4 ms·

The appeasement policy was the right thing to do. The UK couldn't win a war in 1938 (no allies, no money, no air defence etc) and the bad taste of WW1 was still

The appeasement policy was the right thing to do. The UK couldn't win a war in 1938 (no allies, no money, no air defence etc) and the bad taste of WW1 was still in peoples mouths. The policy did fail because Hitler was going to go to war no matter what but that is only with 20/20 hindsight. Appeasement wasn't the right policy, it was literally the only policy available to the UK at the time. I agree that we need to take a hard line with China though, I can't see how this is going to end given their massive increase in military size and technology plus we are all so tied together financially that we could cripple each other long before a shot is fired. My friends seem to think that war is the only way this will end and I've got a young son so I sincerely hope not.

notzuck 7y ago
Thank you for the downvote. Much easier try to silence an opinion you don't like than leave a meaningful response. Why bother downvoting if you don't like what I said? This isn't reddit... or high school. I just watched two history professors debate this very topic here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8 A very interesting watch because unlike hit and run downvoters, I am interested in learning. side note: I now don't know what I think - both arguments were very good.
- skavi 7y ago
  it's considered bad form to discuss votes. the link itself would have been enough
  - humanrebar 7y ago
    Meh. I think it's bad form to downvote without comment outside of pettiness or trolling.
    - on_and_off 7y ago
      Agreed. I wish that HN would force people to write a comment explaining why they are downvoting.
      - dang 7y ago
        Alas, that would generate more petty bickering about downvotes. Heaps more.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  I didn't downvote, but "peace in our time" isn't the same as "let's buy a few years and then get some Nazis". It's also extreme Monday morning quarterbacking. And it's plausible that anything short of Churchillian intransigence would have lost that war. Even a "smarter" craftiness could have failed.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Thought experiment - if you're Chamberlain, and want to postpone the war with Germany for a few more years while you build an army - what exactly do you say in a speech? "We're currently too weak to fight, but we'll get there" is not the sort of thing that I would expect to result in postponing war.
yungcoder 7y ago
Well even if having the resources of the largest colonial empire in history wasn't enough to allow the UK to win a war in 1938, what about in 1933? 1934? 1935-37? When the Germans seized the Rhineland in '36 they could have been easily steamrolled by a French-British alliance and that would have been the end of Nazi Germany then and there. Nazi Germany was only able to become the juggernaut it was because of the years of appeasement leading up to that point and I think we can agree by the time they became an apparent threat it was already too late. What I'm saying is if the parallel holds with China today, we are barreling towards 1938 at alarming speed and this time I don't think the world can afford to be wrong again.

notzuck 7y ago

Thank you for the downvote. Much easier try to silence an opinion you don't like than leave a meaningful response. Why bother downvoting if you don't like what I said? This isn't reddit... or high school. I just watched two history professors debate this very topic here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8 A very interesting watch because unlike hit and run downvoters, I am interested in learning. side note: I now don't know what I think - both arguments were very good.

skavi 7y ago
it's considered bad form to discuss votes. the link itself would have been enough
- humanrebar 7y ago
  Meh. I think it's bad form to downvote without comment outside of pettiness or trolling.
  - on_and_off 7y ago
    Agreed. I wish that HN would force people to write a comment explaining why they are downvoting.
    - dang 7y ago
      Alas, that would generate more petty bickering about downvotes. Heaps more.
humanrebar 7y ago
I didn't downvote, but "peace in our time" isn't the same as "let's buy a few years and then get some Nazis". It's also extreme Monday morning quarterbacking. And it's plausible that anything short of Churchillian intransigence would have lost that war. Even a "smarter" craftiness could have failed.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Thought experiment - if you're Chamberlain, and want to postpone the war with Germany for a few more years while you build an army - what exactly do you say in a speech? "We're currently too weak to fight, but we'll get there" is not the sort of thing that I would expect to result in postponing war.

yungcoder 7y ago

Well even if having the resources of the largest colonial empire in history wasn't enough to allow the UK to win a war in 1938, what about in 1933? 1934? 1935-37? When the Germans seized the Rhineland in '36 they could have been easily steamrolled by a French-British alliance and that would have been the end of Nazi Germany then and there. Nazi Germany was only able to become the juggernaut it was because of the years of appeasement leading up to that point and I think we can agree by the time they became an apparent threat it was already too late. What I'm saying is if the parallel holds with China today, we are barreling towards 1938 at alarming speed and this time I don't think the world can afford to be wrong again.