Was there a real Lord Darlington on whom this is based?
-
choatelodge — 17 years ago(June 07, 2008 01:44 PM)
Let me attempt one more time, to clarify the point.
Your statement was and remains, "Though I completely understand what you mean, I think it's profoundly important that we do understand and (harshly) judge them. (Promoters of appeasement)"
'WE' in that sentence obviously means you and the others sharing in this IMDB discussion, RedZenTerrorist. We sitting here in June of 2009.
YOU are the one proposing to 'harshly judge' persons such as Lord Darlington, and to so judge with the full knowledge of the events that will follow this point in history. That is just shooting sitting ducks. Wow, such a challenge!
It may be readily seen that contemporaries of Darlington in the story, such as Lewis and Cardinal may certainly judge him as they see fit, with full entitlement to do so.
When Cardinal and Stevens are alone in the drawing room in that marvelous scene preceding the conference, and in his frustration at trying to get through to the butler, Cardinal does a masterful job of describing what he considers to be Darlington's deception by the Germans.
When he says, "you see that's precisely it, it's because Lord Darlington IS a decent and honourable man", Cardinal is expressing his 'judgement' of Darlington and the pernicious effect of the man's well meaning but badly misguided collusion with a dangerous foe. HE is judging, as is his right.
That's what I meant when I said, "The point is that one is only in a justifiable position to harshly judge a person for his choice, if one were there at the time and one has either made the same choice as those he criticizes (and thus includes himself in the group deserving 'harsh judgement'), or one has made a better choice, in which case criticism of his peers' choice may be justifiable but will be in poor taste.
It's the CHARACTERS who may judge.
You RedZenTerrorist (and I, should I have wished it) are not in a position to judge harshly, because we would do so with the ridiculously presumptive advantage of knowing the outcome.
To judge so, with the advantage of how history plays out, is to claim superior judgement when we deserve credit for no such thing at all.
You have to understand the difference between yourself and the characters in the movie, RedZenTerrorist. They have every right to judge, harshhly or otherwise. For we to presume some right to make such 'judgements' in the light of our historical knowledge, is rather pompous and empty.
We may feel such a reaction when watching the movie, but stating it is merely belaboring the obvious, and makes one sound silly. -
choatelodge — 17 years ago(June 07, 2008 07:16 PM)
Well my good man, you took it upon yourself to reply to my proposing it presumptuous of you to personally judge from your post-World War 2 vantage point, the acts of a character in a setting before that war, by making references to Lewis and Cardinal's judging him (Darlington) contemporaneously, so if I take the belief that you are unable to make the distinctions between self, characters, and time frame, then I must insist that you have fostered that belief yourself.
No disrespect intended of course.
If you do indeed see the hubris in judging others in the past while yourself knowing how it plays out where they cannot, then there is no disagreement and we are on the same page, as it were.
As to your question," And would the US electorate be "in poor taste" or "morally improper", respectively, for harshly judging those in their political class who were so grossly in error, at consequence for so many?", I confess my confusion. Which 'error' you refer I do not know, and I am afraid I must borrow Stevens' apt phraseology and say that 'I regret that I am unable to be of assistance in these matters'.
But it was a good discussion. -
choatelodge — 17 years ago(June 07, 2008 09:36 PM)
Friend, you are truly all over the map and your increasingly hostile patter makes it evident that you are incapable of civil and intelligent discussion, therefor you are dismissed.
I regret the time I have wasted on this thread. -
MrPie7 — 16 years ago(February 17, 2010 12:17 PM)
It really is unfair to judge appeasement people as they had no idea what was going to come out of it."
It really is unfair to judge Iraq Invasion people as they had no idea what was going to come out of it.
It really is unfair to judge pro-Stalin people as they had no idea what was going to come out of it.
It really is unfair to judge "don'trepair-the-New-Orleans-levees" people as they had no idea what was going to come out of it.
The OP has a point. Only the first statement is justified. The world was unaware of the kinds of horror that a totalitarian system may perpetrate. Totalitarianism, ideologically speaking, was a post WWI phenomenon. Mussolini was the FIRST totalitarian dictator. After the world learned of the Nazi excesses, the excuse of ignorance is no longer valid and I don't think that later appeasers can justifiably claim ignorance. And of course the New Orleans situation was and REMAINS inexcuseable because it was EMIMNANTLY predictable. Poor levees led to the mess; so what did the city do? Spent MILLIONS rebuilding the Super Dome! But the appeasers were not totally culpable. I mean at the time, signing off on Czechloslovakia did not automatically equal Buchenwald and Treblinka. -
MrPie7 — 16 years ago(March 02, 2010 11:50 AM)
Churchill and Orwell, to mention two,actually read Mein Kampf, and they predicted what would happen.
Animal Farm (1947) and 1984 (1949) were writen AFTER WWII.
Most people who read "Mine Kampf" disregarded the idea of genecide as Hitlerian hyperbole. It had NEVER happened as a government policy before. The very fact that he didn't keep it SECRET worked against people taking it seriously. I agree that folks should have seen Hitler's agressive acts as a threat, but no one in the 30's, including Churchill, warned that Hitler was planning the deaths of millions of Jews. Not even the Jews, who saw the violence close up and personal never expected the Holocaust. -
MrPie7 — 16 years ago(March 05, 2010 08:14 AM)
I'm talking about WWII. The whole mess. It's amazing how people can't put aside hindsight. Was EVERY politcal tract to be taken seriously? Was every threat ever made by anyone fulfilled? Did no one ever bluff? Given our hindsight would Hitler have attacked the USSR? Would Japan have bombed Pearl Harbor? Would Saddam have barred UN inspection teams? It's easy to be wise AFTER THE FACT.The truth is, that Hitler could have been merely restoring Germany's territory and prestige. That's what most GERMANS believed. So don't act like standing up to Hitler was a complete no-brainer. In fact Hitler was fully prepared to go to war over Czechoslovakia. We won the war that started in Poland. Would the Allies have prevailed in this earlier war? Would you risk it?
BTW this "lesson learned" about appeasement, was used to support the idea of the "Domino Theory". Did the escalation of the Vietnam War prevent India from going Communist? It sure didn't help Cambodia. -
MrPie7 — 16 years ago(March 06, 2010 03:31 PM)
Some people got it right, for the right reasons. Meanwhile, lots of people got it wrong, in large part because of a biased judgement. Hitlers intent was not a "no-brainer", it was a good-brainer. Just like the domino theory, just like Iraqs WMD, just like the financial collapse. Some people have a track record of getting stuff right a lot more than others, and it's not chance.
I kinda agree with this statement, but I don't think that the fact that "some people got it right" is a blanket indictment against everyone who didn't. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. SOMEBODY had to figure appeasementb was bad. Check out Churchill's judgement about Galipolli and his idea to attack " the soft underbelly of Europe " instead of an invasion of the continent. Even he had to admit afterwards "it turned out to be a tought old gut." And MacArthur, who was so right about the Inchon invasion and so wrong about Chinese intervention in Korea. -
MrPie7 — 16 years ago(March 08, 2010 07:14 AM)
Yup. All I'm saying that is that every "appeaser" was not a fool, like Chamberlain (or Darlington). Some had what they felt were good reasons to give Hitler what he wanted. (At least for the time being). The Brits were in a woeful state of preparedness. I don't think 10 years of appeasement would have helped the French. It was their state of mind.
-
MrPie7 — 16 years ago(March 08, 2010 07:57 AM)
Danish? Anyway the French get it because they had the largest army in the world at the time, their political leadership was so irresolute,and their tactics were entirely faulty. The French had MORE tanks than the Wehrmacht and even BETTER tanks as well. They insisted on expending them in "penny packets" as infantry support vehicles. Look what the Finns did to Stalin. The French shoulda held out for more than 6 WEEKS! It was like they sent a Maiter'D to the border."Table for 1.5 million? Goosestep right this way please."
The Benelux nations and Denmark, had no chance of stopping Hitler. The French utterly failed. -
MrPie7 — 16 years ago(March 08, 2010 09:23 AM)
"But serious historians ultimately agree that the primary factor was tactics;"
True enuff. But wars are seldom won or lost entirely on the battlefield.
Witness Vietnam. The US won every major battle. Communists just wouldn't EVER give up.