[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by The Might

There you are wrong, since I would not be considering diplomacy with Sauron, but with those supporting him, the Men of Khand and Harad and further into the east.

But I do not believe that all was done that could have been done. Gondor's insecurity of how to handle the southern neighbours and their seeming unwilligness to initiate any true diplomatic talks is what brought the Easterlings and the Southrons closer to Sauron.

Diplomacy on a scale you are referring to is a fairly new development in the history of Man, and therefore is not germane to the era of the War of the Ring (as is passive resistance -- an entirely alien process, to be sure). For instance, diplomacy was not as advanced in medieval Europe, where treaties basically boiled down to Kings marrying off sons and daughters in the hope of not being attacked. More often than not, this sort of intermarriage only caused genetic deficiencies and did not reduce war in the least. In the case of Middle-earth in the 3rd or 4th Age, we see intermarriage as the main interaction between kingdoms; therefore, he that wielded the greatest power in an area (and in Khand and Harad, that would be Sauron), had the greatest influence. There was also the coercive power of the One Ring to consider.

Originally Posted by The Might

First of all, we know they could be reasoned with, we see that after the war when peace is made with the people of the south and the east.

After the fall of Sauron, the orcs fled, but the Easterlings and Haradrim fought on to the last man. These were not reasonable folk. And Aragorn fought many battles further in the East in the 4th Age. Whatever nice things you'd like to say about Aragorn, he was first and foremost an emperor, conquering and subjugating people and extending the power of Gondor over an area further than any king previously. He may have been an enlightened emperor, but he was a conquering emperor nonetheless.

Originally Posted by The Might

Now, the point is, it's a motto standing as a symbol for liberal ideology, for freedom. I see no contradiction between produly displaying it and in the same time looking for better (at least in my opinion) means to reach this freedom for all people. I see no problem in being proud of people that died to achieve something good in the past and trying to find new ways, again perhaps better ones to achieve something good in the present.

I understand completely TM. Perhaps you should be as equally proud of the Hobbits, who fought and died for freedom in the same manner as your ancestors.

Originally Posted by The Might

After all, should we not learn from history? Yes, you make a good point with Chamberlain, I agree upon that, but again looking further back in history, had England taken a more German-friendly position in the 20s and had made more pressure for an ease on reparation payments and had supported Germany's economy more, the whole Hitler episode would never had happened. Actually, England did that partially, and it almost worked. It was mostly just the Wall Stree Crash that nailed it for the Nazis. With the economy a bit stronger it all may have well worked out in the end.

Actually, had the European allies listened to Woodrow Wilson, there might not have been a WWII. But the Treaty of Versailles after WWI was so spiteful and vengeful against the Germans, it almost guaranteed a second war. But, of course, so many millions died in WWI because of senseless German bellicosity under the megalomaniacal rule of Wilhelm and his woodenheaded generals, that I find it difficult to blame the French or English in wishing to punish the Germans.

Originally Posted by The Might

So just saying "Oh, Neville was too nice and this caused all the war" is in my opinion wrong and way too one-sided. Looking back into history more in depth, one realises that had the British (and especially the French) been a bit nicer to Germany all could have probably been avoided.

Neville Chamberlain can best be summed up in a frank appraisal by Winston Churchill: "In the depths of that dusty soul there is nothing but abject surrender."

Chamberlain underestimated or ignored the evil intent of Hitler time and time again. Czechoslovakia had a superb army and a great munitions supplier, Skoda, and were more than capable of battling the Nazis, but Chamberlain handed the country to Hitler without a fight, which also left Poland exposed in the process. Chamberlain's method of appeasement is the worst possible example of diplomacy in the modern era.

Originally Posted by The Might

Moving further, did the Scouring make Hobbits better? And mark the question, it's not did it make it better for the Hobbits, but made them better. I believe not. It took away their inocence, best example is the killing of Wormtongue. The exhausted and tormented Wormtongue kills his evil master and gets three arrows in his body in return from Hobbit archers before Frodo could intervene and stop them from killing him. Great way to end a war.

If you really follow the history of the Hobbits, they were a race doomed to obliteration eventually. The Battle of Bywater marked their high water point in history, and once the dynasty of Telcontar waned, it is certain Hobbitish fortune waned with it. In any case, you are confusing the point at which they lost their naivety. It was Saruman who stole their innocence, not the Hobbits rebelling against despotism and slavery. One might as well have asked Jews in a concentration camp to attempt diplomacy with Nazi guards. A fat lot of good that would have done.