting a boost from current events.
>
Republicans in particular should cease using his name and "Munich" as
insults.  He acted out of principle, however misguided, they are not
doing so  Plus most of them have no idea what happened there.
>
Also, it's a pity that Daladier remains unmentioned in this.  His
responsibility is at least as large as Chamberlain's.  Indeed, as France
actually had a defense treaty with Czechoslovakia, which his signature
on the Munich agreement violated.
>
He was also wiser than Chamberlain.  While the former really thought
that the Munich agreement would bring peace, Daladier knew well that it
would not, and thought he'd be condemned for his part in it.  He was
very surprised to be welcomed home by cheering crowds.
>
Chamberlain was brought into national politics by LLoyd George, who
referred to him as "not one of my lucky finds".

 It's also necessary to understand the three decades before WWI
in order to understand the politics of the interbellum.

Indeed.  Chamberlain and virtually everyone else believed that WWI was a result of the great powers not talking to one another and this was a fault he was determined not to commit.
He was sure in 1938 that the UK, France, and Czechoslovakia would win a war against Germany.  But he feared it would be another WWI, with millions of dead.
Appeasement had been tried before, with Russia circa 1880 and it had prevented war.  It was not at this time a dirty word.
William Hyde