What did Chamberlain do wrong? He slept with all those women and told about it! I’ll bet he would have scored OVER a hundred points that game if he’d been celibate!

radjah shelduck on May 15, 2008 at 7:26 PM

He wore extremely tight slacks, tight in the crotch.

Chamberlain wore tight slacks, to show off his bulges.

He was wild and crazy!

benrand on May 15, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Watching two dumb people discuss history is always painful.

Nessuno on May 15, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser! He appeased people!

Canerican on May 15, 2008 at 7:32 PM

Isn’t what Matthews did a lot like most liberal trolls, they harp on some insignificant “fact” in order to mark time and evade answering questions about reality.

Barry does that too.

Chamberlain appeased Germany so that she would go to war elsewhere.

What’s so different about the liberal ideas regarding NorKo Iran, AQ etc. They just want them to go away so that the little liberal mind won’t have to think about them.

benrand on May 15, 2008 at 7:33 PM

Dear Kevin James,

When you’re in a penis measuring contest stop trying to use your own ruler.

That is all.

Sincerely,

The Feeling up Chris Matthew’s Leg

gabriel sutherland on May 15, 2008 at 7:34 PM

“When you’re in a whole stop digging.”

*Silence*

Nonfactor on May 15, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Wow, that was brutal. I don’t even like this James character, but I kind of felt bad for him. I thought Matthews would help him out once it was clear that he didn’t know what he was talking about, but he just kept whipping him. Even Mark Green was trying to end this brutality by speaking up–that didn’t work either.

sandman on May 15, 2008 at 7:38 PM

“When you’re going to make a direct historical statement get it straight!”

… said the cable news host who thinks an event just 8 years ago happened under the wrong President.

How is that even possible?

Doesn’t he have people with working brains whispering in his ear?

Professor Blather on May 15, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Man, why do people argue points of which they are without knowledge? Chris nails him. Kevin James should be embarrassed.

By the by, Churchill spoke highly and appropriately of Chamberlain upon Chamberlain’s death. Chamberlain doesn’t deserve the abuse his name gets now. Yes, he was horribly wrong, but he DID reflect the tone of the time to avoid war at all costs.

Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM

That guy deserved to be pwned. Don’t talk about something if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Same goes for Chrissy.

therightwinger on May 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Chamberlain wore tight slacks, to show off his bulges.
He was wild and crazy! benrand on May 15, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Actually that was President Bush with his codpiece in place.

Remember he landed on the Lincoln with the “Mission Accomplished” sign… in the tight flight suit!

J_Gocht on May 15, 2008 at 7:47 PM

Wow, I had to turn off at the 1:24 mark. Too painful. But do neither of them understand that Chamberlain stabbed Czechoslovakia in the back, and that pre-war Britain and France let Hitler rearm, and remilitarize the Rhineland, etc., etc. And Hitler was very specific prewar that he blamed the Jews (Kristalnacht). James and Matthews need to go back to high school and retake history. Though sadly, I doubt such history is taught in high school anymore.

rbj on May 15, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM

Very true about the at all cost issue, the last thing Europe needed was another world war.

I think the point for some people is in the end the war happens anyway.

TroubledMonkey on May 15, 2008 at 7:50 PM

How can someone not know what Chamberlain did?

I can understand forgetting the specifics (what part of Czechoslovakia, what year, et cetera); but not knowing the general framework of the appeasement policy?

Brainlock?

SteveMG on May 15, 2008 at 7:54 PM

rbj on May 15, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Well then fast-forward to the end and enjoy the Matthews’ irony.

While it was painful watching that idiot get pwned, it was delicious watching someone make a blanket statement about learning history literally seconds after saying something historically stupid.

And at least the idiot lawyer has an excuse - the Munich Agreement was signed in September 1938. The guy wasn’t exactly there. Or born.

Meanwhile, the Cole was bombed less than a decade ago … while Matthews was already a media head. He must have reported on it endlessly. He must have reported ad nauseum on the President’s response.

How could he possibly not have known?

Professor Blather on May 15, 2008 at 7:55 PM

not unusual.
typical bushtard, clueless, but remembering like parrot his talking points…

sashal on May 15, 2008 at 7:55 PM

It wasn’t just that act. The Sudetanland was the home of the Skoda munitions plant, a highly desirable reason for Hitler wanting to reunite with his “separated” Aryan brothers. Further, the Sudetenland portion Czechoslovakia was a highly fortified region and was able and willing to resist the Germans to a degree that would have seriously dampened Hitler’s ambitions.

Chamberlain didn’t simply cave in on trying to buy peace in his time, he used Britain’s international status to force the Czechs to back down, and in turn armed a dictator with the means to further his military goals.

darclon on May 15, 2008 at 7:49 PM

An excellent point - and a true example of how failing friends can be when they are consider your concessions!

I would note also that Hitler sent the Germans marching into the Rhineland with orders in their pockets to withdraw if they met any resistance. The French offered none. Munich was such a continuation of what had already begun.

Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 8:01 PM

seems you all are missing the point.
Appeasement is giving in to the demands and letting the enemy gain the territories and whatever(like in the case of Czechoslovakia).
Talking and negotiating is not an appeasement.

btw, it is easy to judge now, but England was not ready at that time to fight Germans, they bought themselves some time, yes by stabbing Czechs in the back, historical reality and necessity.
It is just like letting USSR take Eastern Europe, instead of getting into direct hot war with them at that time….

sashal on May 15, 2008 at 8:03 PM

How is Kevin James on TV and Allahpundit/Glenn Reynolds/Michelle Malkin/Charles Johnson/etc etc etc are pretty much never on?

indythinker on May 15, 2008 at 8:02 PM

The reason the bolded one is never on is because they refuse to let him wear the bag on his head during the interview.

MadisonConservative on May 15, 2008 at 8:05 PM

I wonder who told Matthews what Chamberlain did in 1939.

Two idiots battling it out about a historical event that is far more complicated than a talk show is absurd. You can’t talk about Chamberlain in 1939 without understanding the political consequences of WWI and the subsequent pacifist political movement that was determined another generation wouldn’t be obliterated by “old Europe.” You can’t talk about Chamberlain in 1939 without understanding why Hitler wanted this particular real estate. You can’t talk about Chamberlain in 1939 without understanding the European Empires which extended any such discussion well beyond the borders of one continent.

Clearly neither Matthews nor James have a clue about any of these factors! Morons both!!!

highhopes on May 15, 2008 at 8:05 PM

sashal on May 15, 2008 at 8:03 PM

They weren’t ready when Germany marched on Poland either. But they answered by declaring war. And then could do little but watch. It wasn’t a necessity.

Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 8:06 PM

Watching two dumb people discuss history is always painful.
Nessuno on May 15, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Three people.

It wasn’t just the Sudetenland and the Skoda, but Chamberlain pushed the Fwench to not build their forces, didn’t let Britain rearm properly, and allowed Germany to rearm in flagrant violation of Versailles. Read Churchill, it’s rather eye opening, and completely relevant to today.

bikermailman on May 15, 2008 at 8:10 PM

And the issue of Britain not being ready is beside the point. If they would have enforced the Versailles Treaty, if they would have armed at a reasonable rate, if they would have offered the slightest resistance at Hitler for several years before 38/39, the issue would have been moot.

bikermailman on May 15, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Chamberlain, as even his political detractors admitted, was an honourable man, raised in the old school of European politics. His attempts to deal with Nazi Germany through diplomatic channels and to quell any sign of dissent from within, particularly from Churchill, were called by Chamberlain “The general policy of appeasement” (30 June 1934).

The first crisis of Chamberlain’s tenure was over the annexation of Austria. The Nazi Government of Hitler had already been behind the assassination of one Chancellor of Austria, Engelbert Dollfuss, and was pressuring another to surrender. Informed of Germany’s objectives, Chamberlain’s government decided it was unable to stop events, and acquiesced to what later became known as the Anschluss.

The second crisis came over the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia, which was home to a large German minority. The Munich Agreement, engineered by the French and British governments, effectively allowed Adolf Hitler to annex the country’s defensive frontier, leaving its industrial and economic core within a day’s reach of the Wehrmacht. In reference to the Sudetenland and trenches being dug in a London central park, Chamberlain infamously declared in a radio broadcast on 27 September 1938:

“How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul.”

Chamberlain flew to Munich to negotiate the agreement, and received an ecstatic reception upon his return to Britain on 30 September 1938. At Heston Aerodrome, west of London, he made the now famous “Peace for our time” speech and waved the agreement to a delighted crowd. When Hitler invaded and seized the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Chamberlain felt betrayed by the breaking of the Munich Agreement and decided to take a much harder line against the Nazis, declaring war against Germany upon their invasion of Poland.

Wikipedia.

However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible.

For the present I ask you to await as calmly as you can the events of the next few days. As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented, and you know that I am going to work for peace to the last moment. Good night. . .

“Peace in our time”

N.C. was much like our libs here in the U.S. today. War is a failure in and of itself. But sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. It all depends on where you draw the line. If you want to wait for the destruction of Israel to war, then you fall in the N.C. catagory. If you are far-sighted enough to stop said destruction through (gasp!) preemtive war, you are in the Bush catagory. I know where I stand.

VolMagic on May 15, 2008 at 8:24 PM

It wasn’t just that act. The Sudetanland was the home of the Skoda munitions plant, a highly desirable reason for Hitler wanting to reunite with his “separated” Aryan brothers. Further, the Sudetenland portion Czechoslovakia was a highly fortified region and was able and willing to resist the Germans to a degree that would have seriously dampened Hitler’s ambitions.

Chamberlain didn’t simply cave in on trying to buy peace in his time, he used Britain’s international status to force the Czechs to back down, and in turn armed a dictator with the means to further his military goals.

darclon on May 15, 2008 at 7:49 PM

I’m not sure where you are getting the part in bold from but that is a stretch of all stretches. The people of that area were, and largely still are, ethnic Germans. That area was carved out of Germany post WWI but the bitter French and British forces (same goes for the Alsace-Lorrain where most people still speak German). There would have been little to no resistance at all from the people of that region if Germany had invaded. It would have been nearly the equivalent of the ‘invasion’ of Austria.

None of that totally forgives Chamberlain but they thought they were giving up an area that wasn’t going to be much of a fight to begin with anyway. It was widely held knowledge at that time that the people in both areas would have gladly repatriated to Germany if they had a vote on it. England and France thought they were doing the sensible thing but giving them (the people of the Sudetenland and Alsace-Lorraine) what they wanted anyways and avoiding a war with a leader they thought was reasonable.
Sadly, their actions only served to embolden Hitler, who as we now know was anything but reasonable, further and thus - WWII happens.

MannyT-vA on May 15, 2008 at 8:29 PM

O-Dub on May 15, 2008 at 8:18 PM

I’d also point out that the Lincoln’s deployment was over- i.e. mission accomplished- but that nuance has been completely lost in the subsequent partisanship.

highhopes on May 15, 2008 at 8:33 PM

Short term memory loss is a symptom of BO mania…

d1carter on May 15, 2008 at 8:34 PM

I watched in amazement today as these two assholes debated appeasement while fighting over the Neville Chamberlain incident. The facts are, Chamberlain was a stupic smuck and he got suckered by a man much smarter and more devious than him. It was obvious at the time that Germany was going on the warpath. Any idiot could see that, that’s why Chamberlain went to Munich to begin with. Then he proceded to try to negotiate with a man who was loading his gun under the table. Then, after looking this liar right in the face and buying his lies like he just fell off the truck, came back and proclaimed that we shall have, “Peace in our time” in one of the most famous WRONG speeches of all time. I was amazed that Kevin James didn’t know about this historic occurence and seems to be selling himself as someone with some political knowledge, (this was one of the most textbook incidences of blatent political idiocy of all time). Then I was also wondering what Chris Mathews was getting at. He seemed to be defending Neville Chamberlain! He kept asking James what Chamberlain actually did, we know what he did, he screwed up!

Bikerken on May 15, 2008 at 8:43 PM

It makes it so much worse that Bush made this slight of hand comparison while addressing a foreign nation.

Tom_Shipley on May 15, 2008 at 8:33 PM

And this is different from Nancy Pelosi meeting with Hamas how? All the Democrats who went to Iraq and Afghanistan and bashed the Bush administration for their foreign policy how?

Diplomacy ending at the waters end got killed off by Jim McDermott and Jay Rockefeller. That concept is no longer valid.

highhopes on May 15, 2008 at 8:46 PM

The Chamberlain comparison and the attempt to label Obama an appeaser is pure BS. It makes it so much worse that Bush made this slight of hand comparison while addressing a foreign nation.

Tom_Shipley on May 15, 2008 at 8:33 PM

.
You missed the whole “if there are 100 people in the room, and someone shouts ‘Hey moron!’ discussion, didn’t you?

Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 8:47 PM

There’s no indication that Obama would give up things (especially things as large as half a country) to appease Iran or any group.

Tom,

Obama’s chosen course of action is to directly engage the Iranian dictators. A lot goes with the position. It legitimizes the ruling thugs (much like Dems appearing on FOX legitimize that network har har). It means a whole new diplomatic playing field, taking months or years to hammer out, durning which time Iran will not stop their uranium enrichment. It means that if nothing is achieved by these meetings, the first instinct will be to meet again ( jaw jaw jaw not war war war). It means it will be harder to support the opposition in Iran when we are sitting with the thuggish leaders. It means…. you get my drift.

He may not give them half a country, but that is not what they are asking for. They are asking for time to create a nuclear arsenal that will give them a much stronger hand in the future, which approximates to half a country or more if you really think about it.

VolMagic on May 15, 2008 at 8:49 PM

He should have just blamed George Bush for Chamberlain’s acts of appeasement, and Matthews would have backed right off.

Alalazoo on May 15, 2008 at 8:55 PM

Peace in our time is not listening to Chris Matthews.

Maquis on May 15, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Yeah, RedLasso sucks.

Lets admit it folks. C.M. won that one and he was correct about what appeasment really is. It isnt talking to an enemy. And to send out somebody that doesnt know what he is talking about is not cool.

Roger Waters on May 15, 2008 at 9:00 PM

VolMagic on May 15, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Which, let me be perfectly clear, is no insult to Bush. I think he believes we must fight now for the very reasons you quoted. I certainly don’t believe he is a war-monger, but rather that 9/11 proved the great issues at hand.

Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 9:03 PM

Wow, none of those people knew what they were talking about. That was awful.

CP on May 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Well, I will sum up things this way.

IMO, some people are no better than mad dogs.

You can’t talk to a mad dog. You can shoot him, or run in the hope some stronger sould will shoot him before the dog bites and you get rabies shots, if the dog doesn’t kill you. You can’t run far or as fast as this kind of mad dog can.

Some people you can talk to. The key quality of such people is just enough humility to understand when the deal you offer makes better sense than the deal they had in mind.

Obama is not such a person, as aptly illustrated by the people he surrounds himself with and his exchange about marginal tax rates with Charles Gibson. He has a playbook and everything intrusive or contradictory is a “distraction”.

So we have a closed mind promising to talk with other closed minds. IMO, the above minds think talking is nifty as they are reading from the same or very similar playbooks. People like that can talk and agree and be convivial, just as Barry O was with the SF liberal elite…they all see the same “truths” and live in a self-reinforcing bubble, share similar or complimentary goals.

Barry O thinks the US should be an international eunuch (sp?) and the Iranian Head Case likes that idea very much. Well, shucks, do you think they will get along or what? Like Hitler with NC, talk will be welcome, come right in, set right down, let Michelle’s hair hang down…

The UN is a monument to the value of talk. If the UN is how you want to chart the future, good for you, but I ain’t going.

Harry Schell on May 15, 2008 at 9:20 PM

I’m not sure where you are getting the part in bold from but that is a stretch of all stretches.
MannyT-vA on May 15, 2008 at 8:29 PM

From a document known as the Munich Pact of September 29, 1938.

(2) The United Kingdom, France and Italy agree that the evacuation of the territory shall be completed by the 10th October, without any existing installations having been destroyed, and that the Czechoslovak Government will be held responsible for carrying out the evacuation without damage to the said installations.

If it was essentially a family reunion, why this provision guaranteeing the Skoda plant remain fully operational for Hitler? Why did they worry at all?

(3) The conditions governing the evacuation will be laid down in detail by an international commission composed of representatives of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Czechoslovakia.

Why mandate an international body if this was a strictly German matter (similar to the Anschluss, as you state)?

(6) The final determination of the frontiers will be carried out by the international commission. The commission will also be entitled to recommend to the four Powers, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, in certain exceptional cases, minor modifications in the strictly ethnographical determination of the zones which are to be transferred without plebiscite.

Is this not a direct betrayal of the Sudetenland’s inhabitants by Great Britain? Was Czech sovereignty not sold down the river for peace in Chamberlain’s time? Is this not direct involvement by Chamberlain’s government to assist Hitler’s aggressive and expansive military ambitions?

Please explain where my conclusion (as well as the historical consensus)is wrong.

Here’s a link to the document.

darclon on May 15, 2008 at 10:07 PM

VolMagic on May 15, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Me too, me too.

Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Dm I hate big mouth, no brain, whimps. Is that why I disagree with the left?

allrsn on May 15, 2008 at 10:27 PM

He kept asking James what Chamberlain actually did, we know what he did, he screwed up gave us a lesson on how not to deal with murderous thugs hell bent on world domination!

Bikerken on May 15, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Fixed.

Some of us pay attention to history while others make it up as they go and put all of our lives at risk.

fogw on May 15, 2008 at 10:46 PM

This is as good as the “appeasement” policy towards Communist/Reconquistas and Illegal Alien Gangbangers in Los Angeles!!!

DfDeportation on May 15, 2008 at 11:02 PM

I definitely disagree with Matthews on this issue, but he was right about one thing…that Kevin James guy had absolutely no idea what the heck he was talking about. I’ll be if they asked him to define “appeaser” he probably couldn’t have even done that.

asc85 on May 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM

MrLynn on May 15, 2008 at 11:26 PM

NO WAY bush was addressing the democratic party MURTHA included, not obama alone.

allrsn on May 16, 2008 at 12:25 AM

think a Banzai charge is how you purchase tiny trees,

O no that is a Gore thingy!

allrsn on May 16, 2008 at 1:26 AM

I suspect the guy doesn’t hate America. So MSNBC security must have tased him after he got on the set. But that still doesn’t explain why CM subjected his audience to so much bad TV.

snaggletoothie on May 16, 2008 at 2:06 AM

I totally disagree that Chris Mathews “pawned ” this guy. He said Chamberlain was an appeaser, and he was.

I fail to see how what Chamberlain did according to “Hardballed”, basically giving Hitler a piece of Czech after Hitler had already invaded Austria, wasn’t appeasement, which is what the non-lib called it if I heard correctly. Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler hung the Czech’s out to dry in piecemeal fashion. Churchilll was against it and so were the Czech’s. Chamberlain’s being spineless clearly got a lot more people killed in the long run. “Hardball” pawned himself if anything.

What’s funny is that at the very end the Hardballed “history expert” Mathews says “wasn’t the USS Cole under Bush?”
I guess everybody , includingh Allahpundit, just missed that one in their zeal to skewer the non-liberal. (hint: Oct 2000; Prez: Billary Clinton ) “Hardballed” pawned himself again.

And from the first clip of Obama on this segment, exactly how much negotiating with our enemies did Truman and FDR actually do before committing the U.S. to war in WW2 and Korea? Kennedy?

BobUSMC on May 16, 2008 at 2:43 AM

BobUSMC on May 16, 2008 at 2:43 AM

Did you watch the entire clip. Matthews doesn’t make an argument that Chamberlain did not appease Hitler. His basic point was that Obama’s pledge to talk to Iran is not the same as giving half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. That insinuating that Obama is an appeaser it utter BS.

And he was right.

Tom_Shipley on May 16, 2008 at 7:49 AM

Tom, Tom, Tom, stop it. You are beating the wrong drum in your attempts to defend the indefensible (I hope the mention of tom, tom, and drum is not considered to risqe in this setting).

Appeasement is talking to ratbags who have no intenton of changing the way they operate. Talking openly gives the rat bags gravitas in their county and on the international stage.

I recall that the Democrat visits to the Middle-East resulted in crackdowns on the political opposition.

davod on May 16, 2008 at 8:31 AM