Current Affairs The Defence of the West

[PSB1]

Just been reading about the U K's decade of appeasement. Though Chamberlain comes in for some hefty criticism and even though he will have been genuine about his desire for peace, the U K started rearming in 1933 under Baldwin and carried on bulding up during Chamberlain's leadership.

Given the uncertainty of America's commitment to NATO and the increasing noise from those who oppose the West, surely the time has come to build up materiel, manpower and make the argument to persuade populations, for whom the idea that defence is worth a spit, is foreign.

Are the values that we preach (but don't always follow through on) worth defending? At what cost? Just how much are we prepared to sacrifice if anything? Who are the statesmen with the will to see through programmes which may well not be immediately popular? Do we need stronger defence against the insidious tide of fascism washing thrrough Europe and America? How could that be done?

A lot of you will know about Field Marshal Lord Roberts and his decade long traipse up and down the U K before the Great War. Although ridiculed by The Manchester Guardian for his efforts, he insisted that reserves should be built up and that the country needed to wake up to the threat from Germany. Do you think we're at that point?

I believe the clock is ticking and that the best way of avoiding a cataclysmic war is to be prepared to fight one. What think you, good people?

 

[Bohemian Toffee]

Just been reading about the U K's decade of appeasement. Though Chamberlain comes in for some hefty criticism and even though he will have been genuine about his desire for peace, the U K started rearming in 1933 under Baldwin and carried on bulding up during Chamberlain's leadership.

Given the uncertainty of America's commitment to NATO and the increasing noise from those who oppose the West, surely the time has come to build up materiel, manpower and make the argument to persuade populations, for whom the idea that defence is worth a spit, is foreign.

Are the values that we preach (but don't always follow through on) worth defending? At what cost? Just how much are we prepared to sacrifice if anything? Who are the statesmen with the will to see through programmes which may well not be immediately popular? Do we need stronger defence against the insidious tide of fascism washing thrrough Europe and America? How could that be done?

A lot of you will know about Field Marshal Lord Roberts and his decade long traipse up and down the U K before the Great War. Although ridiculed by The Manchester Guardian for his efforts, he insisted that reserves should be built up and that the country needed to wake up to the threat from Germany. Do you think we're at that point?

I believe the clock is ticking and that the best way of avoiding a cataclysmic war is to be prepared to fight one. What think you, good people?

On Appeasement, I think there are very good legal reasons for the British conduct at Munich in 1938, the zenith of the sentiment. Czechoslovakia was an amalgam of countries at a time when language and national identity were the indicators of national determination. Chamberlain in all faith could not commit soldiers to a conflict without a legal framework (alliance, non aggression, mutual assistance pact) and should be treated more generously by history.

I think your wider point suggests a failure of leadership, from political classes and, in a sense, the dislocation of national interest foreign policy being subsumed by individual political ideology. It's Mussolini who slows Hitler's southern expansion into Austria, despite political ideology being closely aligned.

Current political classes will abandon national self interest in favour of personal relationships or maintaining political ideology. Ours will be a failure of political will, not of collective values.

 

[Ming the merciless]

Just been reading about the U K's decade of appeasement. Though Chamberlain comes in for some hefty criticism and even though he will have been genuine about his desire for peace, the U K started rearming in 1933 under Baldwin and carried on bulding up during Chamberlain's leadership.

Given the uncertainty of America's commitment to NATO and the increasing noise from those who oppose the West, surely the time has come to build up materiel, manpower and make the argument to persuade populations, for whom the idea that defence is worth a spit, is foreign.

Are the values that we preach (but don't always follow through on) worth defending? At what cost? Just how much are we prepared to sacrifice if anything? Who are the statesmen with the will to see through programmes which may well not be immediately popular? Do we need stronger defence against the insidious tide of fascism washing thrrough Europe and America? How could that be done?

A lot of you will know about Field Marshal Lord Roberts and his decade long traipse up and down the U K before the Great War. Although ridiculed by The Manchester Guardian for his efforts, he insisted that reserves should be built up and that the country needed to wake up to the threat from Germany. Do you think we're at that point?

I believe the clock is ticking and that the best way of avoiding a cataclysmic war is to be prepared to fight one. What think you, good people?

When you volunteer to get zapped I’ll be right behind you.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Can we jut be nuked and get it over with?

 

[mightymoyes]

Just been reading about the U K's decade of appeasement. Though Chamberlain comes in for some hefty criticism and even though he will have been genuine about his desire for peace, the U K started rearming in 1933 under Baldwin and carried on bulding up during Chamberlain's leadership.

Given the uncertainty of America's commitment to NATO and the increasing noise from those who oppose the West, surely the time has come to build up materiel, manpower and make the argument to persuade populations, for whom the idea that defence is worth a spit, is foreign.

Are the values that we preach (but don't always follow through on) worth defending? At what cost? Just how much are we prepared to sacrifice if anything? Who are the statesmen with the will to see through programmes which may well not be immediately popular? Do we need stronger defence against the insidious tide of fascism washing thrrough Europe and America? How could that be done?

A lot of you will know about Field Marshal Lord Roberts and his decade long traipse up and down the U K before the Great War. Although ridiculed by The Manchester Guardian for his efforts, he insisted that reserves should be built up and that the country needed to wake up to the threat from Germany. Do you think we're at that point?

I believe the clock is ticking and that the best way of avoiding a cataclysmic war is to be prepared to fight one. What think you, good people?

Who are you planning on fighting against? 'the west' is getting more fascistic so you want to fight your imaginary enemy to defend that?

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

On Appeasement, I think there are very good legal reasons for the British conduct at Munich in 1938, the zenith of the sentiment. Czechoslovakia was an amalgam of countries at a time when language and national identity were the indicators of national determination. Chamberlain in all faith could not commit soldiers to a conflict without a legal framework (alliance, non aggression, mutual assistance pact) and should be treated more generously by history.

I think your wider point suggests a failure of leadership, from political classes and, in a sense, the dislocation of national interest foreign policy being subsumed by individual political ideology. It's Mussolini who slows Hitler's southern expansion into Austria, despite political ideology being closely aligned.

Current political classes will abandon national self interest in favour of personal relationships or maintaining political ideology. Ours will be a failure of political will, not of collective values.

Yes

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Im all for some Freedom and Democracy, just not the type i'm experiencing in the UK. So whatever will be will be.

 

[Yarrgh]

 

[PSB1]

Ours will be a failure of political will

It will. You're right, I think, though political will shifts - occasionaly - according to perception of collective values. And notoriously, perception is harder to argue than facts.

When you volunteer to get zapped I’ll be right behind you.

I shall feel so much safer.

Who are you planning on fighting against? 'the west' is getting more fascistic so you want to fight your imaginary enemy to defend that?

I'm not planning to fight anyone. Neither am I taking refuge in a hallucination. I'm suggesting that it might be appropriate to guard against forces which undermine democracy be they internal or exterrnal.

Im all for some Freedom and Democracy, just not the type i'm experiencing in the UK. So whatever will be will be.

Yes, that's a big issue. The public audience will contain many people who have endured terrible struggles under the current 'democratic' governments and will see little value to them personally in supporting a rearmament programme.

 

[dublinbluenose]

Just been reading about the U K's decade of appeasement. Though Chamberlain comes in for some hefty criticism and even though he will have been genuine about his desire for peace, the U K started rearming in 1933 under Baldwin and carried on bulding up during Chamberlain's leadership.

Given the uncertainty of America's commitment to NATO and the increasing noise from those who oppose the West, surely the time has come to build up materiel, manpower and make the argument to persuade populations, for whom the idea that defence is worth a spit, is foreign.

Are the values that we preach (but don't always follow through on) worth defending? At what cost? Just how much are we prepared to sacrifice if anything? Who are the statesmen with the will to see through programmes which may well not be immediately popular? Do we need stronger defence against the insidious tide of fascism washing thrrough Europe and America? How could that be done?

A lot of you will know about Field Marshal Lord Roberts and his decade long traipse up and down the U K before the Great War. Although ridiculed by The Manchester Guardian for his efforts, he insisted that reserves should be built up and that the country needed to wake up to the threat from Germany. Do you think we're at that point?

I believe the clock is ticking and that the best way of avoiding a cataclysmic war is to be prepared to fight one. What think you, good people?

Chamberlain gets a bit of a raw deal historically. He almost certainly expected Hitler to not keep his agreement but what Chamberlain did was bought Britain time. Time it desperately needed to start preparing for war.

Had Britain declared war earlier, it would've lost and quickly.

 

[PSB1]

Chamberlain gets a bit of a raw deal historically. He almost certainly expected Hitler to not keep his agreement but what Chamberlain did was bought Britain time. Time it desperately needed to start preparing for war.

Had Britain declared war earlier, it would've lost and quickly.

Yes, he did. Ramsay Macdonald and, initially, Baldwin were equally if not more to 'blame' for appeasement. The fact is that at the start of the thirties, there was a quite natural aversion to any discussion of rearmament with the population still reeling from horrific losses in 14 - 18, and then everything was a rush.

I see that a couple of ministers have raised their heads above the parapet and called for 3% of GDP to go on defence. Not likely to happen any time soon but maybe the start of growing a consensus.

 

[Rita_Poon]

shove it!

 

[Chach]

Current political classes will abandon national self interest in favour of personal relationships or maintaining political ideology. Ours will be a failure of political will, not of collective values.

True and depressing.

 

[PhilM]

Just been reading about the U K's decade of appeasement. Though Chamberlain comes in for some hefty criticism and even though he will have been genuine about his desire for peace, the U K started rearming in 1933 under Baldwin and carried on bulding up during Chamberlain's leadership.

Given the uncertainty of America's commitment to NATO and the increasing noise from those who oppose the West, surely the time has come to build up materiel, manpower and make the argument to persuade populations, for whom the idea that defence is worth a spit, is foreign.

Are the values that we preach (but don't always follow through on) worth defending? At what cost? Just how much are we prepared to sacrifice if anything? Who are the statesmen with the will to see through programmes which may well not be immediately popular? Do we need stronger defence against the insidious tide of fascism washing thrrough Europe and America? How could that be done?

A lot of you will know about Field Marshal Lord Roberts and his decade long traipse up and down the U K before the Great War. Although ridiculed by The Manchester Guardian for his efforts, he insisted that reserves should be built up and that the country needed to wake up to the threat from Germany. Do you think we're at that point?

I believe the clock is ticking and that the best way of avoiding a cataclysmic war is to be prepared to fight one. What think you, good people?

With hindsight, appeasement gets a rough ride and perhaps, to some extent, rightly so. We can go into incredible detail about the policy and its impact.

But what has always struck me is the elephant in the room. If you read about comments from the population at the time, one thing sticks out...

... this was a generation that ensured the bloodshed of the trenches. Nearly 900,000 from the UK had died, and even more so across the allies and commonwealth.

There was no appetite for that again - they'd lived, suffered and lost through that bloody war - so appeasement was supported; nobody wanted that again.

I don't think many of us can honestly question that perspective if we haven't lived through and experienced those terrible years of conflict, with so much lost.

The likes of Mons, the Somme, Verdun, Ypres, Passchendaele, Gallipoli and so many more were fresh in the memory of those in power and the population.

I find it difficult to overly criticise people who hoped that peace would remain.

 

[Bohemian Toffee]

With hindsight, appeasement gets a rough ride and perhaps, to some extent, rightly so. We can go into incredible detail about the policy and its impact.

But what has always struck me is the elephant in the room. If you read about comments from the population at the time, one thing sticks out...

... this was a generation that ensured the bloodshed of the trenches. Nearly 900,000 from the UK had died, and even more so across the allies and commonwealth.

There was no appetite for that again - they'd lived, suffered and lost through that bloody war - so appeasement was supported; nobody wanted that again.

I don't think many of us can honestly question that perspective if we haven't lived through and experienced those terrible years of conflict, with so much lost.

The likes of Mons, the Somme, Verdun, Ypres, Passchendaele, Gallipoli and so many more were fresh in the memory of those in power and the population.

I find it difficult to overly criticise people who hoped that peace would remain.

There's an incredible documentary floating around You Tube - in three complete episodes - that covers post Versailles Europe. The part that deals with the anti-war sentiment in Britain is required viewing for anyone who wants to take a position on appeasement.

There are ordinary people collecting thousands of signatures for disarmament, plays covering the war in the trenches selling out to standing ovations...

The Long Shadow, David Reynolds presents. Well worth it.