Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Neville Chamberlain reborn?   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, diplomacy, preconditions, Secretary of State John Kerry, American Foreign Policy, Hassan Rowhani  
•       •       •

1563 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Nov 2013 at 11:43 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-11-26 09:51:25 AM  
Wait, I thought it was Saddam Hussein who was the new Hitler, remember when Bush 1 was saying that?

Secondly, Chamberlain was condemned for not intervening in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when he had no army capable of doing so, and would have had to cross several countriesto do so. What was he supposed to do, send the navy? It's landlocked. The UK had no political will to fight at that time and certainly no public support for a massive military spending campaign on the army. Churchill was a great leader for Britain for 1940 and 1941 but his PR of Chamberlain as a craven coward omits the political realities of the period.
 
2013-11-26 09:59:33 AM  

gaslight: Wait, I thought it was Saddam Hussein who was the new Hitler, remember when Bush 1 was saying that?

Secondly, Chamberlain was condemned for not intervening in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when he had no army capable of doing so, and would have had to cross several countriesto do so. What was he supposed to do, send the navy? It's landlocked. The UK had no political will to fight at that time and certainly no public support for a massive military spending campaign on the army. Churchill was a great leader for Britain for 1940 and 1941 but his PR of Chamberlain as a craven coward omits the political realities of the period.


Chamberlain also massively increased defence spending and started issuing gas masks to people. He knew what was coming. And he knew he needed time to get his shiat together.
 
2013-11-26 10:29:13 AM  

gaslight: Secondly, Chamberlain was condemned for not intervening in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when he had no army capable of doing so, and would have had to cross several countriesto do so. What was he supposed to do, send the navy? It's landlocked. The UK had no political will to fight at that time and certainly no public support for a massive military spending campaign on the army. Churchill was a great leader for Britain for 1940 and 1941 but his PR of Chamberlain as a craven coward omits the political realities of the period.


Fark your context, this is the internet!
 
2013-11-26 11:03:21 AM  
Wow. That is dumb.
 
2013-11-26 11:03:36 AM  
Call me when the Iranian tanks roll into Poland.
 
2013-11-26 11:04:34 AM  

gaslight: Wait, I thought it was Saddam Hussein who was the new Hitler, remember when Bush 1 was saying that?

Secondly, Chamberlain was condemned for not intervening in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when he had no army capable of doing so, and would have had to cross several countriesto do so. What was he supposed to do, send the navy? It's landlocked. The UK had no political will to fight at that time and certainly no public support for a massive military spending campaign on the army. Churchill was a great leader for Britain for 1940 and 1941 but his PR of Chamberlain as a craven coward omits the political realities of the period.


Let's not also forget that the people of England remembered WW1, and didn't want to go through that again.
 
2013-11-26 11:05:18 AM  
Chris: I want to do a little history check on you---what did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939? What did he do wrong?
Kevin: It all goes back to appeasement. It's the key term.
Chris: No, what did he do, tell me what he did?
Kevin: It's the key term.
Chris: You have to answer this question. What did he do?
Kevin: It's the same thing, it puts it all...
Chris: Well tell me what he did?
Kevin: It's appeasement.
Chris: What did Chamberlain do wrong..
Kevin: His actions, his actions enabled, energized, legitimized
Chris: What did Chamberlain do?
Kevin: It's the exact same thing.
Chris: No stop, Kevin. I'm not going to continue with this interview unless you answer what that thing is. What did Chamberlain do in '39, tell me? '38?
Kevin: Chris, it's the exact same thing alright?
Chris: What did he do? <Yelling>  What did he do!
Kevin: '38, '39 Chris what year do you want?
Chris: What did he do?
I want you to answer, what did Chamberlain?
He's talking, He's talking about appeasement.
Chris: What did Chamberlain do, just tell me what he did, Kevin? What did Chamberlain do that you didn't like?
Kevin: What, what Chamberlain did? <confused> What, what, the President was talking about, you just said the President was talking about Barack. Look...
Chris: You're making a reference to the days before our involvement in WWII. When the war in Europe began. I want you to tell me as an expert, what did Chamberlain do wrong.
Kevin: You're not going to box me in here, Chris. President Bush was making that. I'm glad, I'm glad.
Chris: You don't know, do you? You don't know what Neville Chamberlain did
Kevin: Yeah, he was an appeaser, Chris....
Chris: You are BS'ing me... You don't know what you're talking about.
 
2013-11-26 11:06:51 AM  
"Speak softly and carry a big stick."

-Rand Paul.
 
2013-11-26 11:07:14 AM  
Do people think the world really works like a Civilization game?

"Give me the secret of Horseback Riding!"
"You already know that."
"Well, then I demand tribute!"
"Um, no."
"Then prepare to die!"

Diplomacy is a good thing, at least far preferable to blowing people up.
 
2013-11-26 11:10:07 AM  
Also, if Obama is Chamberlain, can the derp brigade round out the rest of the cast for us? Is Rouhani playing Hitler or does that role go to Khamenei (with Obama as understudy)? Obama also obviously understudies as Stalin, but who plays that role day to day? Of course, you wouldn't want to forget about Poland, so who's Mościcki? How bout Lebrun?

You're the ones who don't seem to be able to grasp even the simplest situation without resorting to your stable of approximately five analogies and metaphors, so flesh it out. Not everybody here speaks Tamarian.
 
2013-11-26 11:11:20 AM  
I've been assured by Top Historians that Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rSLirqmTY

Top.  Historians.

/study it out.
 
2013-11-26 11:11:56 AM  

James!: Chris: I want to do a little history check on you . . .


Damn you.
 
2013-11-26 11:12:44 AM  
Chamberlain is unfairly maligned. He did what he could with the resources and information available to him. What more can we reasonably ask of a person?
 
2013-11-26 11:13:06 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: James!: Chris: I want to do a little history check on you . . .

Damn you.


It should be posted in every damn thread mentioning Chamberlain. Possibly 3 times.
 
2013-11-26 11:13:23 AM  

kxs401: Chamberlain is unfairly maligned. He did what he could with the resources and information available to him. What more can we reasonably ask of a person?


Magic.
 
2013-11-26 11:18:18 AM  

James!: Chris: I want to do a little history check on you---what did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939? What did he do wrong?...


I have never seen that before, and holy shiat, that was epic. Just keep hammering on those 'energizing & legitimizing' key words.
 
2013-11-26 11:21:11 AM  

costermonger: James!: Chris: I want to do a little history check on you---what did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939? What did he do wrong?...

I have never seen that before, and holy shiat, that was epic. Just keep hammering on those 'energizing & legitimizing' key words.


Three Crooked Squirrels posted a video of it. You can see the guys mind break.
 
2013-11-26 11:23:52 AM  

James!: Three Crooked Squirrels posted a video of it. You can see the guys mind break.


Yeah, I found a clip before I saw the link here. What an embarrassing display.
 
2013-11-26 11:34:14 AM  
As soon as I heard that we made a deal with Iran I just farking knew some hack would be Chamberlaining it up. I'm surprised it took them this long to get it out there.
 
2013-11-26 11:36:20 AM  

Lando Lincoln: As soon as I heard that we made a deal with Iran I just farking knew some hack would be Chamberlaining it up


Whenever someone doesn't use force, the Authoritarians will Chamberlain it up.
 
2013-11-26 11:46:24 AM  
So he's gone from bloodthirsty warmonger to appeaser.  Must be Tuesday on the Freeper forums.
 
2013-11-26 11:48:28 AM  

James!: Wow. That Subby is dumb.

 
2013-11-26 11:49:00 AM  

James!: Chris: I want to do a little history check on you---what did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939? What did he do wrong?
Kevin: It all goes back to appeasement. It's the key term.
Chris: No, what did he do, tell me what he did?
Kevin: It's the key term.
Chris: You have to answer this question. What did he do?
Kevin: It's the same thing, it puts it all...
Chris: Well tell me what he did?
Kevin: It's appeasement.
Chris: What did Chamberlain do wrong..
Kevin: His actions, his actions enabled, energized, legitimized
Chris: What did Chamberlain do?
Kevin: It's the exact same thing.
Chris: No stop, Kevin. I'm not going to continue with this interview unless you answer what that thing is. What did Chamberlain do in '39, tell me? '38?
Kevin: Chris, it's the exact same thing alright?
Chris: What did he do? <Yelling>  What did he do!
Kevin: '38, '39 Chris what year do you want?
Chris: What did he do?
I want you to answer, what did Chamberlain?
He's talking, He's talking about appeasement.
Chris: What did Chamberlain do, just tell me what he did, Kevin? What did Chamberlain do that you didn't like?
Kevin: What, what Chamberlain did? <confused> What, what, the President was talking about, you just said the President was talking about Barack. Look...
Chris: You're making a reference to the days before our involvement in WWII. When the war in Europe began. I want you to tell me as an expert, what did Chamberlain do wrong.
Kevin: You're not going to box me in here, Chris. President Bush was making that. I'm glad, I'm glad.
Chris: You don't know, do you? You don't know what Neville Chamberlain did
Kevin: Yeah, he was an appeaser, Chris....
Chris: You are BS'ing me... You don't know what you're talking about.


For one brief, shining moment, Chris Matthews behaved like an actual journalist. And then the moment passed forever.
 
2013-11-26 11:50:06 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Call me when the Iranian tanks roll into Poland. bomb Pearl Harbor


FTFY
 
2013-11-26 11:50:28 AM  
I just don't get how using diplomacy instead of bombs for once is being met with so much resistance and caution - from other Democrats, no less. I expect Republicans to be looney tunes but there are seriously some D's in Congress in favor of new sanctions? Why?
 
2013-11-26 11:50:32 AM  

James!: kxs401: Chamberlain is unfairly maligned. He did what he could with the resources and information available to him. What more can we reasonably ask of a person?

Magic.


You're thinking of Neville Longbottom. Rookie mistake.
 
2013-11-26 11:51:08 AM  

James!: Chris: I want to do a little history check on you---what did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939? What did he do wrong?
Kevin: It all goes back to appeasement. It's the key term.
Chris: No, what did he do, tell me what he did?
Kevin: It's the key term.
Chris: You have to answer this question. What did he do?
Kevin: It's the same thing, it puts it all...
Chris: Well tell me what he did?
Kevin: It's appeasement.
Chris: What did Chamberlain do wrong..
Kevin: His actions, his actions enabled, energized, legitimized
Chris: What did Chamberlain do?
Kevin: It's the exact same thing.
Chris: No stop, Kevin. I'm not going to continue with this interview unless you answer what that thing is. What did Chamberlain do in '39, tell me? '38?
Kevin: Chris, it's the exact same thing alright?
Chris: What did he do? <Yelling>  What did he do!
Kevin: '38, '39 Chris what year do you want?
Chris: What did he do?
I want you to answer, what did Chamberlain?
He's talking, He's talking about appeasement.
Chris: What did Chamberlain do, just tell me what he did, Kevin? What did Chamberlain do that you didn't like?
Kevin: What, what Chamberlain did? <confused> What, what, the President was talking about, you just said the President was talking about Barack. Look...
Chris: You're making a reference to the days before our involvement in WWII. When the war in Europe began. I want you to tell me as an expert, what did Chamberlain do wrong.
Kevin: You're not going to box me in here, Chris. President Bush was making that. I'm glad, I'm glad.
Chris: You don't know, do you? You don't know what Neville Chamberlain did
Kevin: Yeah, he was an appeaser, Chris....
Chris: You are BS'ing me... You don't know what you're talking about.


That's awesome.
 
2013-11-26 11:51:36 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-26 11:51:41 AM  
The hardest part of selling this is that everyone that isn't a right wing Israeli or an utter retard understands that comparing Iran to Nazi Germany is a complete non starter.
 
2013-11-26 11:52:02 AM  
Ctrl-F "Chamberlain"

No results

The actual article is about how Obama is using diplomacy instead of blunt military force to achieve foreign policy goals.
 
2013-11-26 11:52:11 AM  

James!: costermonger: James!: Chris: I want to do a little history check on you---what did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939? What did he do wrong?...

I have never seen that before, and holy shiat, that was epic. Just keep hammering on those 'energizing & legitimizing' key words.

Three Crooked Squirrels posted a video of it. You can see the guys mind break.


Talking points are incantations. They give you power just from their being spoken aloud. You don't have to actually understand the meanings behind the words. Like Harry Potter saying "Rejecto Libulardo", just say the magic words and liberals melt before you.
 
2013-11-26 11:52:29 AM  

James!: Wow. That is dumb.


Considering it's the NYT, it should be upgraded to "retarded".
 
2013-11-26 11:52:54 AM  
I am getting really tired of every instance of diplomacy being compared to appeasement.
 
2013-11-26 11:53:14 AM  
Misprint on the headline.  Obama is Wilt Chamberlain reborn and after your white wimmen!
 
2013-11-26 11:53:17 AM  
"This was a president who was elected on the promise to wind down two wars responsibly," said Bruce O. Riedel, a former administration official who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "He can now also say he has avoided a third war."


Boom. This. It's all I wanted from this president. I didn't expect universal healthcare to make it out of committee, but dammit I wanted some kind of retraction in our overseas footprint.
 
2013-11-26 11:53:18 AM  

verbaltoxin: I just don't get how using diplomacy instead of bombs for once is being met with so much resistance and caution - from other Democrats, no less. I expect Republicans to be looney tunes but there are seriously some D's in Congress in favor of new sanctions? Why?


Because AIPAC, that's why.
 
2013-11-26 11:54:57 AM  

what_now: gaslight: Wait, I thought it was Saddam Hussein who was the new Hitler, remember when Bush 1 was saying that?

Secondly, Chamberlain was condemned for not intervening in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when he had no army capable of doing so, and would have had to cross several countriesto do so. What was he supposed to do, send the navy? It's landlocked. The UK had no political will to fight at that time and certainly no public support for a massive military spending campaign on the army. Churchill was a great leader for Britain for 1940 and 1941 but his PR of Chamberlain as a craven coward omits the political realities of the period.

Let's not also forget that the people of England remembered WW1, and didn't want to go through that again.


I'm always perplexed when people think war is the only choice.  Chamberlain could have lead an embargo against Germany or at least not recognized the occupation as legal. I mean something, anything rather than simply accepting the takeover!
 
2013-11-26 11:55:38 AM  

Mentat: I am getting really tired of every instance of diplomacy being compared to appeasement.


I, for one, am getting tired of Chamberlain being synonymous with 'appeasement'. If he hadn't 'appeased' Hitler to buy time, Britain would likely have been steamrolled.
 
2013-11-26 11:56:20 AM  

Rwa2play: James!: Wow. That is dumb.

Considering it's the NYT, it should be upgraded to "retarded".


Actually the article is fine.  It's subby who should be wearing a helmet.
 
2013-11-26 11:58:27 AM  

Aldon: what_now: gaslight: Wait, I thought it was Saddam Hussein who was the new Hitler, remember when Bush 1 was saying that?

Secondly, Chamberlain was condemned for not intervening in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when he had no army capable of doing so, and would have had to cross several countriesto do so. What was he supposed to do, send the navy? It's landlocked. The UK had no political will to fight at that time and certainly no public support for a massive military spending campaign on the army. Churchill was a great leader for Britain for 1940 and 1941 but his PR of Chamberlain as a craven coward omits the political realities of the period.

Let's not also forget that the people of England remembered WW1, and didn't want to go through that again.

I'm always perplexed when people think war is the only choice.  Chamberlain could have lead an embargo against Germany or at least not recognized the occupation as legal. I mean something, anything rather than simply accepting the takeover!


Because being that antagonistic towards the Nazis when Britain's military was, at best, severely weakened would have been so smart.
 
2013-11-26 11:58:41 AM  

verbaltoxin: I just don't get how using diplomacy instead of bombs for once is being met with so much resistance and caution - from other Democrats, no less. I expect Republicans to be looney tunes but there are seriously some D's in Congress in favor of new sanctions? Why?


Psychological damage caused by years of being called "soft" (i.e. pussies) by Republicans.
 
2013-11-26 11:58:55 AM  

verbaltoxin: "This was a president who was elected on the promise to wind down two wars responsibly," said Bruce O. Riedel, a former administration official who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "He can now also say he has avoided a third war."


Boom. This. It's all I wanted from this president. I didn't expect universal healthcare to make it out of committee, but dammit I wanted some kind of retraction in our overseas footprint.


If you believe the Republican candidates' for president retoric at the time so far President Obama avoided war with Egypt, Syria and now Iran.  As well as avoided going on a land war with Libya on our own.
 
2013-11-26 12:00:03 PM  

kxs401: Chamberlain is unfairly maligned. He did what he could with the resources and information available to him. What more can we reasonably ask of a person?


He threw the Sudetenland and Ruhr valley at Hitler like table scraps, hoping he would accept them and leave the rest of Europe alone. It was incredibly naive.
 
2013-11-26 12:01:44 PM  

verbaltoxin: I just don't get how using diplomacy instead of bombs for once is being met with so much resistance and caution - from other Democrats, no less. I expect Republicans to be looney tunes but there are seriously some D's in Congress in favor of new sanctions? Why?


Because Democrat != liberal, despite prevailing popular opinion to the contrary.
 
2013-11-26 12:02:43 PM  

LordJiro: Aldon: what_now: gaslight: Wait, I thought it was Saddam Hussein who was the new Hitler, remember when Bush 1 was saying that?

Secondly, Chamberlain was condemned for not intervening in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when he had no army capable of doing so, and would have had to cross several countriesto do so. What was he supposed to do, send the navy? It's landlocked. The UK had no political will to fight at that time and certainly no public support for a massive military spending campaign on the army. Churchill was a great leader for Britain for 1940 and 1941 but his PR of Chamberlain as a craven coward omits the political realities of the period.

Let's not also forget that the people of England remembered WW1, and didn't want to go through that again.

I'm always perplexed when people think war is the only choice.  Chamberlain could have lead an embargo against Germany or at least not recognized the occupation as legal. I mean something, anything rather than simply accepting the takeover!

Because being that antagonistic towards the Nazis when Britain's military was, at best, severely weakened would have been so smart.


So you think allowing Germany to gain more power and land before they 'antagonized' them was a good idea?  I think history disagrees.
 
2013-11-26 12:03:20 PM  

gaslight: Wait, I thought it was Saddam Hussein who was the new Hitler, remember when Bush 1 was saying that?

Secondly, Chamberlain was condemned for not intervening in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when he had no army capable of doing so, and would have had to cross several countriesto do so. What was he supposed to do, send the navy? It's landlocked. The UK had no political will to fight at that time and certainly no public support for a massive military spending campaign on the army. Churchill was a great leader for Britain for 1940 and 1941 but his PR of Chamberlain as a craven coward omits the political realities of the period.


I'd like to ask a question regarding this.  For the most part I agree with you but it is my recollection that Britain basically told Czechoslovakia that either they would forfeit that territory Hitler was demanding or Britain would abandon them.  Now, even if Britain could not come directly to the aid of Czechoslovakia, could they not at least offer diplomatic support if a war occurred between Czechoslovakia and Germany?  Was it necessary to force Czechoslovakia to surrender that territory instead of letting the two countries fight it out then?

This is a serious question, I don't know the answer.
 
2013-11-26 12:03:30 PM  

RobertBruce: kxs401: Chamberlain is unfairly maligned. He did what he could with the resources and information available to him. What more can we reasonably ask of a person?

He threw the Sudetenland and Ruhr valley at Hitler like table scraps, hoping he would accept them and leave the rest of Europe alone. It was incredibly naive.


And used the time that bought to actually prepare Britain's military. Again, if he hadn't "appeased" the Nazis, Britain would almost certainly have been curbstomped early on.
 
2013-11-26 12:05:46 PM  

Aldon: LordJiro: Aldon: what_now: gaslight: Wait, I thought it was Saddam Hussein who was the new Hitler, remember when Bush 1 was saying that?

Secondly, Chamberlain was condemned for not intervening in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when he had no army capable of doing so, and would have had to cross several countriesto do so. What was he supposed to do, send the navy? It's landlocked. The UK had no political will to fight at that time and certainly no public support for a massive military spending campaign on the army. Churchill was a great leader for Britain for 1940 and 1941 but his PR of Chamberlain as a craven coward omits the political realities of the period.

Let's not also forget that the people of England remembered WW1, and didn't want to go through that again.

I'm always perplexed when people think war is the only choice.  Chamberlain could have lead an embargo against Germany or at least not recognized the occupation as legal. I mean something, anything rather than simply accepting the takeover!

Because being that antagonistic towards the Nazis when Britain's military was, at best, severely weakened would have been so smart.

So you think allowing Germany to gain more power and land before they 'antagonized' them was a good idea?  I think history disagrees.


It was either that or hand Britain to Germany. Once again, the British military at the time was in *no* shape to fight off the Nazis, and being antagonistic towards them would have almost certainly ensured a Nazi attack on Britain.
 
2013-11-26 12:06:02 PM  

Gergesa: Now, even if Britain could not come directly to the aid of Czechoslovakia, could they not at least offer diplomatic support if a war occurred between Czechoslovakia and Germany?


What sort of diplomatic support could Britain have offered the Czechs?
 
2013-11-26 12:06:13 PM  

LordJiro: RobertBruce: kxs401: Chamberlain is unfairly maligned. He did what he could with the resources and information available to him. What more can we reasonably ask of a person?

He threw the Sudetenland and Ruhr valley at Hitler like table scraps, hoping he would accept them and leave the rest of Europe alone. It was incredibly naive.

And used the time that bought to actually prepare Britain's military. Again, if he hadn't "appeased" the Nazis, Britain would almost certainly have been curbstomped early on.


My response to that is basically what Gergesa said.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report