 |
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
Bullshit. 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
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Sandman, DinoDoc said it all. Britain's I am god and I rule the world attitude caused WWII |
Other posters have debunked this better than I could. Suffice to say that there was no way the Allies could have known that France would fall so easily. As far as they were concerned, they were in a position of strength.
quote:
the current conflict in the ME |
I agree, Israel was a terrible mistake. That is what you meant, right?
quote:
the war between Kuwait and Iraq |
This is entirely Iraq's fault. They agreed to Kuwait's borders in 1932.
quote:
the instability between Pakistan and India over Kashmir |
If only Britain had not introduced Islam to India...
quote:
and the crazy border between Pakistan and Afghanistan dividing the Pashtoon people that has destabalized both Pakistan and Afghanistan. |
A mere border adjustment would not make that region stable.
quote:
I strongly disagree, Gepap, that the readjustment of Versailles could ONLY have been accomplished by WAR. |
You think Hitler would get Alsace and Lorraine back by just asking France? Do you think that the USSR would just 'return' Ukraine?
quote:
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. |
A conference would just give Hitler another chance to play the gentleman whilst making yet more 'reasonable' demands.
quote:
Also, Hollywood teaches us that British accents are evil. |
Meanwhile, Scottish accents are given to eccentric engineers or wealthy waterbirds.
quote:
Arrian, What was Chamberlain doing negotiating with Hitler concernng Czechoslovakian territory without the Czechs even being there? |
He was appeasing, you know, the 'moral' thing to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
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. |
Gepap, you seem to ignore that Hitler was Austrian and that Czechoslovakia was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.
At the end of WWI, Poland, Konisgburg, Byelorussia and the Ukraine were German territory. Undoing Versailles, all of it, would have Germany have these lands restored to the Reich. Again, the fall of Czechoslovakia did alert every independent country to the East of Germany of Hitler's aims. This is why they united against him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Gepap, you seem to ignore that Hitler was Austrian and that Czechoslovakia was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.
At the end of WWI, Poland, Konisgburg, Byelorussia and the Ukraine were German territory. Undoing Versailles, all of it, would have Germany have these lands restored to the Reich. Again, the fall of Czechoslovakia did alert every independent country to the East of Germany of Hitler's aims. This is why they united against him. |
Yes, these land were of the Habsburg Empire, not the Hohenzollern one. A different peace treaty was signed by the allies and the habsburg government than signed by the allies and the Hohenzollern one. As I said, the only excuse for demanding Austria and the Sudetenland to become part of Germany was if you claim that the treaties specifically singled out Germans for discrimination in terms of self-determination, since germans were not allowed ot vote to join germany after the war.
The moment germany lost the first world war, it treaties with the Soviet government were no longer valid, and thus Germany had no legal claim to any of those lands, and it surely had little if any actual control of them by late 1918.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
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. |
This bizzaro-history of yours is incredible. Germany was no innocent victim, even if Versailles was unduly harsh. The fighting broke out because Hitler kept invading other countries. Bloody hell.
As for the original topic of the thread: it's not really a stance on the morality of appeasement, but I do think that appeasement is a losing strategy. It's just not very smart.
Appeasement pre-WWII led to a long and bloody world war. Many people believe that had France and the UK come down on Germany hard when Hitler ordered his army into the Rhineland, it all couldhave been avoided. No way to know for sure, though.
What do you think of that famous line often used to describe the Holocaust, DF? You know "first they came for the jews, but I was not a jew, so I did nothing..." etc.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Saddam is stuck in his little sh!t country... the US should lift the sanctions and only attack if Iraq so much as fires a pellet gun at anyone. |
So then you are in favor of atacking Iraq since they constantly fire upon US and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
An estimated 500,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of sanctions. The US has killed more innocent Iraqi's than Saddam. |
Again another argument for regime change. Saddam would prefer to let his citizens starve than abide by the ceasefire agreement he signed. The ceasefire agreement were the precondition for the end of the Gulf War. When he broke them, he basically put his country in a state of war with the US. Therefore, we should win the war he started for the second time.
Sanctions are foolish because they don't work. My quarrel is not with the Iraqi people and they should not be punished. Saddam should be removed with least amount of collateral damge possible
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-10-2002 02:15
|