Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice?

[Monk]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
The Springer Press has always been rabidly conservative bordering on neo-fascist, so it´s no great surprise that this islamophobic and utterly conservative claptrap can be found there.

Been reading Günther Walraff?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Admiral
... Rather, if instead of propogating violence with violence, we seek to address the conditions that make violence inevitable, we can live in a better world.

Nobel thought there. I assume you are in favor, then, of spreading democracy and freedom where tyranny now reign?

[BeBMan]

Yes, but not necessarily through war.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

why have conservatives done a 360 from when Clinton was prez. Back then, they said 'no nation building' etc, now you guys cant wait to go overseas. do you not understand that you have no principles and you swallow everything that the current group in power gives to you. they lead you by the nose like an ox and you meekly submit, without thinking or questioning.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
They sold the Czechs down the river in '38. At that time France, the Czechs, and the Poles could have boxed Hitlers ears royally, even without any Brits. Instead, Chamberlain and the French collapsed.

And if Czechoslovakia stood up to the Germans in '39, WWII would have started six months earlier, or, possibly, the Nazis would have backed down.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Bargaining with parties currently engaging in blatent genocide = appeasment.

But going to war on the behalf of ethnic cleansers is okay?

[Admiral]

Interesting, rejecting the notion the world isn't a nice place because that scares you. Well done.

You missed my point. We shouldn't reject it because it scares us, we should reject it because acting on the assumption that the world is as much of a bad place as conservatives would have us believe actually reinforces the unpleasantness of the world. Violence abets violence, hate hate, and such.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Monk


Been reading Günther Walraff?

Yes, and the fact that the Springer Press was directly responsible for the death of student leader and enviromental activist Rudi Dutschke. He was shot in the head in 1968 by a right-wing nut carrying a copy of Bild Zeitung whose cover read in bold letters "Rudi Dutschke must be stopped".

[GePap]

One, why is US appeasement never mentioned? I mean, having gone to Europe in WW1, as far as I know, the US never did a damn thing about the rise of Hitler- but heck, we didn;t have the guts to become part of the Versailles system anyways, so we can;t be held at fault, no, not at all.

Second: moving beyond the misconception of German military impotence in 1938, or even beyond the notion Poland would have helped vs germany in 1938 (everyone forget that Poland took a chunck of Czechoslovakia when it feel apart), the fact is that by 1939 the UK and France with Poland combined were STILL more powerful than the Germans. People seem to assume that war in 1938 is clear German defeat, but war in 1939 is somewhow forgone Allied catastrophe...WHY? Anyone care to explain that notion, cause it really makes 0 logical sense. Even if you accept that the Germans had more equipment in 1939 than 1938, well, so did the UK and France, both of which went into significant armaments programs in 1938.

Why is the failure of the UK and France to solidify an allience with the USSR prior to 1941 never mentioned? Again, why is utter US disengagement never mentioned? We can be a bunch of appeasers, but not Europeans? Specially when it is always Europeans who are the ones to bear the full cost of a huge European war? Anyone care to explain that one?

The myth of appeasement (and it is that) is a convinient crutch for the logically weak. Certainly had the UK and France taken a harder line with hitler then things would have been different, and in all probabilities, easier and less bloody. At the same time, German victories and what that entailed were due to Allied military imcompetence and the inability of Europeam states to come together, not "appeasement". The allies could have won the war in 1939, or 1940, but then, had that occured, there would have never been a myth of appeasement, and then what could conservatives have done.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BeBro
Yes, but not necessarily through war.

BeBro, at time war is necessary. I think that is one of Dophner's points. Categorically rulling out war makes diplomacy ineffective.

[BeBMan]

Europe does not categorically rule it out

[Dinner]

Spiffor: There have been numerous books written on the subject of appeasement during the run up to WW2 and most of them used the personal writtings of people in all the governments involved and/or interviewed the people involved. The conclusion reached time after time is that intially Hitler was afraid that the UK and France would come after him militarially if he kept breaking agreements and siezing territory. Slowly though Hitler realized that the British and French weren't going to stand up to him and Hitler believed he could keep demanding concessions. They caved on the reoccupation of the Rhineland, they caved on the annexation of Austria, they caved on the annexation of the Sudtenland (selling out their own ally), and they caved when Czechoslovakia was broken in two and Czechlands were annexed. Why would Hitler not think the Allies would cave again on the Danzieg corridor?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
why have conservatives done a 360 from when Clinton was prez. Back then, they said 'no nation building' etc, now you guys cant wait to go overseas. do you not understand that you have no principles and you swallow everything that the current group in power gives to you. they lead you by the nose like an ox and you meekly submit, without thinking or questioning.

I supported everything Clinton did in foreign policy. Had he still been president, he too would have invaded Afghanistan and gone after Saddam.

True, there were some Republicans who opposed Clinton's wars; but I think they did so on petty partisan grounds. I thought they were wrong then and I think they were wrong now.

But this does highlight the fact that a lot of the carping against Bush by Democrats is pure partisanship.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ned


I supported everything Clinton did in foreign policy. Had he still been president, he too would have invaded Afghanistan and gone after Saddam.

True, there were some Republicans who opposed Clinton's wars; but I think they did so on petty partisan grounds. I thought they were wrong then and I think they were wrong now.

But this does highlight the fact that a lot of the carping against Bush by Democrats is pure partisanship.

You really think he would have invaded Iraq and gone after Saddam? I hardly think so. I don't even think any other Republican president would have done it.

[Ned]

Jimmy, he almost did so in 1998. If you think Clinton would have let Saddam off the hook after a few more years of defiance of UN resolutions, I think you clearly underestimate Clinton.