Neville Chamberlain (2 Viewers)

The Spanish empire is a good examp[le of what not to do. There was no industrialisation at all. The whole thing was simply based on extraction. Take the silver and gold and ship it back to Spain without trying to develop local industry to add value to the product. You maximize extraction by increasing exploitation of the locals. Paradoxically Spains fall was related to the great wealth she and Portugal extracted from the New World. Eventually Sapin had lots of gold but no real productive capacity to produce and compete with teh industrial centres of England, Holland and ulitmately America.
Regards
Damian Clarke
 
Damian,

Book looks interesting. Thanks for the link. I may order it when I order Nemesis.

I think the only reason you want it is because you and the author have the same last name (almost) :D
 
We are not related I swear. Clarke is apparently the 6 th most common name in the Britsich Isles. When I went to Sydney NSW a few years ago I visited the courthouse where the first Australians were kept. They have a computerised data base of all the convicts sent out to Botany Bay. I typed in Clarke and I can assure you there were lots of them.

Still the review of the book sounds intersting and it seems to reflect what I have been trying to say.

Regards
Damian
 
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.


Louis

I think you might want to back up a few steps on the US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bring democracy to people for them to elect their own government is not a bad thing. And - to say we are forcing these countries to a form of government that they do not want - is not what is happening over there.

Maybe you missed the turnout of the last federal election in Iraq - or perhaps the US media is your only source of information on this subject? Either way - your off base on America's support of these Democratic Elected Governments.
I know - I have been there on the ground for our Government.

And I am sure there are many veterans of this War who would take acception to your view on what they were doing over there or how the people of Iraq & Afgahnistan DO SUPPORT our efforts for them.

I not trying to start a debate on why we are there or what was right or wrong on the war. But, we (THE US) broke the cookie jar and now we have got to fix it to best it can. Helping a Democracy where the people get to decide and vote - which includes Women in the process - is not a bad thing in my book.

I think even Neville Chamberlain would agree with that !

Ron
 
Guys,

This thread is going a bit farther into current politics than we want it to go. Past history is fine, but current politics we'd like to stay away from. Please try to keep that in mind.
 
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.


Louis-

I totally agree with you.

Pierre.
 
I think that most everyone on this forum can agree on one positive consequence of the British Empire and its governing of Hong Kong ... the present existence of King and Country.:)
 
I think that most everyone on this forum can agree on one positive consequence of the British Empire and its governing of Hong Kong ... the present existence of King and Country.:)

I remember chatting to a taxi driver in HK in 1997 during the time of the handover. He wasn't too happy about becoming Chinese again. The Brit Empire obviously wasn't all bad.....:)
 
Hi Damian,

I am very interested by some of your remarks and will say that I think you are pretty well right with regard to old Zimbabwe. Ripe for a revolt and quite soon. Too bad that the damge is done and it will probably take 100 years for them to recover from their curret government leadership.

As for the Congo well I would love to chat about that with you but this isnt the time or place.

Now back to the reason why I opened this thread to begin with, Chamberlain. I will be able to better formulate a response when I am home but I think the sacrifice of the Czechs in the Sudatenland and Poles was a horrible mistake and lead to even darker days after the WWII was concluded and the Iron Curtain dropped on the eastern third of Europe. Even though the Brits were still in the process of modernizing and the French were stuck on Defense they should have done more then protest politically. I think it was very foolish to think that because he got a paper with a promise of no aggression he did much to buy breathing room. I dont want to start a fight but Mr Chamberlain really needs no more discussion unless someone can bring some vital clue to light that the major historians of the last 70 years have missed. He failure was good for one reason the reappearance of Mr Churchill.

More when I get home

All the best

Dave
 
Hi Damian,

I am very interested by some of your remarks and will say that I think you are pretty well right with regard to old Zimbabwe. Ripe for a revolt and quite soon. Too bad that the damge is done and it will probably take 100 years for them to recover from their curret government leadership.

As for the Congo well I would love to chat about that with you but this isnt the time or place.

Now back to the reason why I opened this thread to begin with, Chamberlain. I will be able to better formulate a response when I am home but I think the sacrifice of the Czechs in the Sudatenland and Poles was a horrible mistake and lead to even darker days after the WWII was concluded and the Iron Curtain dropped on the eastern third of Europe. Even though the Brits were still in the process of modernizing and the French were stuck on Defense they should have done more then protest politically. I think it was very foolish to think that because he got a paper with a promise of no aggression he did much to buy breathing room. I dont want to start a fight but Mr Chamberlain really needs no more discussion unless someone can bring some vital clue to light that the major historians of the last 70 years have missed. He failure was good for one reason the reappearance of Mr Churchill.

More when I get home

All the best

Dave

Dave,
Thought provoking post - Thanks.
I'll also have a think about this....maybe I'm giving Mr C too much credit..(?)
 
I'm half Slovak and Chamberlain sold my country out for the sake of his own. That is what first comes to mind when I think of the man. But for the sake of discussion I offer the following:

I would prefer a world full of nothing but Chamberlains to a world full of nothing but Churchills. To say it another way, a field full of lambs is more pleasant to visit than one full of lions. Churchill the lion was a necessary counterweight to Hitler the wolf. But a man like Chamberlain that strives for peace at any cost has to be admired. Not like some of our current leaders who search for excuses to go to war. If every man could learn to be a lamb we would have paradise on earth. Just because some choose to be lions does not mean we should give up the ideal of trying to be lambs.

Churchill was among the greatest men of the 20th Century and he single-handedly saved Western Europe from Nazism and Soviet Russia (the reason for D-day was to take back Europe before Russia did). He was the right man at the right place in history and no other prime minister could have done what he did. But he was a warrior through and through. If he wasn't at war he wasn't happy, nor was he in his element. That's why the British people retired him after the war was over. They knew there were things to live for other than battles and Empire and Churchill couldn't provide those given his distaste for "leftist" ideas like labour unions and his plan to start another world war against Russia. Churchill was a bit like Captain Ahab - in the end his obsession to defeat all enemies might well have destroyed both himself and the world.
 
Last edited:
Louis

I think you might want to back up a few steps on the US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bring democracy to people for them to elect their own government is not a bad thing. And - to say we are forcing these countries to a form of government that they do not want - is not what is happening over there.

Maybe you missed the turnout of the last federal election in Iraq - or perhaps the US media is your only source of information on this subject? Either way - your off base on America's support of these Democratic Elected Governments.
I know - I have been there on the ground for our Government.

And I am sure there are many veterans of this War who would take acception to your view on what they were doing over there or how the people of Iraq & Afgahnistan DO SUPPORT our efforts for them.

I not trying to start a debate on why we are there or what was right or wrong on the war. But, we (THE US) broke the cookie jar and now we have got to fix it to best it can. Helping a Democracy where the people get to decide and vote - which includes Women in the process - is not a bad thing in my book.

I think even Neville Chamberlain would agree with that !

Ron

Here how I feel now days but none of this will happen. If we spill our blood on it it's ours keep it. Everybody else get out. The body count won't be as high and those with boots on the ground know what to do.
I tried to sell this back in 60's nobody listened then.

HERE WE GO AGAIN:(
 
I'm half Slovak and Chamberlain sold my country out for the sake of his own. That is what first comes to mind when I think of the man. But for the sake of discussion I offer the following:

I would prefer a world full of nothing but Chamberlains to a world full of nothing but Churchills. To say it another way, a field full of lambs is more pleasant to visit than one full of lions. Churchill the lion was a necessary counterweight to Hitler the wolf. But a man like Chamberlain that strives for peace at any cost has to be admired. Not like some of our current leaders who search for excuses to go to war. If every man could learn to be a lamb we would have paradise on earth. Just because some choose to be lions does not mean we should give up the ideal of trying to be lambs.

Churchill was among the greatest men of the 20th Century and he single-handedly saved Western Europe from Nazism and Soviet Russia (the reason for D-day was to take back Europe before Russia did). He was the right man at the right place in history and no other prime minister could have done what he did. But he was a warrior through and through. If he wasn't at war he wasn't happy, nor was he in his element. That's why the British people retired him after the war was over. They knew there were things to live for other than battles and Empire and Churchill couldn't provide those given his distaste for "leftist" ideas like labour unions and his plan to start another world war against Russia. Churchill was a bit like Captain Ahab - in the end his obsession to defeat all enemies might well have destroyed both himself and the world.

Interesting comment that Chamberlain sold out the Slovaks.
Surely the German army that marched into Slovakia came at the invitation of the Fascist Government of Andrei Hlinka. Hlinka saw and took the opportunity to form an independent Slovak state –separate from the Czech and Moravian lands. For some it was the fulfilment of the dream that some Slovaks had cherished for centuries. They had been unable to break from Hungary until the Allies formed Czechoslovakia after World War One.
Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier certainly left the Czechs and Moravians to Hitler’s ambitions however I’m not certain you can blame them for Slovakia’s occupation.
The Slovaks rose up against the Germans in 1944 however they were too weak and too lightly armed to succeed and the Germans were finally driven out by Russian troops in 1945. The old CSSR government sent me to Slovakia in the’80s to research and write about the Slovak National Uprising.
The interviews with Partisans and others who were there enabled me to write some of the finest pieces I’ve ever written.
 
Interesting comment that Chamberlain sold out the Slovaks.
Surely the German army that marched into Slovakia came at the invitation of the Fascist Government of Andrei Hlinka. Hlinka saw and took the opportunity to form an independent Slovak state –separate from the Czech and Moravian lands. For some it was the fulfilment of the dream that some Slovaks had cherished for centuries. They had been unable to break from Hungary until the Allies formed Czechoslovakia after World War One.
Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier certainly left the Czechs and Moravians to Hitler’s ambitions however I’m not certain you can blame them for Slovakia’s occupation.
The Slovaks rose up against the Germans in 1944 however they were too weak and too lightly armed to succeed and the Germans were finally driven out by Russian troops in 1945. The old CSSR government sent me to Slovakia in the’80s to research and write about the Slovak National Uprising.
The interviews with Partisans and others who were there enabled me to write some of the finest pieces I’ve ever written.

Bob

Dont let the facts about the Fascist Slovak Government get in the way with this discussion :rolleyes:

It just goes to show you that history can be interpreted in many ways....many, many ways ;)
 
Bob,

I will defer to Canadian Samurai on this but do you have your facts on Hlinka correct? All accounts I have read indicate that he died in 1938.
 
First of all Brad's right re: Hlinka.

I can challenge Bob's argument on any of four separate grounds:

1) You can't forget that breathing down the Slovak border was the whole blitzkrieg machine that would go on to beat the combined French and British armies - most of the "welcoming" of the german army was under duress lest Slovakia be carved up between Hungary and Poland. The agreement with the Germans was done partly to save as many lives and infrastructure as possible since nobody else in the world was exactly stepping in to help Czechoslovakia. Slovakia is a very peaceful country (their separation from the Czechs was one of the only separations of that scale in world history where there was no violence). So with Germany poised to invade they did what they needed to survive. Same as all of southern Vichy France. Next you guys are gonna claim France happily asked Germany to invade them... fact is in the dark days of the blitz even some people in Britain seriously contemplated becoming a client state under Germany.

2) Slovakian politics of the day had a fascist wing to it but I wouldn't classify the government of Slovakia at any point as purely fascist. Keep in mind, most countries in the world had large fascist movements at that time in history, including the USA and Britain (who had some soldiers serving in the Waffen SS foreign legions). Indeed, some of the key elements of fascism (extreme nationalism particularly) persist in many Western countries to this day.

3) Slovakia lost territory to Hungary due to the Vienna Award and then suffered under German control like every other conquered country did, and if it was full of German lovers, why did it rise up a couple of years later to throw the Germans off? :rolleyes:

4) Many nations took advantage of the German war machine's advance across Europe, including America whose economy certainly boomed selling weaponry and products to every side. Any country that had been under the yoke of empire for centuries (the Austro-Hungarians in Slovakia's case) would take any opportunity to break free. The germans were in contact with the IRA. Doesn't mean the Irish were fascists who loved Germany and Hitler.

Anyway, the utility of these historical debates is quickly disappearing since I think all of our inherent national biases have become fairly clear. Including Ron's.
 
Last edited:
One last point: When I said "my country" I was also referring to the Czechs, who were our brothers and sisters at the time when Nazi germany came knocking. We were still one country (and to this day we remain great friends, like the US and Britain). What Chamberlain did to the Czechs he partly did to us. I don't think Chamberlain was under any illusions that the Munich agreement would not hand over Slovakia at the same time. It shows his regard for the Czechoslovak people.

I only said what I originally said in that post to give some perspective to my praise of Chamberlain that would follow (i.e. more than some I can appreciate what it was like to be on the receiving end of his "peace in our time" decisions). I suppose you think the Slovaks now love Chamberlain because he brought on the German invaders? :rolleyes:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top