« QUESTION TIME WATCH... | Main | SUPREME INDIFFERENCE »

June 30, 2006

Comments

Peter

David,

Appeasement in Britain in the 1930s was supported across the political spectrum. Remember it was predominantly Tories such as Neville Chamberlain and Stanley Baldwin who were in power. Even in 1940 the Earl of Halifax who was Tory Foreign Secretary was in favour of suing for peace after Dunkirk.

Churchill was a lone voice, crying in the wilderness, distrusted by his Tory colleagues because he had been a Liberal cabinet minister between 1906 and 1916.

David Vance

Peter,

I agree that appeasement in the UK establishment is across the board. I was speaking more universally, though you make a fair point.

daytripper

Even in 1940 the Earl of Halifax who was Tory Foreign Secretary was in favour of suing for peace after Dunkirk.

yes good old Halifax. if he had beaten churchill to the top post we would be slapping our leederhosen and necking schnaaps.

aileen

Totally agree with Peter's point.

David that was very interestign but I come from a different pace re doing nothing. I think that there is a danger in the opposite instinct. that we'd have to do "something" even if its the wrong something even if it makes things worse. This has bedeviled NI. You can do any auld nonsence as long as you couch it as "I'm doing it for Peace". I'm taking risks for Peace - always a winner and it deosen't matter if it is others that have to deal with the consequences of the risks. I could have dug a big hole in my back garden and it would have been considered a noble action if I'd done it for "Peace".

I think that it comes down to not whether doing nothing or doing something is your default but whether the override is logically and moraly based.

The comments to this entry are closed.