Marjorie Taylor Greene lashes out over Cameron’s Nazi appeaser comparison
www.independent.co.uk
‘I do not want us to show the weakness displayed against Hitler in the 1930s. He came back for more, costing us far more lives to stop his aggression,’ UK foreign secretary writes
  • PorradaVFR@lemmy.world
    85·
    9 months ago

    1. She has no fucking clue what appeasement means or how it objectively applies in this instance.

    2. She responds insultingly to what is an entirely reasonable and entirely diplomatic phrasing of a justified opinion.

    She’s an utter embarrassment. Every single voter in her district should be mortified. What a buffoon.

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    60·
    9 months ago

    “I think that I really don’t care what David Cameron has to say. I think that’s rude name-calling, and I don’t appreciate that type of language. And David Cameron needs to worry about his own country, and frankly, he can kiss my a**,” she added.

    This woman just oozes class and intelligence.

  • Gazumi@lemmy.world
    35·
    9 months ago

    MTG displaying her diplomatic skill and expertise alongside her limitless capability to grasp concepts…(sarcasm).

  • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
    211·
    9 months ago

    For the record, while Chamberlain was pursuing appeasement, he was also very rapidly building up his nations warfighting capability. This tends to get glossed-over in secondary school history studies.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      9 months ago

      Yes, despite the bad name Chamberlain gets, it’s not like there was much choice. Britain was woefully unprepared for a full-scale war in 1938, and they knew France, who they’d ally with, were too.

      Did appeasement work to stop the Nazis? No. But that was never what appeasement was about. It was about buying time so Britain’s armed forces would be able to prepare for the inevitable conflict that was coming their way.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, when you look at how the build-out of radar capabilities and fighter aircraft pitched in a couple years later you start to see things in a different light.

        I think he was playing both sides somewhat, he seemed to genuinely want peace-in-our-time and naively think it was possible, based on his public messaging anyway. But he also allowed a very expensive militarization just in case. A prudent politician, not putting all his eggs in any one basket.

        Then when the war began and it became clear he could not keep his country unified after bungling Norway, he very courageously took full responsibility for his soft direction and resigned, taking that whole shame onto his own shoulders, and personally paved the way for a more hard-nosed guy and brilliant public speaker to come in clean and run the actual war. And, most importantly, it all worked. The Battle of Britain was a victory. Britain withstood, protected by the navy and airforce that he funded, where so many others were defeated.

        He’s a very conflicted figure, but I think he does deserve credit where it’s due.

        • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
          4·
          9 months ago

          Piggybacking to remind everyone that exiled Poles played a big role in behind the scenes efforts that provided a decisive edge to the UKs war effort. Radar, mine detectors, code breaking and cryptography, early semi-conductor fabrication, HF radar detection for u-boats, etc