1933 : British Government Sought To Appease The Nazis By Unilaterally Disarming

9 Responses to 1933 : British Government Sought To Appease The Nazis By Unilaterally Disarming

1. Morgan K Freeberg says:

   May 23, 2012 at 3:22 pm

   “…France wants to know what the procedure would be in the event of a flagrant breach.”

   If we learned anything from the Saddam Hussein debacle, it is that this question is timeless. And unanswerable. You can’t adopt a platform of peace-over-war, and then insist that it should emerge victorious all the time…since, if such a platform is anything at all, it is the insistence that there is no final arbiter in any dispute, except force itself.

   Reply
2. palantir says:

   May 23, 2012 at 3:22 pm

   Shouldn’t that be criminally stupid?

   Reply
3. Eric Simpson says:

   May 23, 2012 at 6:22 pm

   People, bookmark this page, keep it in mind when needing to take on those who want to cut our military to the bone.

   The worse is Obama’s gutting of our anti-missile defense program. Not much money is saved… O’s doing this “on principle.” The principle: so we are as open as a spring flower when future rogue states lob nukes at LA, DC, SF, NY, and other 2 letter cities.

   Reply
4. tckev says:

   May 23, 2012 at 6:57 pm

   Captain Anthony Eden was the same man that became British Prime Minister in 1955. He managed to plunge the west into a political crisis when he decided to act against Nasser in Egypt, whom he personally dislike. He managed to alienate the political right of his own conservative party while pulling together a consensus of liberals and socialist to get his crazy plan through parliament. His action precipitated the 1956 Suez Crisis. He was a disaster – splitting Britain from USA, because of the American anti-Colonial stance: while at home he helped empower the political left and British socialism; and in Egypt his action assisted the socialist/nationalist cause and Nasser himself.

   Reply
5. Andy DC says:

   May 23, 2012 at 10:50 pm

   Hitler had just taken over in 1933 thru a democratic election. The Germans had hardly begun to rearm at that point. It is understandable that the initial desire was for peace.

   Reply
   • Eric Simpson says:

     May 23, 2012 at 11:23 pm

     Have you ever heard of peace through strength?

     Peace through weakness of the good guys never works. A parallel, the Pax Romana, the “Roman peace” took place around the 1st century. A big, arguably good player was strong… and so peace prevailed.
     Anyway, the Brits held to the fallacy that armaments by themselves are bad. What is bad is armaments in the control of evil despots like Hitler. In all likelihood, if the Brits had not been a bunch of wussy peaceniks, and had maintained their strength, Germany would not have attacked Poland, France, and the UK for that matter.

     Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     May 24, 2012 at 12:39 am

     Then Chamberlain ingeniously gave Hitler the Sudetenland, which had one the best armed armies in Europe.

     Reply
   • Stark Dickflüssig says:

     May 24, 2012 at 1:11 am

     Adolf had just gotten out of prison a few years earlier for trying to start a revolt. In this case the proverbial writing on the wall wasn’t in Hebrew: no excuse for missing it.

     Reply
6. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

   May 24, 2012 at 2:14 am

   Germans were always non-aggressive. Good thing they did that.

   sarc

   Reply