I had no idea Scott Walker was so popular

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe he did.

In '38 relations weren't all that great between Britain and the colonies. Why? Given the appalling leadership that they suffered under the British in the previous war.

The subject was the Second World War. He sited an episode from the First while not mentioning a single specific episode from the subject being discussed. A failing grade is warranted.

Sighted? What, am I looking at my grade through a telescope?

[notyoueither]

I'm slain by a typo.

Would it be true that you as a teacher were so slain by your repeated demonstrations of ignorance of historical fact. I'll leave alone the ignorance of historiography.

[Al B. Sure!]

Have fun backing that up, ****.

I can't. He's trying to be like you but failing. He doesn't have the established credibility to make his simple denigrations mean anything.

[Fake Boris]

DD if you are so concerned about people making more than others it's never too late to try consistency.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm slain by a typo.

Seriously if you're going to be pedantic at least spell it right.

[Zevico]

I'm slain by a typo.

Would it be true that you as a teacher were so slain by your repeated demonstrations of ignorance of historical fact. I'll leave alone the ignorance of historiography.

He did state:

In '38 relations weren't all that great between Britain and the colonies. Why? Given the appalling leadership that they suffered under the British in the previous war.

Are you stating that the above is untrue? I offer no opinion not being versed in the subject.

[Zevico]

I couldn't have put it better myself, corporations do indeed feel nothing at all. Which is why when they pour toxic chemicals into rivers, put incredibly unhealthy additives into food, illegally forclose houses on people, trash industry to make short term profits and rip away peoples right to collectively bargain employment contracts so they can force unfair working pay and practices on people they feel absolutely nothing.

Shame for the people left homeless, the people who lose their jobs and can't find others, people left without healthcare or the people who get cancer because of the pollution, but hey **** it that's what they keep voting for.

Once again, corporations are legal fictions. "They" don't do anything, or feel anything, just as strictly the government does nothing, feels nothing etc. The government, corporations--these are convenient words used to refer to large (or small) organisations of people structured in s a certain way. It is ordinary people who commit crimes. Companies commit them only in as much as we choose to label the actions of their employees as corporate acts. And we do that not because the company is a discrete living force but simply because it is hoped that the punitive action that follows will dissuade future wrongdoing.
You can wail and gnash your teeth about it but that's the way it works. If you think groups of people working in a corporate structure are somehow more evil than individuals or partnerships in business or government explain why. And don't forget to explain what you intend to do about the supposed problem you say exists, and how that problem has been made worse by Gov.Walker.

[Zevico]

Which is why Hitler rained V-2s on London with Zeppelins. Alas, the allies had nuclear dreadnaughts that turned the course of the entire war when the u-boat carriers couldn't interdict.

He ended up signing the surrender papers in the same railroad car as the French. After he shot himself and the Russians defiled the body. Then Stalin, and Churchill signed the treaty of Versailles dividing Europe between the two of them, screwing over De Gaulle. Just like Wilson proposed.

Wilson was born after the rise of Ingsoc though.

[kentonio]

If you have France as your ally? No hope.

Actually, the Nazi documents after the Sudetenland, showed that they were surprised at the strength of the fortification and they said that they would have lost had they tried to take them.

Can you imagine that? Germany defeated by the Czechs! Do you think anyone would take them seriously after that?

You're still trying to argue two opposing positions. Try picking which one you like better and sticking with it. Either the Czechs could have beaten the Germans on their own or Britain/France cost them their country. I'll give you a clue, the first one isn't true.

True, but I'm a firm believer that you stick with your allies. Especially if they are the weaker party. It's not a question of 'was it complicated', but rather 'do we stand behind our word.' Do you know how thrilled Hitler was that he was getting everything he asked for and he didn't have to invade?

I'm not defending the Munich agreement, we sold the Czechs down the river and that is shameful. It is important to remember WHY decisions like that were made however, rather than to just paint historical figures in simplistic terms.

Oh and yes I know just how 'thrilled' Hitler was. He was absolutely furious. By the time of the Czech crisis Hitler wanted to use military force and was extremely angry when a diplomatic solution was basically forced on him. He wanted war, he just didn't want it with the west for a few more years.

Churchill understood too. It's not a matter of being unable to interpret the clues properly, but him being willfully blind. I'd agree with you that the we can't foresee everything, but when other people who were in similar positions of authority come to the same conclusions based on the same information (or less), than Chamberlain possessed, that leads credence to the argument that Chamberlain didn't see the evidence that other folks can and did see.

Churchill was widely regarded as an irresponsible warmonger at the time. Say what you will about Chamberlain, but his view was by far the most common amongst the British establishment at the time.

I have no doubt that he sincerely believed that he had secured peace, and that this was Hitler's last demand, but there were many who argued with him that he should have stood behind the Czechs.

Not that many. Everyone knew what war would lead to.

Agreed. I understand his qualms over another war, which is why he was willfully blind in favor of any solution that would not lead to war. Even if it meant dishonoring his word to Czechoslovakia.

I actual agree pretty much completely with that, but I just think it's unfair to single out Chamberlain. The country was not willing to go to war at that stage when there was still a chance things could work out peacefully. I do fully understand why the Czechs hate us for it though.

Oh, certainly, but it's the job of Chamberlain, as the representative of the British people, to serve their interests. Many others saw through Hitler. Why didn't Chamberlain? He can't say it was above his pay grade.

Virtually no-one really understood Hitlers motivations and goals, which is kind of understandable because not even those in his own government did. His decision making was irrational and opportunistic and could change completely over the course of days. He was still trying for alliance with Britain until around the time of Munich, didn't expext us to declare war on Germany over Danzig and signed a non-aggression pact with Russia that half his own party was revolted by.

[kentonio]

Hitler's insanity was the insanity of a nation marching to war and pushing all who stood in its path out of the way. Churchill and others saw that immediately. Chamberlain didn't lose the prime ministership because he'd had his turn. He was revealed as an incompetent who sacrificed British interests for nothing. That's why Churchhill--the same man who knew war would come and warned of it for almost a decade, who later saw the rise of the Iron Curtain for what it was--replaced him. It really is amazing to see an apologist for the greatest apologist of them all.

I'm not being an apologist for Chamberlain, but that tired old black and white portrait of the craven incompetant is wildly oversimplistic. I believe he was a decent man who was willing to go a long way to avoid plunging Europe into mass war. It's also worth pointing out that once Hitlers duplicity had been proven by Munich, Chamberlain stood by the guarantees to Poland and refused German peace offers after Poland fell.

[kentonio]

You can come across as a smarmy know-nothing who seeks to lecture from a position akin to BK's.

Shame, I was trying for obnoxious know-nothing seeking to lecture from a position akin to BK's. I'll work on it.

[Dinner]

I've heard Scott Walker is a **** sucking light in the loafers bastard. Just saying...

[Zevico]

I'm not being an apologist for Chamberlain, but that tired old black and white portrait of the craven incompetant is wildly oversimplistic. I believe he was a decent man who was willing to go a long way to avoid plunging Europe into mass war.

And he should have realised that was a non-option by the time the Germans started demanding annexation of the Sudetenland or else, at the least. Heck, he should have realised it by taking a look at what the Germans taught their kids. Teaching your kids that the history of Germany is the history of race war and race supremacy over inferior neighbour races to be conquered and enslaved is a pretty obvious sign that Germans were planning to go to war, whatever particular strategy they may have intended to undertake at the time. Whether or not Chamberlain was a "decent man" is irrelevant. What matters is whether he got it right or wrong and why. He got it stupendously, horrendously wrong, and we ought to understand why. Churchhill did. So did others. The consequences of war should not blinker us to its necessity.

[kentonio]

And he should have realised that was a non-option by the time the Germans started demanding annexation of the Sudetenland or else, at the least. Heck, he should have realised it by taking a look at what the Germans taught their kids. Teaching your kids that the history of Germany is the history of race war and race supremacy over inferior neighbour races to be conquered and enslaved is a pretty obvious sign that Germans were planning to go to war, whatever particular strategy they may have intended to undertake at the time.

You're going to tell your country that has already lived through one world war that they must go through another based on what a country is teaching in school? Really? The other thing that complicates things is that Versaille took away territory from Germany. There were many who were sympathetic to Germany wanting to take much of that land back.

[Zevico]

You're going to tell your country that has already lived through one world war that they must go through another based on what a country is teaching in school? Really? The other thing that complicates things is that Versaille took away territory from Germany. There were many who were sympathetic to Germany wanting to take much of that land back.

Yes. If a nation teaches its kids that race wars are good, expect a race war. The principle applies in the same way to state-owned media and communications. If they teach that race war is good, expect a race war and act accordingly. No concessions. Adopt a militant, defensive posture; and hope to cow them into quiescence. Failing that, better a war now with a weaker power than a war later with a stronger one.