The Left was Anti-War even during the lead up to WW2 (and the Right was not)

[MithrandirOlorin]

At the very least Leftists who believe it was right to go to War with Hitler should stop using the "Appeasement" as a derogatory term narrative. That originated with Conservative opponents of Appeasement not The Left but it got adopted by the Left later when we naively decided anything that's "Anti-Fascist" must also be Leftist. It comes from the inherently Right Wing impulse to equate not wanting War with Cowardice. That Churchill was a Conservative isn't exactly ignored by Liberals then they lionize his opposition to Appeasement, but they do try to make it sound like he was alone within the Conservative Party, the truth is no even every Conservative named Chamberlain supported Appeasement. These are the kinds of British Conservatives who if they'd been around during the American Revolution would called people wanting to concede anything to the Colonists Appeasers, and today they'd call it Appeasement to end the Embargo on Cuba. Opposition to the Munich Agreement should be framed in terms of how it wronged Czechoslovakia not how it "appeased" anyone. These British Conservatives were not motivated by the moral outrage at Hitler that makes us view that conflict in Black and White terms however much they may have played lip service to some of them, what they truly cared about was a fear that letting Germany get away with violating the Treaty of Versailles would make Britain look weak even though some disagreed with it's harsh terms back when it was being debated.

You are not saying anything that hasn't been talked about for the past 80 years. Only those one dimensional TV documentaries really make that appeasement as a horrible never repeat thing. The fact was that the British were not in a position to confront Hitler yet. They needed time to build up their forces. That wasnt the goal of Chamberlain of course. He really wanted to prevent a war with Hitler.

It was the environment of the time too. It was only twenty years since the first World War. You would still see the scars of the men who fought in that war with missing limbs, PTSD or at the very least. These men would be the fathers of men who fought in WW2. You had your grandmother telling you about how she lost three of your uncles in the war. That sort of thing.

In hindsight we look at appeasing Hitler as a bad thing because it just didn't work at all. But Europe was on notice about the Nazi military. They were not stupid.

There was hope that Hitler would stop with the appeasement once his 'goals' were accomplished. But no one was stupid seeing the Nazi military build up and compare it their own.

Well those one dimensional TV documentaries have influenced how History YTers talk about it, and a lot of young people taking them at their word.

[McAvoy]

At the very least Leftists who believe it was right to go to War with Hitler should stop using the "Appeasement" as a derogatory term narrative. That originated with Conservative opponents of Appeasement not The Left but it got adopted by the Left later when we naively decided anything that's "Anti-Fascist" must also be Leftist. It comes from the inherently Right Wing impulse to equate not wanting War with Cowardice. That Churchill was a Conservative isn't exactly ignored by Liberals then they lionize his opposition to Appeasement, but they do try to make it sound like he was alone within the Conservative Party, the truth is no even every Conservative named Chamberlain supported Appeasement. These are the kinds of British Conservatives who if they'd been around during the American Revolution would called people wanting to concede anything to the Colonists Appeasers, and today they'd call it Appeasement to end the Embargo on Cuba. Opposition to the Munich Agreement should be framed in terms of how it wronged Czechoslovakia not how it "appeased" anyone. These British Conservatives were not motivated by the moral outrage at Hitler that makes us view that conflict in Black and White terms however much they may have played lip service to some of them, what they truly cared about was a fear that letting Germany get away with violating the Treaty of Versailles would make Britain look weak even though some disagreed with it's harsh terms back when it was being debated.

You are not saying anything that hasn't been talked about for the past 80 years. Only those one dimensional TV documentaries really make that appeasement as a horrible never repeat thing. The fact was that the British were not in a position to confront Hitler yet. They needed time to build up their forces. That wasnt the goal of Chamberlain of course. He really wanted to prevent a war with Hitler.

It was the environment of the time too. It was only twenty years since the first World War. You would still see the scars of the men who fought in that war with missing limbs, PTSD or at the very least. These men would be the fathers of men who fought in WW2. You had your grandmother telling you about how she lost three of your uncles in the war. That sort of thing.

In hindsight we look at appeasing Hitler as a bad thing because it just didn't work at all. But Europe was on notice about the Nazi military. They were not stupid.

There was hope that Hitler would stop with the appeasement once his 'goals' were accomplished. But no one was stupid seeing the Nazi military build up and compare it their own.

Well those one dimensional TV documentaries have influenced how History YTers talk about it, and a lot of young people taking them at their word.

Nothing you can do about that. They just regurgitate what they hear and don't do research on it.