Appeasement: Right or Wrong?

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


The fault for the war in Europe lies with Hitler and Germany, not anyone else. Hitler's aims could only be aquired by war, so war there was. Is that so hard to understand?

Gepap, "Hitler's aims." These were also the aims of Germany - to undo the treaty of Versailles.

I strongly disagree, Gepap, that the readjustment of Versailles could ONLY have been accomplished by WAR.

You simply choose to ignore Roosevelt's offer concerning a European conference. Chamberlain ignored it too and chose instead the path to war. War was England's choice, not Germany's.

[Felch]

Sandman, it's nothing personal. We Americans just need a boogey man to blame for everything, since looking in a mirror isn't fun. Since we're all taught in grade school about the evil redcoats, and since we took over your role as the arbiter of the Earth, we like to blame you.

Also, Hollywood teaches us that British accents are evil.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Felch X
Sandman, it's nothing personal. We Americans just need a boogey man to blame for everything, since looking in a mirror isn't fun. Since we're all taught in grade school about the evil redcoats, and since we took over your role as the arbiter of the Earth, we like to blame you.

Also, Hollywood teaches us that British accents are evil.

We are trending towards what England was. I don't think, though, that we are there yet. Got forbid that we get THAT arrogant.

[Arrian]

Sandman, DinoDoc said it all. Britain's I am god and I rule the world attitude caused WWII, the current conflict in the ME, the war between Kuwait and Iraq, the instability between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, and the crazy border between Pakistan and Afghanistan dividing the Pashtoon people that has destabalized both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Hmm... 5/10, because here are kernels of truth and/or halftruth in this, which helps make it a decent troll. The Brits can be held partly (emphasis on partly) responsible for many problems in their former territories.

To blame WWII on Britain, claiming that it was because of their "attitude" however, is ridiculous. Even though Britain and France can be blamed for appeasing Hitler, it was still Hitler who started invading other countries. Accordingly, the lion's share of the blame lies with him.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

I think that, particularly with regard to the neo-conservative elite (Cheney et al.), "we" already are that arrogant, Ned.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Is that so hard to understand?

When it flies in the face of history, yes.

PS You are not thinking far enough back if you use Hitler's accension to power as the starting point.

[Ned]

Arrian, What was Chamberlain doing negotiating with Hitler concernng Czechoslovakian territory without the Czechs even being there?

"I am God and I rule the world." is a very good explanation of Chamberlain's attitude concerning borders in Europe.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
When it flies in the face of history, yes.

PS You are not thinking far enough back if you use Hitler's accension to power as the starting point.

Sorry, but I don't buy the whole 'Versailles' crap: Versailles was harsh, and it could have been harsher. Yes, germans wanted to 'right the wrongs of versailles', but the vast majority did not want war, not in 1936, or38, or 39, which is why Hitler was hailed as a hero for getting what he got without war and thus became so popular. If all hitler wanted was to reverse Versailles (and thus, 'Britian and frances' fault) then he simply could have forced the defeated Polish government to return germany to 1918 borders, and then germany would have gotten everything back from versailles (plus, most of Bohemia and Morovia had never been poart of Germany, so even before war started Hitler had already exceeded the versailles treaty as his aims).

Hitler wanted a general war (obvious from reading Mein kampf) and he got one. again, a no brainer.

[Arrian]

Ned,

I will grant you that giving away part of someone's country without allowing them to participate in the discussion was supremely arrogant.

All I'm saying is that Hitler was still the aggressor, and therefore the blame should fall primarily on him.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Gepap, IIRC the whole of Czechoslovakia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Getting it back was very consistent with undoing Versailles.

What stunned Chamberlain was until that time, Hilter had confined his demands to restoring to Germany lands occuppied by Germans. Once Czechoslovakia fell, it was clear that what Hitler said in Mein Kampf and what he said during his election campaigns was actually true - he wanted to undo the whole of Versailles and wanted to unite all German people into one Reich.

Chamberlain then set making pacts with all the remaining countries that held former German/Austrian emprire land. This activity lead directly to WWII.

Again, Chamberlain ignored Roosevelt and did not approach the USSR. Hitler instead got to the USSR first and formed a non aggression pact with them in Aug. The war started in Sept.

[Arrian]

Ned,

I recall from my WWII class in college that the Brits did go to the USSR prior to the deal between Hitler & Stalin. Stalin asked "how many combat divisions could you muster tomorrow?" The Brits worked out their answer: 2. Stalin laughed, told them he had 200, and made a deal with Hitler.

It's difficult to negotiation from a position of weakness.

-Arrian

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So you're saying that we should just allow Saddam to get nukes, even though it is a horrible idea, because we were stupid enough to let Pakistan get nukes?

No, we can certainly explore other options to prevent Hussein from acquiring nukes, just not invading his country. And there is also that little nagging question of what right we have to prohibit other countries from obtaining nukes, since we seem to be the world's single largest nuke holder. Like I said before, hypocritical.

I suppose you think that we should never try to stop instances of genocide either, since we let Rwanda happen. That does a lot of good for the world...

The difference is that when we intervene in genocide, it is WHEN THE GENOCIDE IS HAPPENING, not as a "pre-emptive" measure. If we went around invading a country we thought might someday perform genocidal actions, I think we'd be in the wrong. I suppose you think we should be marching into Zimbabwe as we speak because maybe Mugabe will just go ahead and leap to genocide against whites?

Having Pakistan and India ready to nuke each other off the map is bad enough; we shouldn't allow a similar situation to develop in the Middle East.

Since when did we have the right to dictate the policies of the rest of the world?

You think that the US is going to start a war with a nuclear Iraq over something as small as blackmailing his neighbors? If Iraq gets nukes, America will back down. Protecting Kuwait and others isn't worth the threat of a nuclear exchange.

I think you're dreaming. Saddam knows the U.S. has enough nukes to turn his entire country into kibble, and he knows he has no capacity to deliver to the U.S. Just as Musharaff, also a power-hungry dictator, hasn't used his nukes, I see no reason to believe Saddam would use his, if he ever acquired them (a big if, see below). He may use them to strengthen his defensive position and ensure no U.S. invasion is possible, but I don't object to that, since I don't think we should be invading anyway.

Bull****. The question isn't whether Saddam is trying to get nukes, but when he will have them. And once he gets them, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Funny, then, how no evidence has been produced to back this up except some unsubstantiated and vague speculation. Until there's proof he has it or is close to getting it, there is indeed no justification for attacking by the "pre-emption" standard.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned,

I will grant you that giving away part of someone's country without allowing them to participate in the discussion was supremely arrogant.

All I'm saying is that Hitler was still the aggressor, and therefore the blame should fall primarily on him.

-Arrian

Man, this really gets circular, doesn't it? The Allies dismember Germany and Austria at the end of WWI. But, when their victim wants its land and people back, the victim, not the Allies, is labelled the aggressor.

The fighting broke out because Britain chose the path of armed confrontation by ringing Germany with defensive alliances and encouraing Poland to refuse to negotiate any further. Britain, again, refused the assistance of the United States in redoing Versailles and instead chose military confrontation. Germany was then faced with a choice that they should have faced in 1936: give up it demands concerning Versailles or fight.

In similar circumstances today, the Palestinians demand their occuppied land (settlers) be returned to them and that they be given a state of their own. In a sense, the Palestinians are aggressors. Yet what they demand is just. For this reason, the world does not consider them aggressors.

Ditto Germany in 1939.

The world in retrospect views Nazi Germany with such hate due to its extreme racism and barbarity in conflict. If the fighting had never broken out, however, I suggest to you that 6 million+ jews, gypsies, retarded and communists may not have been "liquidated" at all.

The war should never have happened. The Corridor was not worth all the death and destruction that happened after 9/1/39.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Gepap, IIRC the whole of Czechoslovakia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Getting it back was very consistent with undoing Versailles.

What stunned Chamberlain was until that time, Hilter had confined his demands to restoring to Germany lands occuppied by Germans. Once Czechoslovakia fell, it was clear that what Hitler said in Mein Kampf and what he said during his election campaigns was actually true - he wanted to undo the whole of Versailles and wanted to unite all German people into one Reich.

As you said above, Bohemia and Morovia had never been part fo the German reich, and thus, germany could make no claim to them whatsoever under the pretext of undoing Versailles. The aquisitions of the sudetenland and Austria by Germany would fall under undoing the limitations on 'German' self-determination as outlined in the treary. Anything beyond the Sudentenland, Austria, Sud tyrol, or the Polish Corredor would be aims by the German government to go beyond anyhting that could be justified with 'versailles'

Overall Ned, you don't give enough attention whatsoever to Nazi aims. The war in the west was not what Hitler wanted, speaiclly a prolonged war with britain, but a huge campaign against all of Poland, and the Soviet union was always in the work. There is nothing anyone could have done, beside overthrowing the Nazi regime, that would have prevented a general war in europe in the 1940's with Hitler and the National Socialist in power.

[chequita guevara]

Let me see if I get this straight. If you see a crime taking place, you have no right to get involved because your rights are not being violated.