Matthew Yglesias » Quote of the Day

Oct 26th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Quote of the Day

Bill Kristol: “Neville Chamberlain also had a fine temperament and a good intellect.”

By the same token, I suppose, Adolf Hitler was a hothead who took on the special interests.

Comments
53

53 Responses to “Quote of the Day”

El Cid Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Oh, sh*t! I guess if we’re gonna be safe from takeover we need to find an unstable leader who’s stupid! Wait…
r€nato Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Does Bill Kristol believe that he himself has a fine temeperament and a good intellect?

If so, why does he continue to hold his job?

If not, why does he continue to hold his job?
r€nato Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
these asshats are simply beyond parody. All you have to do is repeat the things they say to get a laugh.
James Gary Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Nothing says “hack” like a violation of Godwin’s Law.
oudeteros Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Ack!!!
B. Kristol Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
McCain wins the election via Godwin.
r€nato Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Our political discourse allows little to no space for nuance… but Neville Chamberlain gets a bum rap. He was playing a terrible hand and really had no credible choice but to stall for time while the Allies re-armed.

And if you really want to get nuanced… the Allies were in woeful shape militarily due to the backlash against militarism caused by the horribly bloody tragedy of World War One, which in turn was brought on by the Bill Kristol’s of 100 years ago.
matt Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
well played, sir.
r€nato Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Damn, you’re right, Yglesias. Hitler sure was a maverick wasn’t he?
Rich Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Kristol is a gutless, whiny, overcompensating prig.
Miller Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
And Kristol is the guy who pushed for a Palin pick. Why does anyone listen to this guy again?
nolaboyd Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
The jury is still out on whether Kristol’s statement is itself a violation of Godwin’s Law. While not a direct attribution, Chamberlain is only relevant because he appeased the Nazis. Peace in our time with anyone less then the Nazis would not have Kristol’s desired effect.
Steve N Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
A book on Chamberlain by Caputi (Chamberlain and Appeasement) describes Chamberlain’s “impatience with opposing viewpoints” (p. 173). James Margach (a political journalist) is quoted as saying of Chamberlain: “When I knew him first, long before he became Prime Minister, he was the most shy, kindly, generous-minded and warm-hearted of men, always friendly and understanding although by nature cold, indrawn and lonely. But when he became Prime Minister and his appeasment policy first overwhelmed and then finally destroyed him he became the most authoritarian, interolerant and arrogant of all the Premiers I have known.” Even at his best, Chamberlain doesn’t sound like a man with a first class temperment to me.

Maybe Godwin’s law should have a Chamberlain corrolary. Seriously, though, it seems like Kristol finds everything as analogical to the situation in Europe in the 1930s as seen through Churchill’s later reflections.
SFAW Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
On the other hand, unlike Hanoi Johnny, Chamberlain did not give aid and comfort to the enemy (except perhaps indirectly).

One thing puzzles me, though. When exactly was it that we won that “war” in Iraq? I thought Mission was Accomplerished back in 2003, but now it’s when the surge “succeeded”? Interesting viewpoint.
pourmecoffee Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Wilt Chamberlain got more tail than a brontosaurus. Don’t forget that.
beowulf Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I just finished reading Pat Buchanan’s ‘Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”‘ (a shockingly good book. I read a lot of history and this is the best I’ve read in ages). I get the impression that Chamberlain was something of a nepotism pick. His father Joe was Colonial Secretary during the Boer War and his brother Austen won a Nobel Peace Prize in the 20’s for his service as Foreign Secretary.

Both would have become Prime Minister but for ill health. Neville was ill-suited for the job (he didn’t have the political skills of his brother Jeb— I mean Austen), but Chamberlain was a brand name so it was inevitable he’d get the job.
Hector Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Pourmecoffee,

And in doing so, of course, helped contribute to the destruction of the institution of marriage.
NegSpin Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
So we should only get people with bad temperaments and poor intellect.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
beowulf: Chamberlain was from that family of Birmingham Tories — of course, Churchill’s father was a contemporary of Joseph C — but British politics were just broken in the 1930s.
Warren Terra Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Should I, as a Jew, be concerned that I’m hoping November 4 will be The Night Of The Broken Kristol?
SFAW Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Hector -
Not true. However, had Wilt tried to marry George Mikan, THAT would have destroyed etc etc
Hector Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
SLC,

Wilt Chamberlain’s chosen lifestyle did much to glamorize and normalize promiscuity among the young people of America.
Notorious P.A.T. Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
This is the zillionth time I’ve posted this somewhere:

Why Winston Wouldn’t Stand For W

President Bush’s favorite role model is, famously, Jesus, but Winston Churchill is close behind. The president admires the wartime British prime minister so much that he keeps what he calls “a stern-looking bust” of Churchill in the Oval Office.

I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about Churchill while working on my book “Troublesome Young Men,” a history of the small group of Conservative members of Parliament who defied British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler, forced Chamberlain to resign in May 1940 and helped make Churchill his successor. Indeed, the more you understand the historical record, the more the parallels leap out — but they’re between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill.
Notorious P.A.T. Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
^^^I messed up the quotes.
Hector Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Re: President Bush’s favorite role model is, famously, Jesus,

Mr. Bush’s description of Jesus as ‘his favorite philosopher’ strikes me as disturbingly Arian/Unitarian in its implication, suggesting that Jesus was a moral exemplar or a wise teacher rather than the Son of God, possessed of a divine nature, and qualitatively different from and superior to all men. Jesus was a Person of the Trinity, simply put, and any attempt to reduce him to a teacher or role model is to detract from his true nature. As a professed Christian, Mr. Bush should know this. If he had cited, say, Francis of Assisi as his role model it would not be so troublesome.
Craig Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Chamberlain made mistakes, but he really a fall guy for a lot of other failures. The Treaty of Versailles was fundamentally unsustainable. All the European powers failed to contain Hitler not just Britain. Moreover I think to the extent that the criticism of Chamberlain tends to exaggerate his foolishness, it also blinds us all to how truly difficult foreign policy is. Chamberlain was both a good smart guy not some idealist buffoon. Still he made mistakes. That should humble us not cause us to try to take over the world.
Tom Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Eva Braun was a hockey mom.
EPluribusContinuum Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 12:24 am
disturbingly Arian/Unitarian

Chamberlain was an incombustible Unitarian:

“If we lived in the reign of King Henry VIII a Unitarian would not be in Downing Street. He would be burned at Smithfield.”

It seems that several Presidents (notably Jefferson and Lincoln) were reluctant to confess the divinity of Jesus.

But that was at a time when pluralism was more respected.
John Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Our political discourse allows little to no space for nuance… but Neville Chamberlain gets a bum rap. He was playing a terrible hand and really had no credible choice but to stall for time while the Allies re-armed.

This would be a fair defense of some of the appeasers, but I don’t think it applies to Chamberlain. He really believed that appeasement and direct Anglo-German engagement would preserve the peace and prevent another world war, and he pursued the goal of a British rapprochement with Germany ruthlessly and determinedly. Someone like Lord Halifax or Sir John Simon might have appeased out of the motives you mention, and I agree that appeasement as buying time was probably justified. But Chamberlain really did believe that appeasement was about more than biding for time until the allied militaries could rebuild.
SFAW Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 3:24 am
SLC,

Wilt Chamberlain’s chosen lifestyle did much to glamorize and normalize promiscuity among the young people of America.

Ignoring your aphasia for the moment: Wilt’s lifestyle only “glamorized” it for the coloreds. Since they had no morals to begin with, his behavior had no effect.
Bill Dacey Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 6:02 am
The Munich meeting was just a Kibuki dance. Chamberlain told parliment before leaving for Germany that Britain would not fight for the Sudatenland. Then he used the official secrets act to keep this fact from the British public but, all the London diplomats knew, Hitler certainly knew and it was reported in the New York Times.

The way that the Munich analogy is used is always nonsense because the people who use it do not understand or just ignore the politics and the military alliances of that time.

Today’s view of Hitler is not the how most people saw Hitler in 1938. Stalin was much more hated and feared. Anti-semitism was a mainstream attitude in the West. Hitler was just seen as a thug. At this time, the European counties with colonies were quite used to killing troublesome people. They just preferred that the people being murdered were not white and that any accounts of these activities not be too critical of the government.

By 1938, the British has soured on the Treaty of Versailles. They still hoped that revising it could stop the drift toward war. Appeasement was considered a sensible policy. This was just ten years too late to stop the cycle of revenge. The British had also come to believe in the self determination of peoples. They had just let go of most of Ireland after 600 years. They had little sympathy for the Czechs wanting to keep the Sudatenland after only twenty years as Czechslovakia.

The difficulty of standing up to Hitler was more than just a lack of will. The parts did not fit together. The Czechs could not be defended without the help of the Russians. The Western powers would not ally with the Russians and the Czechs had no common border with Russia. For economic reasons, France could not go to war without the British. Similarly, Britain could not go to war without the British Commonwealth. The British Commonwealth in 1938 had no interest in fighting over an obscure Central European border issue again.

By hiding the fact that Britain had no intension of fighting for the Czechs from the public before Munich, Chamberlain made sure that the headlines after his return would be “Peace In Our Time” rather that “Chamberlain Sells Out Czechs.”
SLC Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Re Hector

Hey, I didn’t say anything about Wilt Chamberlain. Mr. Hector has me confused with someone else.

Re r€nato

This is one of the excuses given for Chamberlains’ appeasement policy and it is total rubbish. The fact is that the German military in 1938 was in no condition to conduct a war and Hitler knew it. In fact, by selling out Czechoslovakia in 1938, Chamberlain shot himself in the foot as that nation had the most modern armaments industry in Europe at the time. Had Chamberlain stood up to Hitler and informed him in Munich that an attack on Czechoslovakia would mean war with Britain and France, there is evidence that the German General Staff, which, at that time, was not under Hitlers’ thumb, would have conducted a coup to overthrow him. The planning for such a coup had been underway for some time as the high ranking military officers on the staff had concluded that Hitler was a reckless adventurer who would lead Germany to ruin. Of course, after Hitlers’ bluff at Munich succeeded, the coup collapsed.
duBois Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Chamberlain and Munich, The DH, Lizzie Borden, Little Big Horn, the sinking of the Titanic, the Kennedy Assassination, Michael Jackson, Brittney Spears, Sacco and Vanzetti, Barbra Streisand, Pickett’s Charge, Michael Jordan vs. Babe Ruth, Evolution, Abortion, the winability of the Vietnam War, Elvis v. The Beatles, The Immaculate Reception, the Lincoln Assassination, the authorship of Shakespeare, the Hall-Mills Murder Case, Whittaker Chambers, Bruno Richard Hauptmann …

Feel free to add to the list. Jump in anytime.
Hector Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 8:57 am
SFAW,

I don’t know what the f— you’re talking about. I’m not white, for what it’s worth, and I have exactly the same contempt for Mr. Chamberlain as I do for any white guy who uses women like that.
novakant Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 9:53 am
The fact is that the German military in 1938 was in no condition to conduct a war and Hitler knew it.

This assertion only makes sense in comparative terms, Germany had 36 divisions (600.000 men) in 1938, quickly rising to 98 divisions (1.5 million men) in 1939 – and as the events of the following two years made clear, neither Britain, France nor Russia were prepared for war.
SLC Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Re novakant

Mr. novakant makes the same mistake as many other commentators by counting infantry divisions. The fact is that, for an offensive operation in 1938, the only units that counted were the armored ones. At that time, the German army had no operational Panzer units and an array of tanks that were inferior to the British and French tanks and greatly inferior to the Czechoslovakian tanks, the best in the world at that time. This is not even to mention that the German Navy had no operational Uboats or trained crews to man them. In addition, the development of the Luftwaffe was barely underway.

Qualitatively, the weapons available to the German Army in 1938 were barely equal, if not inferior to those available to their British and French counterparts and were greatly inferior to those available to the Czech armed forces. Contrary to Voltaire, god does not always march with the big battalions but often with the better armed.

As Walter Goerlitz concluded in his book, “A History of the German General Staff,” Hitler was bluffing; if Chamberlain had called his bluff, Hitler might well have been removed from power by a military coup.

However, another misconception that has arisen that Mr. novakant repeats is that Britain and France lost the Battle of France because they were unprepared for war in 1940. The fact is that they lost because their deployments were based on he supposition that the German Army would repeat the Schlieffen Plan of WW 1. In fact, the British and French deployments could not have been better from the point of view of the Ardennes Offensive that the Germans actually employed.
oriole Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
You’re saying Hitler was a hothead? Some people prefer the term Maverick, my friend. And he had more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined.

Just kidding!
bobbyp Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I’ve seen SLC types argue interminably that the passage of the 16th Amendment was ‘unconstitutional’. This is not history, it is polemics by minutae. Besides, everybody ‘believed Hitler had all those armaments’. The rest writes itself……..
novakant Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
If the Czechoslovakians had such a formidable force, why did they roll over so easily? And had the UK and France agreed to help Czechoslovakia, what exactly would their military strategy have been – invade Germany? Also, it is well known that Hitler wanted to invade, but was convinced by others not to. As far as the Wehrmacht generals are concerned, they more or less went along with every idiocy Hitler ordered them to in subsequent years, so I really doubt that they would have had the guts to pull off a coup at this stage where things were going still rather well.

Anyway, this is all useless speculative history and is of no relevance whatsoever to the current political situation.
SLC Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Re novakant

1. The Czechoslovakian government rolled over easily because they sere sold out by Chamberlain. Without the backing of Britain and France, the Czechs concluded that they would eventually be overwhelmed by the weight of numbers.

2. According to Walter Goerlitz, if Chamberlain had stood up to Hitler there would have been no war as he was bluffing.

3. Contrary to Mr. novakants’ assertion, the top men in the German General Staff, Frisch and von Blomberg did not support any idiocy that Hitler ordered them to do. They opposed each and every one of his moves, including the Anschluss with Austria and the demand for the Sudetenland. These men were well aware of the unreadiness of the German armed forces for a full scale war in 1938. Again, acording to Prof. Goerlitz, Frisch and von Blomberg were well along in their coup plot which quite likely would have gone forward in the event Hitlers’ bluff was called.

4. I absolutely concur with Mr. novakant that this speculation is irrelevant to the current situation. However, I am of the view that assertions as to the efficacy of Chamberlains’ appeasement policy by Mr. r€nato and assertions by Mr. novakant that the Battle of France was lost because Britain and France were unprepared cannot go without challenge.
battery Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 5:54 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:47 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:44 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Incredible site! viagra
viagra cheap Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Thanks for the review!
viagra

Matt Yglesias

Quote of the Day

53 Responses to “Quote of the Day”

Blogroll