Why do Republicans always point to Neville Chamberlain as the "Great Appeaser?"?

Question

When, in fact, they fully supported his sellout of Czechoslavakia and continued to appease Hitler in every way they could?

Even after the attack on Pearl Harbor, they filibustered against a Declaration of War against Germany until Hitler declared war on the US.

We don't, Busting. And even now Your Beloved Rightwingers are selling out America and the World to their Chinese Communist pals.

Pray God we get a Democrat in office who'll let us fight alongside the Vietnamese when China invades.

Actually, Chad. I'm more of a Conservative. Voted for Nixon. Reagan moved the Party Right out from under me.

Anthony. Looking back, the Czechs, with a second front in Western Europe probably could have beaten Hitler. They just couldn't take him alone.

France paid the highest price for selling them out. Nearly a quarter of the tanks Hitler invaded France with, and most experts say the best, were Czech PZ-35's and 38's.

Harryd. I'm talking more about Republican Revisionist History, which is repeating itself with Red China.

You're missing the point, Ritch. It was support from US Republicans that made Hitler's war machine possible.

As for how many wars have Liberals won? Let's see--The revolution, The Civil War, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII--all of which were opposed by the Conservatives who lost the Vietnam War, Threw away the Victory in Afghanistan and are threatening to lose the war on terror by tying up and grinding down the US Military in the Iraq fiasco.

You're right libsticker. Appeasement doesn't work. So why are we paying Danegeld to an expansionist China?

"Our Empire?" I'm a Texan by birth and a Chicagoan by nature, Ray.

Now that I think about it, Prescott Bush would have been a better choice for the title of "Great Appeaser." He even continued to appease Hitler's ghost after the war by being a major player in McCarthyism.

Answer 1

I thought everybody did, which always seemed kind of hard on the guy. As I understand it, while he was doing the things that publicly earned him that nickname, he also got the military preparing for a major war. He ordered production of more fighters and factories to make them among other things. Sometimes you have to suck it up and stall while you get ready for a fight on terms where you might stand a chance.
As far as what the Republicans were doing, I wouldn't be surprised although I doubt they were alone in that mind set.

Answer 2

Typical liberal distorting the facts....

THERE WAS NO FILIBUSTER AGAINST THE DECLARATION OF WAR WITH GERMANY.

Formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.


Chamberlain was the "Great Appeaser" because he knew from his own intelligence (MI-6) that Hitler intended to take Austria and Czechoslovakia.
Hugh Christie an MI6 agent working based in Berlin, met with Hermann Goering on 3rd February 1937. He immediately reported his conversation with Goering and included information that Germany intended to take control of Austria and Czechoslovakia. He also told Christie that Germany mainly wanted "a free hand in Eastern Europe."

Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after it was defeated in the First World War. He therefore thought that the German government had genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also thought that by agreeing to some of the demands being made by Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, he could avoid a European war.
Anthony Eden, Chamberlain's foreign secretary, did not agree with the policy of appeasement and resigned in February, 1938. Eden was replaced by Lord Halifax who fully supported this policy.


One day after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt went to Congress to ask for a formal declaration or war. THE VOTE WAS UNAMIMOUS!!!!excpet for a lone holdout. War for the U.S. was officiall on Dec. 8th.

There was no filibuster against the declaration of war against Germany.

The president has to ask Congress to declare war. On Dec 11th Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.

Answer 3

Well, I guess hindsight is 20/20, huh? Just like it is in any war. Chamberlain couldn't have been more wrong and the result was millions more dead than should have been. Quite the legacy for the poor 'misunderstood' guy, huh? It's amazing how much you know after the fact that you couldn't be certain of going in isn't it.

By the way Anthony, how many wars have liberals won? They lost Vietnam for us and they're working very hard to actively lose the war in Iraq. We may not be perfect, but at least we don't actively and aggressively set out to literally lose, ya boob.

Answer 4

Do what do you want to do? The Republicans keep criticizing the democrats, saying that they have no plan. What is the republican plan, the same one they have been using for 5 years? We all know that has worked sooo well. Do you want to nuke Damascus, nuke Tehran, nuke the whole middle east? How many incinerated children will it take before republicans realize that the war on terror will not be won by blowing up the middle east. The arrests in the UK should have demonstrated that clearly.

Answer 5

Party mores and affiliations change. At that time, Republicans, mainly from the midwest and west were the pacifists and isolationalists of the day, Democrats were a mixture of the conservative Southerners and the liberal Northeasterners.

The 50s and 60s turned things around. Southern conservatives turned into Republicans, pacifists turned into Democrats.

Neville Chamberlain would be the Cindy Sheehan of today's political world.

Answer 6

Their support of him nearly 60 years ago doesn't change the fact of what he was. Appeasement in the face of tyranny is always a bad tactic. Negotiating from a position of weakness isn't negotiation, it's surrender. Foreign relations work like this. If it is in our national interest we will try to reason with you, patiently if possible. If that doesn't work, we'll try to get others to reason with you. We may use diplomacy for a protracted period of time, but if you become too much of a threat , and we have the means to do so, we will force you to do the right thing. That's why we have a State Department, backed up by the military.

Answer 7

Perhaps because he was a great appeaser.
I am sure the lemmings would love to have the same type of paper signed by Ahmindiejihadi, or whatever the Hitler of Iran calls himself, so they can say "See he means us no harm. He only wants to annihilate Jewish people. And perhaps bomb a few countries with a couple of nukes. It doesn't mean he hates the USA it just shows his compassion to lead his people."

Answer 8

So what your saying is that all republicans are responsible for what all republicans did throughout history. Then the same must hold true for you democrats. Why do you democrats all support slavery? Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, and throughout history, appeasment doesn't work.

Answer 9

But wasn't the Republican party the liberal party at the time?

Answer 10

History has been very unkind to him, but he did what his people wanted him to do.

Looking back it gave the Brits time to rebuild it's military....many people don't understand the importance of rebuilding the British military in that time.

The Republicans, especially the neocons, don't understand how to win a war these days.