 |
|
Rex Little
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
quote:
we don't hold all our Vietnam era presidents highly |
*cough*JFK*cough* |
JFK got killed before U.S. casualties in Vietnam reached triple figures (I may be technically wrong about that, but you know what I mean). If JFK had lived, served a second term and followed the same course in Vietnam as Johnson did, his reputation would have suffered just as badly as did LBJ's.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
Ah, come on. The way he took half measures in the Cuban Missile Crisis is legendary. He wanted to always walk a thin line between threat and appeasement. In the end, he chose appeasement by agreeing to withdraw our missles from Turkey, which left us worse off than the status quo ante.
Had he decisively acted, Cuba would today be free. So would Vietnam.
I do agree that Kennedy was an inspirational speaker and did give the US a tremendous boost with his challenge to go to the moon. He also cut taxes and crafted the Civil Rights Act, which his segregationist successor, Johnson, actually lobbied to have passed.
In late '63, however, it looked like the next year's elections would be as close as the election of '60. Kennedy was running neck and neck in the polls against any number of Republicans including Goldwater. The Civil Rights legislation was enormously unpopular:
"
Nov. 8, 1963
The surveys' story sounded both sweet and sour to Barry Goldwater.
Since last summer, Goldwater has steadily lengthened his lead over Nelson Rockefeller in presidential preference polls. Last week the Gallup poll reported that since its last canvass in October, Goldwater has stepped out even farther ahead of Rocky among Republican voters. Michigan's Governor George Romney, too, continued to move up. The statistics among Republicans:
October Now
Goldwater 42% 45%
Rockefeller 26% 23%
Romney 15% 16%
An Associated Press poll found Goldwater the overwhelming favorite among G.O.P. state and county leaders. Of 2,916 Republicans polled, 1,404 answered the survey questions. Of those, 85.1% said they believed that "at present" Goldwater would be the party's strongest candidate in a contest with President Kennedy. Rockefeller garnered but 56 votes, 4% of the total. Asked who they believed would finally be nominated, 64.2% picked Goldwater, 4.6% Rocky.
At week's end Gallup released the results of another poll. Exploring the growing speculation that Richard Nixon may become a candidate, Gallup asked a sampling of Republicans whom they would prefer if the convention choice narrowed to Goldwater and Nixon. Result: Nixon 52%, Goldwater 48%.
Whoever the G.O.P. candidate, predicted doorbell-ringing Pollster Sam Lubell, he would now give President Kennedy a far better run for his money than seemed possible only five months ago. Then, wrote Lubell, "interviewing across the nation pointed to a landslide victory for President Kennedy." Now "the President faces a close election with only a small edge in his favor."
Lubell's explanation: with the easing of cold war tensions, the public now views civil rights strife rather than the struggle with the Soviets as the U.S.'s No. 1 political issue. "Interviews in five Eastern states,* where Kennedy should be at his strongest," wrote Lubell, "show him losing a tenth of his 1960 support—mainly because 'he gives in too much to the Negro.' "
http://www.time.com/time/archive/pr...,896997,00.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
So Japan and Germany can be assumed to act the same because they were both totalitarian?
How can you say something like that and then accuse someone of having simplistic views? |
Um, isn't that the point GePap is making?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
GePap, we didn't "stand up" against Japan until after it had joined the Axis. Japan attacked when it looked as if Germany had beaten the USSR and the war in Europe was about over.
This is not my idea of a stitch in time. |
Japan joined "the Axis" in 1940, yet did nothing to aid its ally Germany and did not attack the USSR. Anyways, the US did nothing about the Axis until after attacked. The point is that when Japan moved into French Indochina in July '41 the US placed a crippling oil and metal embargo on japan, which had few local supplies and relied heavily on trade with the US-the embargo had teeth, real teeth, and since Japan was unwilling to give up its policies to cave under US pressure it decided on war.
quote:
As to what Hitler may or may not have done, clearly by the time England DID stand up to Hitler, Hitler was not dissuaded. Clearly, prior appeasements incent further aggression until drawing a line in the sand is no longer possible. Appeasement guarantees war. |
No, it does not. The aims of the aggressive party equal war- "standing up" to Hitler earlier would just have meant an earlier war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
GePap, our attitude regarding Japan hardened considerably after they joined the Axis. Until that time, we tried to be a broker between Japan and China. After, we began demanding that Japan withdraw from China.
As to Hitler, we will never know what might have happened if the Allies stood their ground in 1936. If it meant war then, England and France surely would have won easily, preventing a larger war. But, they chose the path to appeasement. The end result was a lot of dead Englishmen, Frenchmen, and of course, Germans.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
What is known from a variety of sources was that the german army were not prepared for war prior to 1939 and that Hitler and the general staff were extremely nervous that England and France would react to any of the provocations (conscription 1935, invasions of the Rhineland 1936 and Sudetenland 1938) that occurred prior to the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939.
What would have eventually happened if we had stood up to Hitler earlier? Who knows? There is evidence to suggest that Hitler wanted to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938 and that the high command said no (and were willing to remove him from power if he gave the order). Given that Hitlers grasp on power was not secured until after 1938 and that the German army was still re-fitting, the world may have indeed have benefited from confronting Germany earlier. |
There are a series of large problems with these post date speculations:
1. The assumption that the 1935 and 36 actions were enough to force the UK or France to react to- we don;t know how pervesive the view that the Versailles systems was not working was, so why should the dmeocraticly elected leaders of France and the UK seek what at the time would have been severely unpopular actions against the Germans for internal German actions.
By the time we get to 1938, things change significantly- the assumption that hitler's power was not assured is based on what, really? BY the time he carries out the Anschluss, I can't see why anyone would not think his leadership secure. Why also assume the UK and France were stronger than the Germans in 1938 than 1939, when specially the UK was not really on a military buildingh spree UNTIL 1938. Add to that the question of whether the French forces would have been any better in 1938 than 1939 or 1940.
The best you guys can do then is make the statement that you believe that a war in 1938 or earlier would have ended faster, in the favor of the allies, and with less damage, or if the French and UK had acted way back in 1935, no war. Fine, you can make that statement, but know that it is purely speculation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
There are a series of large problems with these post date speculations:
1. The assumption that the 1935 and 36 actions were enough to force the UK or France to react to- we don;t know how pervesive the view that the Versailles systems was not working was, so why should the dmeocraticly elected leaders of France and the UK seek what at the time would have been severely unpopular actions against the Germans for internal German actions. |
That's rather the point isnt it! Whether something is popular or not amongst either the population or the government is no reason for the countries leadership to abdicate their responsibilities.
quote:
By the time we get to 1938, things change significantly- the assumption that hitler's power was not assured is based on what, really? BY the time he carries out the Anschluss, I can't see why anyone would not think his leadership secure. |
I'd say the fact that he defered to his military commanders over Czechoslovakia in 1938 was an indication that he didnt have the same degree over control as he eventually had.
quote:
Why also assume the UK and France were stronger than the Germans in 1938 than 1939, when specially the UK was not really on a military buildingh spree UNTIL 1938. Add to that the question of whether the French forces would have been any better in 1938 than 1939 or 1940. |
The key point is that Germany's military strength especially in tanks and aircraft was improving at a much faster rate than England's or France's. If we had gone to war with Germany prior to 1939 we would not have faced 'the blitzkrieg' since (for example) even the lightly armoured PzKpfw III was not produced in any numbers until 1939 (and only 100 in 1939). By the invasion of France however the allies faced the more capable and heavier PzKpfw IV as well as better PzKpfw III's.
quote:
The best you guys can do then is make the statement that you believe that a war in 1938 or earlier would have ended faster, in the favor of the allies, and with less damage, or if the French and UK had acted way back in 1935, no war. Fine, you can make that statement, but know that it is purely speculation. |
Of course it's speculation but we do know that we did nothing and paid a heavy price.
Germany broke the Treaty of Versaille in 1935 -> no reaction
Germany invades the Rhineland 1936 -> no reaction
Germany demands the Sudetenland 1938-> Chamberlain says no then says OK
Germany invades Czechoslovakia-> no reaction
Germany invades Poland-> WWII
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2005 07:27
.
Smiley 
|