Should "Neville Chamberlain" be added to the list of logical fallacies?

[King]

Discuss.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Yes, it's an absurdly overused bloody shirt to justify perpetual war.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, it's an absurdly overused bloody shirt to justify perpetual war.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Yes, it's an absurdly overused bloody shirt to justify perpetual war.

[Cory]

No, because it's not inherently fallacious.

[Ebsy]

This thread is as bad as handing over the Sudetenland.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, along with the citing if the Kuwaiti incubator story every single time the media reports on some atrocity in a non-US friendly country.

[AggregateDemand]

Neville Chamberlain = laws are enforced by paper

It is the logical fallacy that keeps people in perpetual denial about the business-end of the regulations they impose.

[Indy Texas]

Yes, along with the citing if the Kuwaiti incubator story every single time the media reports on some atrocity in a non-US friendly country.

I don't think it's even necessary to deny atrocities committed abroad, real or not. I take issue with the idea that the United States has some inherent obligation to spend money and lives to prevent non-Americans from having their human rights violated.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yes, along with the citing if the Kuwaiti incubator story every single time the media reports on some atrocity in a non-US friendly country.

I don't think it's even necessary to deny atrocities committed abroad, real or not. I take issue with the idea that the United States has some inherent obligation to spend money and lives to prevent non-Americans from having their human rights violated.

^^^
If only we listened to people like you more often on foreign policy matters.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, along with the citing if the Kuwaiti incubator story every single time the media reports on some atrocity in a non-US friendly country.

I don't think it's even necessary to deny atrocities committed abroad, real or not. I take issue with the idea that the United States has some inherent obligation to spend money and lives to prevent non-Americans from having their human rights violated.

^^^
If only we listened to people like you more often on foreign policy matters.

His point along with the idiots who just refer to the Kuwaiti incubator over and over and over is a complete strawman though. Simply reporting on an atrocity in a foreign country is not calling for military intervention against it. Is every single news story about North Korean labor camps an attempt to get the US to military invade North Korea? How about any report of homosexuals being hung in Iran? And yes, I have seen True Leftist morons try to argue these type of reports are US propaganda with no purpose at all except to drum up war support because OMG REMEMBER THE KUWAIT INCUBATOR STORY 25 YEARS AGO?

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, along with the citing if the Kuwaiti incubator story every single time the media reports on some atrocity in a non-US friendly country.

I don't think it's even necessary to deny atrocities committed abroad, real or not. I take issue with the idea that the United States has some inherent obligation to spend money and lives to prevent non-Americans from having their human rights violated.

^^^
If only we listened to people like you more often on foreign policy matters.

His point along with the idiots who just refer to the Kuwaiti incubator over and over and over is a complete strawman though. Simply reporting on an atrocity in a foreign country is not calling for military intervention against it. Is every single news story about North Korean labor camps an attempt to get the US to military invade North Korea? How about any report of homosexuals being hung in Iran? And yes, I have seen True Leftist morons try to argue these type of reports are US propaganda with no purpose at all except to drum up war support because OMG REMEMBER THE KUWAIT INCUBATOR STORY 25 YEARS AGO?

There's no question that the media gives more attention to the atrocities of nations who are potential targets of war than those of "allied" authoritarian regimes.

[Mechaman]

Yes indeed.  One could very well argue that the key problem was that Chamberlain and other officials refrained from explicitly condemning (rather than endorsing) the actions of Hitler and his regime early enough when it could have made a difference.  The failure of "appeasement" need not necessarily be construed as a failure to lob bombs at the enemy soon enough, which a lot of hawks seem to interpret it as.

[Lief 🗽]

Neville Chamberlain did the right thing*, with the knowledge he had at the time.

*for Britain at least; as someone who sympathizes with and has a great fondness for the Czech people, he is of course a piece of sh[inks] backstabber

[ingemann]

Why do appeasement never work?

Because if it work it's not appeasement.

That's sum my view up on people coming with a one liner about Neville Chamberlain. They're people who don't get the point, Chamberlain after he had feed the German tiger, travelled home and made his rifle ready. Yes it's not fun to be the Czech, but small countries, who have a bad relationship with their bigger neighbours always risk being sold out, when it's political convenient.

Small countries are always just pawns for bigger ones, and for they should always do their best to find some kind agreement with their strongher neighbours before their protectors sells them out. We learned that in 1864, when we overestimated how much political capital UK and Russia was willing to sacrifise for us, especially when we behaved like complete idiots.

[Gustaf]

From what I've read the Czechs could have easily fought off the Germans with Anglo-French support in 1938. But that was admittedly a while ago.

[© tweed]

From what I've read the Czechs could have easily fought off the Germans with Anglo-French support in 1938. But that was admittedly a while ago.

War fatigue was high in England and France was very high, as you know.  severe PTSD from the Great War, families without fathers, etc.  there was no popular support for offensive action; Chamberlain was expressing the will of the people.

[ingemann]

From what I've read the Czechs could have easily fought off the Germans with Anglo-French support in 1938. But that was admittedly a while ago.

I don't buy it, 20% of Czechoslovakia's population, who lived in the fortified areas was German, Czechoslovakia had no friends among its neigbours and the Germans outmatched them 4:1. It would just had been Poland a year earlier.