Neville Chamberlain (2 Viewers)

[Capitolron]

Churchill was a great man. But he was a man of principle. He could have made peace with Hitler and kept the British empire but he knew what was right. He sacrificed the greatest force for good since the Roman Empire to free the world. After the war Britain was too exhausted to play her traditional role of civilizer and peace keeper. She withdrew from Emprie and the whole sorry mess that we see today in Africa and India/Pakistan is a result. Just like the Romans left Britain and the whole palce collapsed inbto teh Drak Ages for 1000 years, so Briatin left Africa and a similar thing happened. Just look at Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, and now Zimbabwe. Where before there was one Britsih raj we now have nationalist squabling nuclear proloiferation and Islamic fiundamentalism. In Zimbabwe we have famine and collapse. In Nigeria Shell just takes the oil and pollutes the whole place with scant regard for the locals. When the British Empire was in charge there were colonial administrtors, tecahers and engineers who built dams and roads and administered justice. They were concnerned that the locals got a fair deal. Spare a thought for what happended after the collapse of Empire. I think Winston would be saddened, but the rich world of Europe which now enjoys freedom owes a debt to the British Empire.

God save the Queen
Regards
Damian Clarke

Damian has an interesting point on the current state of parts of the world.

Great Britian Empire did indeed bring about the process of civilization to parts of the world which lacked it greatly. Just like the Roman Empire - conditions in small corners of the world were almost as bad as prehistoric times.

The Roman Empire in the Ancient and British Empire in the modern - did indeed bring about form and structure for a modern civilization during its time for many areas which had been ruled by warlords, tribes or even mobs. Without the guding hand of Mother England - I dont think parts of our world today would be able to function with the rest of the modern world - had they been left to their own devices.

Like it or not - Empires do bring order, structure, and modernization. Now there are good and bad empires - no question. But, given each period of time the Empires of Rome and England did help the World greatly. Certainly, I do not believe that the Third Reich would have been a good idea as an empire - nor would they have had a philosophy other than hate.

But, think about what Alexander, Ceasar and Queen Victoria has done for world civilization - its quite interesting.

Ron

 

[jazzeum]

Damian,

Another aspect of this book that is fascinating is that it brings to light men and women whose names have been lost to history, such as Leo Amery (who was half Jewish but hid this), a senior classmate of Churchill's at Harrow, a MP who led the Tory opposition to Chamberlain and who during the key debate of May 7, 1940 uttered the following words to Chamberlain: "In the name of God, go!" According to a Daily Telegraph reporter, after hearing this, he said that the government had just suffered its "most damaging assault since before the war." Harold Macmillan, later PM, said that this statement was the "most formidable philippic which I have ever heard."

Oh, you have to get this book.

 

[Dragoon]

Good God! Some of these posts are just embarassing. Empire is based on greed. Absoring the natural wealth of conquered lands for the sole benifit of the conquering nation. The idea or excuse of spreading civilization is just a load of bull. It might sound good in grade school or the movies but has no base in historical reality.

 

[maddadicus]

We Americans have been around such a short time, compared to the rest of the world...and yet we presume to know more than any one else about a world history, that mostly, we were not a part of...It is so nice for us to say ,down with Kings and Queens, we threw off the " yoke "of oppression, so can you. The only problem with that battlecry , is that mostly ,we were partners with England and we were allowed to be as well educated and able to financially succeed, as near equals to the crown..The rest of the empire were mostly nations that were stone age when the British got there and when the British left, they went back to being stone age. England brought civil order to chaotic people for a very long time. Unfortunately, these nations learned nothing from the English ,and when given their chance at freedom, decided that it was more fun to go back to killing each other at a genocidal rate. So fellow Yanks, keep telling ourselves how bad England was to the rest of the world. You do not have them to kick around anymore, so who do you bame for what is going on, in Africa now? Michael

 

[sirsydney]

Many of the "stone age" people you refer to had thriving civilizations when the British were painting their bodies blue and howling at the moon.

 

[jazzeum]

This conversation is starting to drift into areas that I don't think we want them to go. This thread was supposed to be about Chamberlain, Churchill, etc. We'd like to keep it there.

 

[Harrytheheid]

Many of the "stone age" people you refer to had thriving civilizations when the British were painting their bodies blue and howling at the moon.

Actually, sirsydney, considerable numbers of us who reside north of the border still do paint our faces blue and howl at the moon...!!!
Its a strange and curious custom, and usually manifests itself during international football (soccer) matches. During world cups or european championship games we always play well p) but invariably get beat.
This is without a doubt due to the cheating habits of Johnny Foreigner.
Plug "Tartan Army" into YouTube.....You'll get a good laugh.

 

[Harrytheheid]

All,
This thread seems to have begun with a sort of throwaway remark when I wondered if maybe Chamberlain had been misjudged, or put another way, unfairly treated by history. It was yet another of those "what if" thoughts that I'm prone to.
I'd like to thank each and every contributer to the discussion. Its been interesting hearing everyones opinions - and, as usual, yet again ideas for further reading and understanding have been suggested.

 

[damian]

Dear All
Thanks for the great responses. It is good to get them. I agree that the danger of my analysis is that it seems to imply that the Empire was good for non-white people. It is a difficult question. The problem in SA was that in 1907 the Liberal govenrment handed over SA to the white minority without insisting on equal rights for black people. This allowed the whites to dominate and to eventually introduce apartheid which was a terrible crime against humanity. However after a century of struggle we now have democracy and I am very confident that depsite everything we are succeeding here. However SA has a very devloped infrasturcture and manufacturing base which allows us to try and develop a more just society. The rest of Africa is however a sad story. Look at the Congo. When the Belgiums were there initially it was run as a private reserve for Leopold but by the 1940's there was some committment to devlopingthe place. Since the pull out of the Belgiums overnight and the murder of Lumuba who was veyr popular we have had a series of brutal and bloody dictarships. Millions have died and continue to die. I think the current form of empire is much worse. Countries like the Congo remain enslaved today but instead of to a colonial master who had some sort of responsibilty towards the palce now to Chase Manhattan Bank, The Wrold Bank and Texaco Oil. These multinationals simply extract wealth and do not re-invest it. My friend grew up on a copper mine in Zambia. Anglo AMerican the large complany that ran it basically kept the whole town running. The company provided electricity a hospital and schools. The company had to leave in the 1980's. They have since been invited back but this time round they wont accept any responsibiity for putting in infrastructure. Similalry with manufacturing in Zambia. In the empire there were trade barriers that protecedt Zambia textiles. Now under the WTO those barriers are gone. So what happens is enterprsisng businessmen go to Oxfam and buy up in bull all their second habd clothes. These are then imported into Zambia and sold so destroying all local textile manufacturing efforts.

That is the problem. What was needed after 1945 was not colonial withdrawla but colonial engagement and partnering with the African nationalists to try and develop a spirit of democracy and social engagement. Nelson Mandela who is the greatest South African in history was firmly moulded in the whole concept of British democracy and his whole approach has been based on this.

I

 

[Harrytheheid]

Excellent post Damian.

 

[OzDigger]

I'm still wondering why a thread titled Neville Chamberlain is mainly about Winston Churchill

Here are two of my fav Winnie quotes:

Montgomery: “I don’t drink. I don’t smoke. I sleep well and I am 100 percent fit,”
Churchill: “I both drink and smoke and I’m 200 percent fit”.

Lady Astor: "If I were married to you, I'd put poison in your coffee."
Churchill: "If I were married to you, I'd drink it."

 

[sirsydney]

I'm still wondering why a thread titled Neville Chamberlain is mainly about Winston Churchill

Here are two of my fav Winnie quotes:

Montgomery: “I don’t drink. I don’t smoke. I sleep well and I am 100 percent fit,”
Churchill: “I both drink and smoke and I’m 200 percent fit”.

Lady Astor: "If I were married to you, I'd put poison in your coffee."
Churchill: "If I were married to you, I'd drink it."

Damian--I think you have summed the problem up both in public and in private. THE END!

 

[maddadicus]

Dear Damian, perfectly said, and thanks. Michael

 

[Rob]

Good God! Some of these posts are just embarassing. Empire is based on greed. Absoring the natural wealth of conquered lands for the sole benifit of the conquering nation. The idea or excuse of spreading civilization is just a load of bull. It might sound good in grade school or the movies but has no base in historical reality.

I don't agree at all,civilisation has been spread by Empire.I am not saying civilisation is an EXCUSE for Empire but it can be a by product.

Rob

 

[Rob]

What I find so remarkable about Churchill was that he was an old man in his 60's when he became PM. At a time when lesser men are opting for retirement Churchill assumed the number one spot at same the time his country and the empire were facing the biggest single crisis in 1000 years. The fact that Churchill made so many mistakes does not detract from his greatness in my very humble opinion. He saw straight through Joe Stalin all along. It is a pity that the Allies didn;t move a bit faster and maybe reach Berlin a bit earlier as Churchill advocated. But that is another discussion.

Regards
Damian
Regards
Damian

Another superb post Damian.Churchill made some howlers no doubt about it.But the job he took on at that time of his life was amazing.He did warn about Russia and come to think of it Germanys rearmament after WW1.It must have been hard for him as the war came to an end to see his power and influence ebb away to Eisenhower and Stalin.Despite his faults he was a wonderful man who is still much loved to this day.

Rob

 

[Capitolron]

I agree with Rob - I dont think I agree with the oppression of Empires or how they ran them at the expense of people who they conquered. But, you can see the historic fact that they created structured imporvements to civilizations over the Centuries.

As a Yank - I do have a strong sense of Democracy and Independence. However, you can see the positive side of world history with Empires without compromising your political beliefs.

And with that Chamberlain, Chamberlain and Chamberlain - I wanted to say it three times - so not to get in trouble with Brad.

 

[damian]

IN the 1970's an Americna journalist and Van Der Merwe (Our South African everyman) were having a drink.

The American eventaully said to Van. Look here you guys don'y have democracy. Look at us we can say anything we wnat. We have a constitition that gaurantees freedom of speech without us getting detained or arrested. I mean I can go down to the gates of the White House and carry a placard that says " To hell with Jimmy Carter" and I won't be arrrested. Now that is democracy.

Van thought about it for a while and then said. Well I don't know what is so special about that. I mean I can go down to the Union Buildings in Pretoria at any time and hold a placard saying " To Hell with Jimmy Carter" and nothing will happen to me.


That is the end.
Regards everyone
Thanks for the repsonses
Damian Clarke

 

[Dragoon]

To Rob & Ron,

I wanted give an example to back up my point. Spain raped the New World for gold and silver. The capital city of the Aztecs was larger, cleaner and better built for it's day than any in Europe. True the Aztecs practiced humun sacrafice, and that was stopped by Spain. Unfortunately Spain was entrenched in the inquistion, so they continued to kill and torture in their church's quest to save souls. Who was more "civilized"? The people of the New World understood the concept of bathing, something a European of the day did about twice in their life. The practice of medicine and knowledge of the stars was more advanced in this part of the New World than Europe. Who was more Civilized? The life of the average Aztec, Inca and numerous other peoples of the new world was certainly not improved by the coming of the Spanish empire.

 

[aujj65]

Well I'm off to Nanny Grotbags for a week, so here is my 2 pennys worth.
At its peak, the British Empire was undoubtedly the largest empire the world has ever known.
At its height it covered one quarter of the earths land surface and stretched to every corner of the globe. It was true that the sun never set on the British Empire.
As such, its power and influence stretched all over the globe shaping it in all manner of ways.
The triumphs, the humiliations, the good that it brought and the bad that it inflicted. For better or worse the British Empire had a massive impact on the history of the world. A powerful institution that so dominated the world for over a century and influenced the shape of the world that we see today.

Whether you agree or not, that's the way it is.

Regards

Jeff

 

[Louis Badolato]

Empire is just like any other form of government, be it monarchy, other form of dictatorship, or republic. Some of what an empire does is good, some bad. Look at the Roman Republic or the Athenian Republic. Plenty of good things came from both of these republics, but both had their shares of horrible and uncivilized practices (just ask the average gladiator, citizen of Carthage, or Socrates -- whose last words "I drank what!" have been immoralized by comics to this day). The United States has had a pretty darn imperial foreign policy since day one (just ask Canada [which we unsuccessfully invaded], Mexico [we took more than half of their territory], Puerto Rico and the Philippines [who helped us fight the Spanish on promises of independence, and ended up under U.S. domination], Nicaragua, and, most recently, Iraq) and we are supposedly "the arsenal of democracy". And its hipocritical for us to correctly say that the former subjects of the British Empire would prefer their own form of government to one imposed by Great Britain while we are unsuccessfully attempting to impose our form of government on Afghanistan and Iraq even as we speak. My conclusion is simple: government in any form is a barely necessary evil subject to constant and pervasive corruption. Who was it that said power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Call it what you will, all governments, be they elected or otherwise are subject to this principal.