Putting Bush's Words In Context: Barack Obama, Neville Chamberlain, and the Art of Appeasement

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Don Young Votes for Tax IncreaseComments (56) »
Putting Bush's Words In Context: Barack Obama, Neville Chamberlain, and the Art of Appeasement 109 Comments (0 topical, 109 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

...to Neville Chamberlain's sell-out of Czechoslovakia in his meeting with "the German Chancellor" is the source of my signature quote:

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." -- Winston Churchill

If the analogy with Iran is Chamberlain (talk, appease) vs. Churchill (attack), am I to understand that the right answer on Iran is "attack"? Is that what McCain is proposing? If so, I don't think that that message is going to sell very well.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

at any rate, am I right, then, to understand that McCain is planning to campaign against Obama's unwillingness to attack Iran by making it clear that he is going to do so?

force with Iran what will he be talking to Iran directly with no preconditions about?...A hint he will be offering up something in the MEto appease them ie:Chamberlain...and yes he is an appeaser all leftist's are.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

If that's all we're talking about then it's diplomacy vs. empty rhetoric, not appeasement vs. war.

My question is whether we are to believe that Bush and McCain actually see Hitler as a parallel to Ahmadinejad. If they do, then the obvious implication is that we need to take him out now, not idly threaten to do so. If they don't, then they are just rattling their sabres and trying to look tough. I think that Ahmadinejad knows well enough how that game works.

prepared to use it....and I know John McCain will and I have a sneaking suspicion that Hillary would and I know for a fact a lightweight like Obama would not only not threaten if his pansy butt did he would not back it up...and yes Amadinejad is the parallel to Hitler...the only difference is Amadinejad doesn't care if he dies, as a matter of fact he would prefer to be strapped to the head of the nuclear missle he sends to Israel.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

then why haven't we attacked yet?

witching hour either so your point is?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

went too far. Most now agree that annexing Austria was that point. If he'd stayed within his borders (and not started ethnically cleansing his country), no one in their right mind would argue that attacking Hitler would've been a good idea. Chamberlain (a Conservative Party member, by the way) failed to recognize that Hitler crossed the line.

As long as Ahmadinejad stays within his borders and constrains himself to empty sabre-rattling, neither Bush, nor McCain, nor Obama are going to attack Iran. The only difference between the three is that the former two will refuse to meet with Ahmadinejad and repeatedly threaten a war that everyone, including Ahmadinejad, knows isn't coming, while Obama might send his secretary of state on a visit. If Ahmadinejad were to move outside his borders, however, any of the three would invade Iran.

In other words, to my mind, Ahmadinejad isn't Hitler, or, if he is, he's 1937 Hitler at best, a demented evil guy, but harmless for now. If we start attacking every 1937 Hitler that comes along, we'll end up with a whole lot of Iraqs. Most people now think that that was a bad idea.

What should Barack expect to achieve by negotiating, in person, with someone who is actively providing arms to people who are killing Americans, and who seeks to eliminate the state of Israel?

But, being a state sponsor of terrorism in my opinion is not within the realm of actually starting and fighting a military conflict with another country, and is not quite on Hitler's level. However, neither is it in anyway innocent and should not be regarded as a state that we could ever gain anything by meeting unconditionally in presidential diplomatic talks.

To cite the same example twice in one day: Geneva, 1985.

to an all out 1939 Hitler...really?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

If Hitler had stayed 1937 Hitler, as many crazy dictators do, then no one would say we should have invaded. Hitler became 1938 Hitler, though, and Chamberlain ignored it.

If Ahmadinejad stays 1937 Hitler (and even that's a stretch, he doesn't even really run the country), then there's no reason to invade. If he tries to annex Austria (or the equivalent), though, any of the current candidates would strike back.

after WWII the world said never again...President Bush is keeping that promise as appeasers never could.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Ever hear of Hezbollah? Or about Iranian fighters in Iraq?

Iran is not going to attack the US. People operating under orders from Iran might though.

Just like with the nuclear thing. Iran won't nuke Israel--but they can give the bomb to people who will.

You can spot a Hitler in 1937. He was making all sorts of threats, violating arms control agreements, etc. by that time.

Guess what, I don't need to be hit on the head walking a city s street to think that someone might be a criminal. When they pull out a gun, start waving it around, threatening others, etc. the probability of trouble is pretty darn high at that point.

People knew Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al. were trouble. They just didn't want to face it, because then they would have to make a decision about what to do about it.

The presence of nuclear weapons has severely complex effects on wars. There: I have summarized the major post-World War II geopolitical issue in one handy, and almost useless, sentence. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

As long as Ahmadinejad stays within his borders and constrains himself to empty sabre-rattling, neither Bush, nor McCain, nor Obama are going to attack Iran.

What do you call Iranian armament and advisors supporting al Sadr in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon?

I don't call that 'stay[ing] within his borders'.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Reportedly, Ahmedinijad's own oil industry advisers have told him that a military attack on Iran that disrupted their oil production would send world oil prices soaring above $300 per barrel. Which he knows would send Western economies, particularly the oil-dependent American economy, into a tailspin.

He therefore regards any military threats from America as a bluff.

Would Americans support a military attack on Iran that caused gasoline prices to soar to $10.00 per gallon?

speculation now, and has been for 2 years. After a brief rise should we end the Iranian threat, we would see oil prices return below $80-100 a barrel.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

of a USS Cole scenario and that he won't leave it unanswered in his own transition period. Even Jimmy Carter's memoirs claim overnight work up until the last minute to set some foreign policy goals in order.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

A massive preemptive strike by the Iranian Air Force? An increasing threat to Allied shipping by Iranian U-Boats?

in one of the less-secure Persian Gulf ports. It could be in San'a again.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

the next 18 months, probably before the end of 2008.
We will wait, but will be drawn in as it quickly escalates.

Probably start as a proxy attack via surrogates through Syria or Lebanon. Part of Israel's response will be to hit Iran's nuclear sites..
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

are two nations with no ability to project force going to start a war with each other?

Are the 2 nations going to have gun boat skirmishes?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You're clearly showing signs of having been contaminated by Obama's NatSec Ignorance Field. I mean, Jeebus. If somebody random walked in with a comment like that he'd be writing a 750 word essay on unconventional warfare right now, with a special emphasis on the use of proxy military forces to extend reach.

(pause)

For the love of God, man.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

In your absence you may have missed the news about the civil war in Lebanon. It seems that Hezbolla is now engaging in an armed attempt to overthrow the government in Lebanon.

I really hope that you do not make the assertion that Hezbolla was not funded, built, trained and equipped by Iran? In fact, Hezbolla takes their marching orders from Iran.

So much for not being able to "project force".

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("My name is 'Wubbies' - it is not plural. Welcome to my world.")

is that then Israel could nuke Iran and whoever else joins in.

Churchill advocated standing up to Hitler, with force if necessary. Nazi Germany was threatening to invade Czechoslovakia (like Iraq, a multi-ethnic nation created in the aftermath of World War I) with the recently enlarged German army. The pretext was preventing atrocities by ethnic Czechs and Slovaks against the ethnic German inhabitants of the Sudetenland, a mountainous region within Czechoslovakia on the border of Hitler's "Greater Germany", following Hitler's annexation of Austria.

Britain and France had a choice between guaranteeing the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia with the threat of British and French military action (and potentially war) or appeasing Hitler by ordering the militarily weaker Czechoslovakian government to withdraw from the Sudetenland and abandon its extensive network of concrete fortifications in the mountainous region (dishonor).

Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier had several military and diplomatic options short of immediately declaring war against Nazi Germany. They could have simply told Hitler that if Nazi Germany attacked Czechoslovakia, then Britain and France would move troops into the Rhineland (west of the Rhine river) that Germany had only recently re-occupied, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. The Rhineland would have been lightly defended, especially if the bulk of the 1938 German army was poised to invade the Sudetenland. In 1938, Britain and France were much stronger militarily than Germany but were unwilling to use their superior military force against Hitler because of war-weary populations and domestic political considerations, especially to defend Czechoslovakia which Chamberlain derided as "that faraway country of which we know little."

Here is the link to the Wikipedia article on the annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany:

Instead, Chamberlain and Daladier met with Hitler without preconditions, and without any Czechoslovakian government representatives present, and then proceeded to give away the defensible mountainous border region in return for Hitler's signature on a piece of paper that he would abandon any further territorial ambitions. Less than six months later, the Germans occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia without ever having to fight a campaign in the defensible (from the Czechoslovakian perspective) Sudetenland. With Czechoslovakia secured, the Nazis were then free to move against Poland, after signing a non-agression pact with Stalin's Soviet Union. Once western Poland was secured, Hitler was then free to invade France through neutral Belgium and bypass the extensive fortifications of the Maginot line. Hitler, from an initial position of weakness in 1938, grew progressively stronger by occupying Germany's weaker neighbors until he was ready to take on his stronger rivals directly. The lesson from history is that rogue regimes looking to expand their influence use diplomacy purely to buy time, thus delaying the moment of open conflict until a moment of their choosing.

Back to the analogy with Iran, the United States, and a weaker multi-ethnic ally of the United States, Iraq. The analogy is not exact and is complicated by Iran's use of terrorist proxies, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the proximity of the oil fields of Iraq, the Gulf States, and Saudi Arabia to Iran. Nevertheless, Iran is striving to expand its influence inside Iraq by supplying weapons, training, and expertise to Shia militias in Iraq hostile to the Iraqi government and the United States. Iran's goal is to bleed the United States through constant terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere until domestic pressure eventually causes the United States to withdraw from Iraq, thus allowing Iran to intervene on the behalf Iraq's Shia population. Iran is pursuing the same strategy that Nazi Germany pursued: destabilize and absorb weaker rivals, before advancing against its stronger regional opponents later.

Whether you agree with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 or not, the fact remains that the United States is currently the major power guaranteeing Iraqi sovereignty against Iran's regional ambitions. In this struggle, the United States under Bush has chosen to confront Iran militarily, short of attacking Iran's territory directly, through the ongoing counterinsurgency campaign against Iran's proxies inside Iraq.

The analogy between Chamberlain and Obama is the concern that Obama would agree to talks with Iran, only to abandon the Iraqi government to the territorial ambitions of Iran (and potentially Syria, Turkey and maybe even Saudi Arabia). Bush, and McCain, are willing to use force now to avoid the dishonor of abandoning Iraq to the ambitions of its neighbors in the wake of a quick American withdrawal. From his statements, Obama is willing to choose dishonor now, only to face a much costlier war later.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." -- Winston Churchill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland#Sudeten_Crisis_and_German_annex...

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." -- Winston Churchill

In 1938, Britain and France were much stronger militarily than Germany but were unwilling to use their superior military force against Hitler because of war-weary populations and domestic political considerations, especially to defend Czechoslovakia which Chamberlain derided as "that faraway country of which we know little."

The English military was extremely weak at the time and spread out across a fairly large empire.

The French had a large contingent of armor but a horrible command and control structure.

Within less than 2 years the German's completely routed the French and, had it not been for some heroic work by various English civilians, the English Army would have been annihilated.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

1) Britain was broke from WWI and didn't not have an effective military option. By the time Munich came, the British could not do anything militarily.

2) The Conservative Party (which Chamberlain was the leader) felt they could "work" with Hitler because they wanted to use Germany as a shield against Stalin and Russia. They saw Communism as a bigger threat than Nazi's. And they had a point - communist terrorists were organizing all over Europe.

3) This example has almost nothing to do with today's situation.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

""Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments...". I must disagree with the equality of opportunity and limitations on the power of governments. First, my observations are that Liberalism emphasizes equality of RESULTS, not opportunity. The way liberals achieve "equality of RESULTS" is by the creation of a seemingly-unlimited Robin Hood style government. If these actions weren't being performed by goverment, it would be called theft.

But I am a big fan of American Liberals like Jefferson, Adams, Thomas Paine, Madison etc.

I believe their liberal ideals were a gift to the world that keeps giving today.

You may not like them - that is your right.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Unless we mean 'liberal' in the more classical, rarely used sense. Which I don't think this guy is shooting for.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

Jefferson v. Adams was your straight up, classic Liberal v. Conservative.

Adams respected order, authority, and tradition. Jefferson wanted perpetual revolution.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

with France's bloody one. Jefferson attended Church services every Sunday in the US Capitol and favored the fed govt giving bibles to the states for the education of children, and so on ad infinitum

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I probably should have laid out of that conversation. I have studied extensively Hamilton, Madison, and Jay (the Federalist Paper fellas), and to some extent Jefferson, not so much Adams.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

Sam Adams was surely a liberal, heh. Just say you meant him :-)

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

1938. The mountains of Czechoslovakia were very much defensible. The obvious betrayal of Czechoslovakia made it more like that Stalin would enter discussions with Hitler and execute the Non-Aggression pact with Germany.

Those two years were critical to building up the German war machine and to providing Germany with easy victories before 1939.

Many historians agree that a firm hand in 38 would have either prevented WWII or made the Germans a whole lot easier to handle.

Dubya has prevented several wwiii's as has Israel with pre-emption and enforcment of ceasefires...

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I may agree. However I am not sure how much impact the non-aggression pact had anyone. Clearly neither side believed that it was worth a nickel. It was a delaying action by both sides. The only thing it may have done is give Stalin a false sense of security for a brief time but even that I doubt. Stalin's reasoning about Germany not invading Russia was based on his belief that Hitler wouldn't engage in a 2 front war.

I haven't read ANY historians who think that a firmer hand in 1938 would have prevented WWII. I find it extremely hard to believe that any historian would make such a claim. That would be revisionism of the most extreme nature. The Nazi regime was predicated on a belief of extreme nationalism and expansionism. A firmer hand would have simply delayed the war and change the strategy of Hitler.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Context is everything.

on the principle of exhausting all diplomatic means to the point of pacifism, he'd persuade more people but I think he's exposing some insecurity in that department.

Isn't it called for, on the occasion of an anniversary of Israel's founding, to review the past and present state of affairs? It's the least a US president could do to warn Israel when it may have only God to trust in the current political dynamic.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

About the oft ridiculed Neville Chamberlain was that he KNEW that was with Germany was going to happen. He didn't believe that appeasement was going to avert war. But England wasn't prepared for war. There was significant political opposition to rearmanent and domestically Chamberlain was losing the battle to rearm. He did increase rearmament significantly compared to his predecessor Baldwin.

Appeasement, at the time, was the best option available. War wasn't option. Heck it wasn't an option in a year later when they actually did declare war.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

to make Americans begin to realize the threat of fascist expansionism, and the nation still wasn't really interested before Pearl Harbor. IIRC, there was some secrecy to the US aid to the UK in 1940.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Americans weren't interested in a war with Germany even after Pearl Harbor.

While Americans were very sympathetic to the English and generally supported lend lease and the expansion of the convoy zone, they were still strongly against American boys fighting on European soil.

While war with Germany was inevitable Germany probably could have avoided it for another 6-12 months. But Hitler felt that he was better off being allowed to openly sink American ships, partly because Raeder was pushing him hard.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I recall from history that Germany declared war on the US as a response to the US declaration of war on Japan. Supposedly there's a Hitler quote expressing regret that Germany would find itself at war with America but I've never seen it attributed by a responsible source, honestly.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Felt that war with America was inevitable. But he thought it would be the final showdown AFTER Germany had taken Russia and the rest of Europe. He was fully aware of America's potential for overwhelming strength and he did everything he could to avoid antagonizing the US. The U-boat command was given strict orders not to engage with American merchants or naval craft.

But FDR had a different approach. He did whatever he felt he could to get the US involved. When a U-boat fired a torpedo at the USS Greer, FDR used that as proof that the Nazis were our enemies.

I think a more interesting comparison would be Bush to FDR. FDR managed to get a nation fully opposed to involved in a war in Europe turned around and supportive of the war and, had Germany not declared war on us, most likely the American people would have supported war with Germany by the middle of 1942.

The current President, otoh, did a terrible job of managing public will towards Iraq. What started out as a very popular military operation turned into a wildly unpopular action under his watch. A more adept politician would not have allowed that to happen.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I know you've been an Obama supporter from the word GO, but have you really been typing Hitlery that much that it's automatic?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Socialism - and communism - doesn't work because it doesn't adequately answer the central question of all mankind: "What's in it for me!?!" When the answer "nothing" is realized, the socialist and/or communist citizen stops doing the extra work that helps to make a society great. Instead, people start to do the least necessary and hope that someone else does that extra work.

doesn't work. There are many other reasons. One of the big ones is the command economy approach assumes that someone (or a government bureaucracy) is smart enough to make all the production decisions required to support millions of people's needs and adapt to changes in those needs quickly enough to satisfy them. Such an approach may be able to work on a small scale for a VERY short period, but it quickly breaks down.

Capitalism works because it appeals to efficiency in production and allows producers to quickly make small changes as the demands change.

One of the reasons for our current energy problems is the excess regulation and litigation that prevents production ramp ups when demand increases. IE, a market distortion.

But this is probably enough of a thread jack for now... back to the topic.

Barry is a weak kneed liberal who will capitulate to the demands of terrorists. (Hows that for getting back on topic?)

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

No. by Vuk

"When the answer "nothing" is realized, the socialist and/or communist citizen stops doing the extra work that helps to make a society great."

Dan, as someone who has lived in Communist AND Socialist countries, I can tell you that your statement is not even close to true.

You would be surprised at how similar motivations are in people no matter their political environment. I'm surprised at how much disinformation regarding life under socialism is strewn about discourse in America.

Rather than threadjack here.

You said you've lived in both communist and socialist countries. And you said that motivations are similar. How are they similar/different and to what extent are those motivations encouraged or hampered in each environment?

What countries did you live in an to what extent did the countries control the economies? Why did you leave?

And finally the big one. In what ways are Americans misinformed about life in these regimes?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

No that was a slip. I don't support Hillary but I don't hate her.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You'd be banned right now if you didn't have a posting history here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Honestly Moe I think you know that I wouldn't use such a term regardless of who we were talking about.

I do respect that you don't tolerate that sort of thing, though.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

that it's not a term we use here. I have seen Obama supporters use it, though from what I've seen of your posts, I doubt it's a term you actually throw around.

By the way, welcome back.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Until the election is over I will only be making brief stop ins. Better for all of us.

Once the election is over, however, I'll be back to tell you guys how wrong you are. :)

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

If Obama wins you'll come back here begging for forgiveness after getting a big taste of his socialism. 8*)

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

learned who he is. I thought that surely you would be for Hillary or McCain now.

Are you well? Or have you sold out all your principles for a cult of personality (an increasingly smug, shut up and pass the waffles please sweetie, personality at that.)?

which?

Or are you exhibit A for Rush's argument that McCain can't go far enough left to get 5 leftists to love him?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I think all of us will find ourselves dreading our preferred candidate's every speech before the election because all three are prone to say something really unhelpful.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Roosevelt ran on a peace platform in 1940. There wasn't any change in the public mindset in the 11 months until Dec 7, 1941, except that a few ultra-lefties felt constrained by Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941 to urge action against Hitler.

Today's bourgeois left, faced with a weighty moral choice involving national survival, chose in their arrogance and their decadence to let their hatred of Bush to trump support for the GWOT. And some of them even deny that it exists. Deal with it.

Sometimes even the Soviet Union came in handy!

We should never have declared war on Germany - They were no threat to us, all they wanted to do was take over Europe. They didn't attack us, unless you count possible sea attacks related to our sending supplies to England, so those were our fault.

Isn't that the argument today's lefties would have made in that situation?

Now Japan did attack us, but after all it was only Hawaii, which was just a territory and not even a real state yet. So I'm sure today's lefties would have said either it didn't count for that reason or else it was our fault, so we should just engage in a dialog and not declare war. And of course we could never ever have used the A-bomb under any conditions.

You're on to something here. I can just hear today's liberals claiming that because we had our navy in Hawaii we were "threatening" to Japan and deserved to be attacked.

FDR ran on a platform of "Our boys will not fight on European soil". And Americans were staunchly against our soldiers going to Europe.

However public sentiment was STRONGLY supportive of England. Lend lease, a highly provocative action that the isolationists staunchly opposed, was quite popular among the general population.

And FDR did everything he could to provoke the Germans into fighting with us. And his cabinet was even more hawkish than he was.

The Atlantic Charter, Lend Lease, expansion of escort coverage, the destroyer loan.

The Greer incident in Sept 1941 was the first shooting incident, although no one was hurt. This was akin to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which a minor skirmish was inflated into a flagrant attack on American sovereignty.

And to suggest that the only people in America that were calling for war with Germany were Communists is surreal.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Watch it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

While Daladier, the French Prime Minister, understood that Hitler had no intention of abandoning his further territorial ambitions, Chamberlain believed that Hitler only wanted to unite the German-speaking people in the Sudetenland with the newly-united Germany and Austria. As for military options, short of invading Germany itself, Britain and France could have occupied the Rhineland, west of the Rhine, at little or no cost and dared Hitler to invade the mountainous Sudetenland, leaving western Germany undefended.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." -- Winston Churchill

because talk of the Fatherland was the pretext Hitler used at the time.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

To support the notion that Chamberlain felt that giving Germany the Sudetenland would end the crisis in the crisis in Europe. That assumption is based primarily on a single quote from Chamberlain. "Peace in our time". But he continued to rearm England eventhough there was considerable fear that doing so would bankrupt England.

The occupation of the Rhineland may or may not have have had an impact in 1935 but by September 1938 that option was no longer available(note:Chamberlain was not PM when the Germans occupied the Rhineland).

Regardless the choice to militarize the Rhineland was almost completely France's and they had absolutely no stomach for another war with Germany. They lost 10% of their country's population in WWI.

Chamberlain wasn't a dove and remained in Churchill's war cabinet for several years.

This the entire problem with using the Munich Pact to justify belligerency today. It wasn't a pie in the sky dream of making Germany happy and peaceful. It was an attempt to to hold of German aggression until a time when the Western powers could properly deter him from further aggression.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Yet you contradict your first sentence with your third.

Perhaps you should have said "little evidence."

That would be more accurate.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

In exchange for this "remarmament," Chamberlain threw Czechoslovakia under the bus. Along with thirty well-equipped, well-trained Czech army divisions, and a defensive line of fortifications in the Czech mountains.

Tell me, how long did it take Chamberlain to build 30 brand-new British divisions?

That was on top of the previous treaty that Britain had signed with Hitler, that supposedly "limited" the German navy to only half the size of the British navy. (In truth, the German navy was so small at the time, that this "agreement" was actually carte blanche for Germany to build its navy as fast as it could.)

By 1939, at the outbreak of war with Poland, Nazi Germany was in a much stronger position against Britain than it had been before, thanks to the neutralization of the Czech armed forces, and a feverish Nazi military buildup.

Finally, had Chamberlain gone to war, he could have used that as an excuse to build up his armed forces anyway. Rumsfeld was right about that: You do go to war with the army you have. (Where Rumsfeld was wrong, is that you end up winning the war with the army you build later. Something he never did.)

if they could have fought in the mountains instead of the plains. There would be no blitzkrieg. Instead of a string of relatively quick victories (ending with the fall of Paris), Germany would have been bogged down in the mountains, and they would not have benefited from an extra year of buildup.

A more active west may have been enough to keep the Soviets out of the picture, as the Polish army pushed back the Soviet army back to Moscow in 1920.

In other words, so many bad things would likely either not have happened, or not happened so quickly.

1938 was a disaster of foresight.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

theories of WWII are, the point here is that Obama is trying to walk back from his disastrous statement in the Dem You tube debate that he would meet, without pre-conditions, with our enemies.

This is the single biggest mistake Obama has made so far ( though he has made many) and it is one that will keep him from being President.

Hence his idiotic attempt to deny that he said what he said (via the NY Slimes) and now, his response to Bush's speech in Israel.

By taking offense at Bush's remarks, Obama admits that he has advocated appeasement(who are you calling an appeaser?). The smart move here would be to agree with Bush -- yes, appeasement is a big mistake.

Instead, Obama fell into a rather obvious trap by taking offense at Bush's remarks. By doing so he admits he is an appeaser, and thus vitiates his own rgument that he is not an appeaser.

Dumb. But then I've never found Obama to be all that smart.

who has successfully drawn many young people to participate in the political process, Obama really ought to know by now that there's a camera phone in every room that can transform from miscellaneous archive to viral media sensation in mere moments. Times have changed; you can't say you didn't say something you said when everyone has the video.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Unfortunately, I can easily see President Barack Hussein Obama believing Iran's rhetoric of protecting Shias in Basra, Sadr City, Najaf and other parts of Iraq from Sunni agression in the wake his withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as well as cutting off any further US support for Iraq's Shia-dominated government.

Once the Irananian regime has secured Southern Iraq, it would move to its next logical objective: the eastern parts of Saudi Arabia which have a sizeable Shia population. Oh, by the way, this is where most of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves are located too. In order "to protect Saudi Arabia's Shia population from unjust Wahhabi opression," a Saudi branch of Hezbollah, sponsored by Iran, would be the downstream consequences of an Obama foreign policy that began with an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." -- Winston Churchill

Substitute the Shi'ites in those areas, many of whom live on a subsistence level, in place of the demographically profiled West Virginia primary voters, and you can start to see the genesis of a regional political disaster that Obama's team should have seen coming a long time ago when formulating a Persian Gulf policy.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Dontsaythenamedontsaythenamedontsaythenamedontsaythename
dontsaythenamedontsaythenamedontsaythenamedontsaythename
dontsaythename!!!!!

Don't look at him - he's black, and you're racist!
Don't say his name - it's the politics of fear to actually call someone by their birth name - and you're racist!
Don't question his policy positions - you're racist!
Don't mention his lack of judgment - you're racist!
Don't look at his "friends" or acknowledge that they say something about the Man - you're racist!

Did I miss anything?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Just a typical, small town, white girl...

bearing on his candidacy since you asked...I give you his own words..

"Asked by writer Jeffrey Goldberg if he was "flummoxed" by the Hamas support, Obama responds no and says: "It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,' and that's something they're hopeful about."

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/05/16/2008-05-16_middle_name_hu...

So in the future do not attempt to divert the conversation away from the point by asking "does his middle name have any bearing on the" If it's good enough for Barack well it's good enough for us rubes out here.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

After all, too many Arab-speaking translators are tied up in Iraq, and he wouldn't be able to pry one away to take with him!

He still won't know what the guy's saying. 8*)

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I was worried that comment would be misinterpreted.

Thanks, BrianH :-)

who would not only translate Farsi competently but would also translate honestly because she's an apostate.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I watched that video and had to blink a few times. It deliberately strips out the most important context, apparently in a belief that people will either not know the history, or make strange assumptions around it. Because regardless of what one thinks about Obama's position, it's not at all parallel to the Chamberlain "moment" portrayed.

Neville Chamberlain is not faulted for the mere act of agreeing to /meet/ with Hitler, he is faulted for /what he agreed to/ at that meeting: namely, aquiescing to Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia.

Now, I've had my assumptions challenged on this one by some very smart people, who have some very solid arguments for why what Chamberlain did was not wrong, and might have actually improved Britain's situation later on. I'm not sure I'm convinced, and I won't lay them out here. Let's take as granted, for now, the assertion that Chamberlain's "appeasement" was craven and disastrous.

Regardless of that, I'm absolutely sure I believe that refusing to meet with Hitler at all would have been a mistake. Whatever Britain did, be it go to immediate war or something short of that, if it had happened after a refusal to meet with Hitler then it would have happened in a context where many more of the world's people would have had more doubt about which side in this war was right and just. Whatever you think about what Chamberlain agreed to, if you're stating that he shouldn't have met Hitler at all, you're making a very different claim than the one history normally pins on Chamberlain.

Obama has stated for the record that he is willing to /meet/ with the leaders of our enemies. He has not said that he will let them annex their neighbors, with him signing off on the legitimacy of it. Willingness to meet is right and proper, and I believe McCain would also be willing to meet with these leaders (or at least, I hope so).

For context, I am Israeli, and I am very glad that Begin was willing to meet Sadat, and that Rabin was willing to meet Arafat and Assad and King Hussein. The issue of "preconditions" is, IMO, secondary - people can take different stands on this reasonably, but I view it as a negotiating position and a matter of style, and the bottom line is that I'd like leaders who succeed in meeting with leaders of our enemies (and I'd like them to be smart and tough and well-informed when at those meetings). Whatever you think about preconditions, that's not "appeasement" and it's not what Neville Chamberlain is seen as having done wrong.

withdraw from Iran's neighboring territory. Thus he is opening the door for Iran to annex it's neighbor. He has given all indications that he would do nothing militarily to stop them.

Now how is the context different again?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

What Obama doesn't get, is that you NEVER negotiate from a position of relative weakness. Such "negotiation" ends up being a thinly disguised surrender.

What cards would America hold in any "negotiation" with Iran?

Iran can make trouble in Iraq at will, bleeding the U.S. army.

Iran can disrupt shipping in the Persian Gulf at will, sending world oil prices soaring.

Iran can send their protege, Hezbollah, marauding all over the Middle East at will.

Obama has virtually taken the military option off the table.

And America is far too dependent on foreign oil to launch an attack that would destroy Iran's oil production and distribution facilities.

So what cards have we left?

Reagan negotiated with the USSR, but only after: a) Restoring the U.S. economy; b) Modernizing the U.S. armed forces; c) Proposing the Strategic Defense Initiative; d) Deploying Pershing Missiles in Europe; e) Stepping up aid to the Afghan rebels. (All of which, except the last one, bitterly opposed by liberal Democrats.)

The equivalent action today, would be to institute a crash program for energy independence and drastic energy conservation, and THEN with that bargaining chip in hand, THEN propose negotiation with Iran. But that's not Obama's argument.

Sometimes, like this one, you are so right on the mark there's really not much to add or dispute. Others... well it just seems like 2 separate people.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

for 30 years by refusing to expand oil exploration, refineries and nuke plants and sending a message of weakness and retreat that they would never fight a war more than 72 hours.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

since the Chamberlain-Churchill issue is once again relevant.

First, read it for Churchill's use of the English language and his understanding of history preceding the war. Most of the names will be unknown, since the lesser actors have faded from the stage.

But two issues, one very relevant, comes through Churchill's writings. Taking a united stand against evil will usually stop the spread of evil. It doesn't require war, but it requires the willingness to engage in war if there is no other option. (Ahem, Crabcakes). You see this opinion stated over and over in the book prior to the invasion of Poland.

If the West told Iran that they would tolerate no nuclear threat, or told Syria and Iran that they would tolerate no support for Hezbollah or Hamas (and maybe Fatah), if the west told the sponsors of terrorism that they are willing to bomb them back to the Dark Ages that they want to live in, the threat would decrease.

H-E-double-hockey-sticks, if America could tell these states where to get off without the Axis of Pelosi-Reid-Durbin-Obama telling our enemies that they will do everything possible to prevent America (i.e., Bush or the Republicans) from looking at defense in the long term, we could make a big difference.

We may have to invade to accomplish that, but probably not. What is certain is that withdrawal from the region is appeasement. Iran, like Germany did, will absorb Iraq and Syria. They will challenge Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the other less radical Middle Eastern nations, and will likely invade the weakers ones. Without American intervention, Iran will develop nuclear weapons. And the threat will increase geometrically.

The second point is that Chamberlain realized his mistake shortly after the Czecho debacle, and began to put England on a war footing, preparing for the inevitable war. After Poland, Chamberlain invited Churchill to take control of the Navy.

I am not so confident that the Democrats would be so wise.

5 nt by Jaded

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

However, there should be no doubt that the Democrats would show no wisdom!! It's against their nature to admit that someone else was correct!

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service