Lesson: if you’re going to make a historical reference, make sure you know the history behind it

Aside from being ignorant of Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement with Hitler, missing from the conversation is the fact that it actually won the war for the Allies. After World War I, with Germany disarmed, the would-be Allies spent money rebuilding their countries instead of their arms. The problem was that Hitler re-equipped Germany at an astounding pace, meaning that England and France were significantly ill-prepared to go to war against an enemy with superior troop numbers, arms, and technical means. They needed to prepare themselves and bring the United States into the conflict. Both necessities required time.

Had they gone to war with Germany over the Sudetenland they wouldn’t have had that time. But Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement bought them one year and ruined Germany’s chance of vanquishing two weak enemies. Hitler realized this strategic blunder later saying “He nearly outsmarted me. This smoothie Englishman … I would have made quite different conditions for [Italy's Benito] Mussolini and [France's Edouard] Daladier, but I couldn’t do so with this cunning fox Chamberlain.”

Today the Munich Agreement has morphed into a fable of appeasement. The British and French knew that Hitler wasn’t going to stop in the Sudetenland, they knew his vision would eventually collide with their sovereignty. They needed time to prepare for that collision though. The Munich Agreement gave it to them. For if they made a stand over that parcel of land, the outcome of the war could have been very different. It’s unfortunate that such strategic brilliance has been simplified into a wrongheaded talking point.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
I actually had to restrain my laughter for this whole thing..
I’m all for free-speech but we need some sort of anti-moron monitoring system.
It does bring up a semi-interesting point though:
This may or may not piss people off, but I am one of those who believe that Israel has got to go; it hasn’t worked for sixty years and things are only getting worse. But whichever president has to make the decision to “give back” Israel is going to be called an appeaser if whoever we “give” it to ends up being violent. Appeasement in itself isn’t bad.. I also have to disagree slightly with your statements Brian. The allies might not have been ready for WW2 in ‘38, but the annexation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia didn’t “buy” us much time. Although “what-ifs” are pretty hard to do in history, I have heard many arguments made that combined British and French forces in continental Europe could have held off Hitler for a few extra months if they had been organized and mobilized. The real wild card (as in every world war) was the US, and at that time America was still undecided about which side of the war we’d join (or even if we would). Other then destroying Britain’s army, allowing Hitler his annexations was Chamberlain’s only option.
What it comes down to is that only America was powerful enough to stand up to the krauts and it couldn’t figure out how to pull its thumb out of its butt. Any other decision made by Chamberlain would have thrown all of Europe to the “dogs” (German Shepherds, of course). The only POSSIBLE way I can see America repeating that period in history is in Israel. Hopefully the world has matured enough to realize that it is not ours to give (and, in time, defend). Chamberlain’s decision wasn’t “brilliant,” but it was the best possible option at the time.
Never blame a people for living in their own time.
P.S. The French are never fit to go to war.. Hitler could have given them half of his 1,000 year reich and the french still wouldn’t have finished their cigarettes.

hilarious!

GREGORIAN!!!!