[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Justify Hitler any way you want.
If it makes you sleep better.[/quote]
Be a simpleton anytime you want.
If it gets you through the night.
[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
While somehow not referring to a nation that oppressed hundreds of millions – as well as killed 50 million plus of their own people for political reasons – as being an aggressor. (“Well, they may have treated their own people that way, and they may have ground the Eastern European peoples under an iron fist, but surely they would have treated our people sweetly, don’cha know.”)
There were admittedly quite a lot of those.
But there were others that looked sycophantically up to the US.
Most of is just did not want any of it. We really had no intention of dying as pawns in a global game.
We basically just wanted you and the Russians gone out off Europe and if you had to off each other we would have preferred if you nuked just yourselves.
If the Europeans could have handled their problems internally we wouldn’t have had to save you…twice…and then hold your hands for 60 years so the big old Russian bear didn’t eat you.
Let’s not forget who put the Soviets in power to hurt the Russian war effort in WW1.
Well you “saved” “us” only once, the first time neither Germany nor Austria needed any “saving”.
Do you know who was able to accept Mussolinis resignation?
Italy’s KING.
Do you know who was still around to be a center of resistance to Hitler after the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollern were removed because the world was made save for democracy?
No one.
Do you also know who or what was made save for democracy?
Certainly not Germany, Austria, the Germans in Czecho-Slovakia that outnumbered the Slovaks, the colonies of England, France and the US and the UK remained of course a Monarchy.
So basically you laid the groundwork for Hitlers rise to power, removed the Monarchs who could have stopped him and all in the name of spreading democracy that was then denied pretty much every time it conflicted with British or French interests.
Thanks for your help!
[/quote]
Revisionist babble again…come on…I don’t think even you believe that anymore.
The Germans actually laid the groundwork for Hitler, then embraced him, by the way.
Good analysis from Austin Bay. I think he is correct that history will judge Obama to be a You Tube Neveille Chamberlain.
http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20090922204235.aspx
Obama Lets Sphere of Influence Trump Sphere of Security
by Austin Bay
September 22, 2009
When it came to acting on behalf of peace in the 21st century, the Obama administration weighed “sphere of influence” against “sphere of security” and came down solidly on the side of the Russian czars.
I am referring to the administration’s refusal to deploy long-range defensive ground-based interceptor (GBI) missiles in Poland. For an administration that insistently congratulates itself on “smart diplomacy,” this is a shortsighted decision that sets back 21st century collective defense (sphere of security) at least five critical years and likely longer.
Moreover, President Barack Obama’s personal announcement of the policy decision was disastrously timed, an utter tin ear to grand history. Just three weeks ago, on Sept. 1, Poland’s president Lech Kaczynski demanded an apology from Russia for the “stab in the back” that occurred Sept. 17, 1939, when Russian tanks invaded eastern Poland and began linking up with Nazi panzers attacking from the west.
On Sept. 17, 2009, free Poland (liberated 20 years ago from the dungeon of Kremlin tyranny) took another knife, as the Obama administration dumped the GBI deployment in favor of pursuing its befogged “reset” of relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Little wonder Poles have dissed the decision. The White House decision also damaged relations with the Czech Republic, which had agreed to host an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) radar as part of the defensive system. Recall in 1938 in Munich, the West sold out Czechoslovakia in an attempt to “reset” diplomacy with Adolf Hitler.
If you think the Poles and Czechs are overreacting, then you might brush up on World War II’s effects on their nations and their extended prison term in the Kremlin’s “sphere of influence” that followed it known as the Cold War.
Smart diplomacy? History will judge the level of intellect involved in this decision, as well as the level of strategic awareness and diplomatic deftness. But the odds are the descriptive phrase will not contain an adjective associated with brilliance or courage. A “YouTube Era” Neville Chamberlain seems more apt.
President Obama, however, ritually included the word “smarter” in his Sept. 17, 2009, statement. “To put it simply,” he said, “our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies. It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies.”
Obama began with a narrow truth: Deploying short- and mid-range ABM systems to defend friendly nations against Iranian ballistic missile attack is good idea. In the Sept. 11, 2009, Wall Street Journal, Iraqi commentator Omar Fadhil al-Nidawi and I suggested Iraq acquire Patriot PAC-3 short-range ABMs to provide a basic defense against Iranian missiles.
Iraqis know the threat. During their long conflict in the 1980s, Iraq and Iran fought a “War of the Cities” with theater ballistic missiles. Saddam fired SCUDs at Israel and Saudi Arabia. America could deploy a belt of Patriot batteries and Navy Standard-3 ABMs along the Persian Gulf littoral and in Turkey.
Obama says he will deploy Patriot PAC-3s and Navy Standard-3s in Europe.
Fine. But to call substituting short- and mid-range ABMs for the GBIs “smarter” and more comprehensive is balderdash, and balderdash that ultimately increases risks to Europe and the U.S., while undermining once-strong political relationships with nascent democracies (like Poland) in Eastern Europe.
Europe needs all of these systems, in concert, for a layered, full-spectrum defense of short-, mid- and long-range ABMs that is harder for a volley of rogue-nation ballistic missiles to penetrate.
Full-spectrum missile defense is part of a “unified diplomatic program” to create a sphere of security, first for the U.S. and NATO allies. But over time its shield can expand to protect other nations favoring peaceful relations, mutual cooperation and trade. Obama has hobbled that grand initiative in favor of dubious promises from the Kremlin.
In general, I’ve noticed that people who repeatedly announce how smart their actions are, are inevitably shown with time to be not that smart.
There’s book smart, and there’s being intelligent in practical decisions.
I don’t doubt Obama’s book smarts.
As to where he has ever in his life shown remarkable – or any – skill in practical decisions other than those involved in being a Chicago politician, frankly I’m unaware of what that might be.
It could be that the reason for the thin resume is inability to hold positions requiring top-notch executive skills due to not having them. At least there is nothing yet to disprove that, that I can find.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
In general, I’ve noticed that people who repeatedly announce how smart their actions are, are inevitably shown with time to be not that smart.
There’s book smart, and there’s being intelligent in practical decisions.
I don’t doubt Obama’s book smarts.
As to where he has ever in his life shown remarkable – or any – skill in practical decisions other than those involved in being a Chicago politician, frankly I’m unaware of what that might be.
It could be that the reason for the thin resume is inability to hold positions requiring top-notch executive skills due to not having them. At least there is nothing yet to disprove that, that I can find.[/quote]
Just the fact that he turned over the writing of the health care bill to others, letting the legislators bounce it all over, is a sign of someone who is NOT a leader. A leader would set out the main tenets and let others fill in the details. Obama can’t convince the people to support his bill because even he doesn’t know what’s in it.
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
makkun wrote:
Mark that day in the calendar - almost all of us here on PWI, from both (or all four) sides, seem to agree for once that this is rather a good thing. Is there a god after all? 
Makkun
PS: Oh, hi JeffR - haven’t seen you in a long time. Not that I missed you…
Hey, Makkun. Thanks for the “warm” welcome!!!
In all seriousness, aren’t you even slightly worried about the message this sends to Putin? You and I don’t usually agree on things, but, I know you think through issues.
It’s ironic that I’ve been reading about chamberlin this week. I see plenty of ol’ neville in obama.
Worse, I’ll bet Putin would agree.
To make it worse, obama does this on the 70th anniversary of the soviet invasion of Poland. Further, the u.n. finally decides that iran can build a nuclear weapon. Then our brain damaged Vice President announces, “iran is not a threat.”
Imagine the glee in moscow and tehran.
You can’t really tell me they respect the guy MORE.
They are laughing their ass off and looking for ways to exploit neville II.
JeffR
[/quote]
You mention Chamberlin. Whilst you were reading did you happen to notice what his military spending was? Britain was in no position to fight a war in 1937.
All this doesn’t change the fact that Europe did not want or need a missile defense system.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
makkun wrote:
Mark that day in the calendar - almost all of us here on PWI, from both (or all four) sides, seem to agree for once that this is rather a good thing. Is there a god after all?
Makkun
PS: Oh, hi JeffR - haven’t seen you in a long time. Not that I missed you…
Hey, Makkun. Thanks for the “warm” welcome!!!
In all seriousness, aren’t you even slightly worried about the message this sends to Putin? You and I don’t usually agree on things, but, I know you think through issues.
It’s ironic that I’ve been reading about chamberlin this week. I see plenty of ol’ neville in obama.
Worse, I’ll bet Putin would agree.
To make it worse, obama does this on the 70th anniversary of the soviet invasion of Poland. Further, the u.n. finally decides that iran can build a nuclear weapon. Then our brain damaged Vice President announces, “iran is not a threat.”
Imagine the glee in moscow and tehran.
You can’t really tell me they respect the guy MORE.
They are laughing their ass off and looking for ways to exploit neville II.
JeffR
You mention Chamberlin. Whilst you were reading did you happen to notice what his military spending was? Britain was in no position to fight a war in 1937.
All this doesn’t change the fact that Europe did not want or need a missile defense system.
[/quote]
hey, lou:
Had England (France said they wouldn’t go without them) made a SHOW of force, in say 1936, hitler would have pulled back and probably been deposed. Read about it.
All chamberlin (early obama) did in munich was postpone the fighting. By the time of Munich, it should have been obvious (it was to Churchill) where this was going. Oh, it wouldn’t surprise me if putin and his lackey recently made a comment similar to hitler’s: “I saw my enemies in Munich, and they are worms.”
By the way, had chamberlin stood up to hitler at Munich, hitler would have been faced by the Czech’s, the Poles, the French, and the English. Don’t think for one second that wouldn’t have given him pause. Don’t understimate the Czech’s and their terrain. Instead they were sold out and didn’t fight the war they would probably have been capable of (guerilla at least from their mountain lairs).
chamberlin could have played his hand much better.
What obama signaled is pretty clear. He’s not willing to stand up to putin.
JeffR
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
lou21 wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
makkun wrote:
Mark that day in the calendar - almost all of us here on PWI, from both (or all four) sides, seem to agree for once that this is rather a good thing. Is there a god after all?
Makkun
PS: Oh, hi JeffR - haven’t seen you in a long time. Not that I missed you…
Hey, Makkun. Thanks for the “warm” welcome!!!
In all seriousness, aren’t you even slightly worried about the message this sends to Putin? You and I don’t usually agree on things, but, I know you think through issues.
It’s ironic that I’ve been reading about chamberlin this week. I see plenty of ol’ neville in obama.
Worse, I’ll bet Putin would agree.
To make it worse, obama does this on the 70th anniversary of the soviet invasion of Poland. Further, the u.n. finally decides that iran can build a nuclear weapon. Then our brain damaged Vice President announces, “iran is not a threat.”
Imagine the glee in moscow and tehran.
You can’t really tell me they respect the guy MORE.
They are laughing their ass off and looking for ways to exploit neville II.
JeffR
You mention Chamberlin. Whilst you were reading did you happen to notice what his military spending was? Britain was in no position to fight a war in 1937.
All this doesn’t change the fact that Europe did not want or need a missile defense system.
hey, lou:
Had England (France said they wouldn’t go without them) made a SHOW of force, in say 1936, hitler would have pulled back and probably been deposed. Read about it.
All chamberlin (early obama) did in munich was postpone the fighting. By the time of Munich, it should have been obvious (it was to Churchill) where this was going. Oh, it wouldn’t surprise me if putin and his lackey recently made a comment similar to hitler’s: “I saw my enemies in Munich, and they are worms.”
By the way, had chamberlin stood up to hitler at Munich, hitler would have been faced by the Czech’s, the Poles, the French, and the English. Don’t think for one second that wouldn’t have given him pause. Don’t understimate the Czech’s and their terrain. Instead they were sold out and didn’t fight the war they would probably have been capable of (guerilla at least from their mountain lairs).
chamberlin could have played his hand much better.
What obama signaled is pretty clear. He’s not willing to stand up to putin.
JeffR
[/quote]
The Czechs had more Germans that Slovaks in Czecho-Slovakia, incidentally in exactly those mountains you think the Germans would have had problems with. And those Germans would have thought Germany in a guerrilla war? Get real.
The Poles still had cavalry and next to no modern weaponry which is why they were overran instantaneously.
The French had sunk half of their budget into a defensive line which was later flanked and had little or no offensive forces, just like the Brits.
The only thing the British and French had was lots and lots of ships.
[quote]orion wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
lou21 wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
makkun wrote:
Mark that day in the calendar - almost all of us here on PWI, from both (or all four) sides, seem to agree for once that this is rather a good thing. Is there a god after all?
Makkun
PS: Oh, hi JeffR - haven’t seen you in a long time. Not that I missed you…
Hey, Makkun. Thanks for the “warm” welcome!!!
In all seriousness, aren’t you even slightly worried about the message this sends to Putin? You and I don’t usually agree on things, but, I know you think through issues.
It’s ironic that I’ve been reading about chamberlin this week. I see plenty of ol’ neville in obama.
Worse, I’ll bet Putin would agree.
To make it worse, obama does this on the 70th anniversary of the soviet invasion of Poland. Further, the u.n. finally decides that iran can build a nuclear weapon. Then our brain damaged Vice President announces, “iran is not a threat.”
Imagine the glee in moscow and tehran.
You can’t really tell me they respect the guy MORE.
They are laughing their ass off and looking for ways to exploit neville II.
JeffR
You mention Chamberlin. Whilst you were reading did you happen to notice what his military spending was? Britain was in no position to fight a war in 1937.
All this doesn’t change the fact that Europe did not want or need a missile defense system.
hey, lou:
Had England (France said they wouldn’t go without them) made a SHOW of force, in say 1936, hitler would have pulled back and probably been deposed. Read about it.
All chamberlin (early obama) did in munich was postpone the fighting. By the time of Munich, it should have been obvious (it was to Churchill) where this was going. Oh, it wouldn’t surprise me if putin and his lackey recently made a comment similar to hitler’s: “I saw my enemies in Munich, and they are worms.”
By the way, had chamberlin stood up to hitler at Munich, hitler would have been faced by the Czech’s, the Poles, the French, and the English. Don’t think for one second that wouldn’t have given him pause. Don’t understimate the Czech’s and their terrain. Instead they were sold out and didn’t fight the war they would probably have been capable of (guerilla at least from their mountain lairs).
chamberlin could have played his hand much better.
What obama signaled is pretty clear. He’s not willing to stand up to putin.
JeffR
The Czechs had more Germans that Slovaks in Czecho-Slovakia, incidentally in exactly those mountains you think the Germans would have had problems with. And those Germans would have thought Germany in a guerrilla war? Get real.
The Poles still had cavalry and next to no modern weaponry which is why they were overran instantaneously.
The French had sunk half of their budget into a defensive line which was later flanked and had little or no offensive forces, just like the Brits.
The only thing the British and French had was lots and lots of ships.
[/quote]
bota:
What about the Non-Germans in the region? Do you really think all the people of German descent in the region were automatically going to fight for hitler? We’ve had plenty of soldiers/airmen/sailors of German descent in WWI and WWII who fought valiantly for us.
I know, it’s hard for you to understand, what with your country welcoming home their “prodigal son” with open arms. Embracing his crimes against humanity with such vigour.
Oh, get real.
Interesting discussion: "Czechoslovakia '38-What If They'd Fought?" - Axis History Forum
Read what the Czech’s had. Read about stalin sticking up for the Czechs in Munich. Read what the Czech leader said about Munich. I forgot to add Russia to the forces arrayed against hitler had Chamberlin stood strong.
France didn’t have a land army in 1938? Coupled with the Czech’s/Poles/Russians/French and whatever the English could have arrayed?
bota, why do you suck ALL THE TIME?
Try something new.
JeffR