I see a lot of people recently calling Chamberlain "spineless" and saying that he "caved" to Hitler or "sold out Czechoslavakia in exchange for empty promises." But this is really problematic because you're not thinking of all the people who would've gotten hurt if this deal didn't go through. I mean, nobody wants a repeat of the Great War. And look, I hate Hitler as much as anyone, but he's given us his word that he'll be content with taking only the Sudetenla-

Sorry, what's that? Oh, I see.

As I was saying, Mr. Hitler has given us his word that he'll be content with just annexing all of Czechoslavakia.

What was he supposed to do? Throw Europe into a major conflict, just because some fascist seizes power, removes any semblance of democracy, and starts terrorizing minorities?

Look, at the end of the day, capitalist or fascist, we might not see eye to eye on every little detail but it's important to be the bigger person and reach across the aisle and give them every chance to stop being belligerent.

I mean, after all, if we can't work together, then who's going to kill all the leftists?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Chamberlain wanted peace above all. He was facing a political crisis at home and a still recovering economy from WW1.

The peace deal with the Nazi wasn't spineless it was a lesson in what not to do when faced with fascism, something that perhaps needs to be relearned the hard way in modern times.

It's documented that ultimately he felt like he had failed the country, indeed he never recovered politically.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 27 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    This is a shitpost, satirizing recent events in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I'm a little dumb what's the recent event

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Several US Senators of the Democratic Party have expressed intent to end the current government shutdown without gaining the concessions the rest of the party has been demanding. Unfortunately, they're numerous enough (8) that they may be able to force the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The deal to end the shutdown. Imo the Dems caved, getting very little in exchange.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The difference between the two, of course, was that at the time they thought Neville had really done it, and I can't even fathom even Schumer thinking he's done a great thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Schumer is still opposed to ending the shutdown to my knowledge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    What in the... Yeah you're right. I thought I had heard he was working on a deal and I'm so used to disappointment from him. The eight Dems are:

    • Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada
    • Dick Durbin of Illinois
    • John Fetterman of Pennsylvania
    • Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire
    • Tim Kaine of Virginia
    • Angus King of Maine
    • Jacky Rosen of Nevada
    • Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire

    Edit: Now I'm hearing possibilities that Schumer did mastermind this, and these eight were picked? Fuck it either way, still hate the guy for being such a schmuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    I think it's likely that the war may have played out very differently had Sudetenland not been given. Imho it, and the subsequent invasion gave have much more justification and support for a declaration than had he stood firm. As there would have been a large 'what if' crowd.

    I could be entirely wrong.

  • source
  • parent