Appeasement did its job. It gave Britain time to retool for war. He also fell on his political sword, at the end. That let Churchill actually defend Britain, with a clean slate, and the military he had built.
Putting aside the hypothetical about which side benefitted more from appeasement, what’s the equivalent here? Give Trump everything he wants and hope that he let’s you still have an honest election in 2026? 2028? Hope that he leaves office after two terms when his biggest projects seem to be adding jets and ballrooms to his taste? Hope that he keeps over and dies? And what are you willing to give up for those hopes? Martial law in Chicago? An NYC mayor who’s more focused on feeling up his secretaries than on addressing the cost of living crisis? Mass deportation of American citizens? Forced and intentional starvation of American citizens? Destruction and corporate capture of our federal institutions? Obliteration of the rule of law? Continued support for genocide in the Middle East and abandonment of our allies in Europe and across the globe? Where’s your Poland and what are you trading Czechoslovakia for?
Fully agreed. There’s a huge difference between tactical appeasement, and being cowards. Chamberlain at least knew what he was doing was bad. It was trying to fix it.
American democrats don’t even have that excuse. I also doubt they will fall on their swords for the sake of those coming in who might be able to fight back either.
Appeasement did its job. It gave Britain time to retool for war. He also fell on his political sword, at the end. That let Churchill actually defend Britain, with a clean slate, and the military he had built.
Putting aside the hypothetical about which side benefitted more from appeasement, what’s the equivalent here? Give Trump everything he wants and hope that he let’s you still have an honest election in 2026? 2028? Hope that he leaves office after two terms when his biggest projects seem to be adding jets and ballrooms to his taste? Hope that he keeps over and dies? And what are you willing to give up for those hopes? Martial law in Chicago? An NYC mayor who’s more focused on feeling up his secretaries than on addressing the cost of living crisis? Mass deportation of American citizens? Forced and intentional starvation of American citizens? Destruction and corporate capture of our federal institutions? Obliteration of the rule of law? Continued support for genocide in the Middle East and abandonment of our allies in Europe and across the globe? Where’s your Poland and what are you trading Czechoslovakia for?
Fully agreed. There’s a huge difference between tactical appeasement, and being cowards. Chamberlain at least knew what he was doing was bad. It was trying to fix it.
American democrats don’t even have that excuse. I also doubt they will fall on their swords for the sake of those coming in who might be able to fight back either.
Failed pretty hard in Dunkirk
A lot of investment went into the RAF. Alongside the chain home radar net to guide it.
Without those, Dunkirk would have been soon followed by the invasion of the UK.
Sure, but I don’t think appeasement would have made a difference in that
It brought time, to finish the stations and build the aircraft. Given how close the RAF came to being broken, it made all the difference.