- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The example of Chamberlain’s decision and response being out-of-context caught my eye and I was thinking that maybe the information Peikoff brings is also somewhat out-of-context. What if Chamberlain had no other choice but to give in, he did not have the military power to fight and the war would have been catastrophic. I did some research and came to find this opinion: “When Chamberlain made his appeasement speech to the British people, he could have said that his policies against rearming had proved wrong in hindsight, and that the opposing party led by Churchill had been right all along. Of course that confession world have brought down his government and destroyed his life’s work in politics in the twilight of his life.” Would this course of actions been more ethical or any response that was giving the Czechoslovakia would have been not ethical?
This may be a matter of how we interpret that moment in history. The opinion you quote seems to imply that Chamberlain’s decision to sign the 1938 Munich Agreement with Hitler was an insincere one ie that he really did not believe that he had found a way to peace but that it could not accept the personal and political embarrassment of admitting he had been wrong. My understanding of this event is that he was sincere but tragically so. He so wanted to avoid war that he evaded the full context of what he was dealing with – the nature of the Nazi regime and its track record in the 1930s of using force to achieve its aims. If he had chosen to consider the full context he would not have signed the agreement and certainly would not have tried to reassure the British people that he had found a way for peace with Germany. A similar case now is when some call for a peace agreement between Israel and Hamas. Such a call fails to take into account the full context of what Hamas is and its aims.
I agree with Steve regarding Israel and Hamas.
The passage Hripsime cites indicates that Chamberlain failed to consider the full context (at least) TWICE: (1) He failed to consider the full context when deciding against rearmament, and (2) he failed to consider the full context when dealing with the consequences of his first failure.
Both of these were unethical, and handing over Czechoslovakia was FAR WORSE, morally speaking, than would have been morally condemning Hitler and his intentions, EVEN IF Chamberlain lacked the military might at that moment to back up that condemnation.
IF Chamberlain did in fact evade the full context in the second instance to save his reputation, it backfired: We’re STILL talking about how terribly he acted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.