 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
This thread thus far reminds me of an old proverb (my rough translation for German) "The dog who yelps is the one that was bitten".
Great article. The truth hurts. Europe can't hide behind their hypocrisy for ever. When you all quit begging the USA to come with their military and money to solve your problems while you preach your ridicululous doctrine of pacification your criticism of the US might not be so laughable.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Springer Press = scumbag pornographers.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
And I thought you were an Austrailian. But anyway, we are just a call away. We are always anxious to please our wayward brethren...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970 time: 06:28
|
|
And once again Germany and France are referred to as Europe.
Never mind that governments of several European countries hold a different view. Recognising this nuance would, after all, make our precious US vs Europe debate a wee bit more complicated, and we certainly can't let that happen.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:28
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
quote: 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.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|