Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[skyeagle409]

This thread has been split from All Things Trump & Russia, as the conversation developed into a discussion of WWII and appeasement.

Posted By: Agatha

********. That's not how war works according to our constitution.

Perhaps, we should take a look back into history on how the war in Europe began when Britain and France became ignorant and overlooked Hitler's violations that eventually embolden Hitler and led to the slaughter of millions of people before the war in Europe ended. There are times when action must be undertaken in order to prevent an even larger catastrophe. Passive behavior of the international community had embolden the Serbs and Saddam as well who then went on to commit their atrocities that killed thousands as the world sat back and watched before we were eventually forced to take action, which, unfortunately, was too late for the thousands of innocent people who were killed as the world sat back and watched.

That case doesn't work with the public, Congress doesn't go for it.

Britain and France didn't go for taking action against Hitler either despite the numerous warnings, which later resulted in war in Europe. How many paid with their lives because the world continued to overlook Hitler's violations? You either learn from history or you don't.

That's why there was all the talk about mushroom clouds and collusion over 9-11.

Taking a look back into history, you will find that terrorists were bombing and hijacking US interest many years before 9/11 that had nothing to do with Iraq.

If Powell had said in front of the UN, "We believe Iraq may have a bunch of useless, degraded chemical weapons that are just a local environmental hazard now," no war resolution.

Sarin and mustard gas found in Iraq were of high purity and how deadly is Sarin? Let's not forget the 'chicken coop' where metal and wooden boxes were found hidden and packed with over a million pages of documents, photographs, computer disks, and other materials detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Now, why would anyone want to hide such information? Why did the Iraqi government continue to impede UN inspectors if they did not have anything to hide?

History has a lesson for us all and Trump had better learn from that history when dealing with the Russians, particularly, Putin..

 

[TraneWreck]

Perhaps, we should take a look back into history on how the war in Europe began when Britain and France became ignorant and overlooked Hitler's violations that eventually embolden Hitler and led to the slaughter of millions of people before the war in Europe ended. There are times when action must be undertaken in order to prevent an even larger catastrophe. Passive behavior of the international community had embolden the Serbs and Saddam as well who then went on to commit their atrocities that killed thousands as the world sat back and watched before we were eventually forced to take action, which, unfortunately, was too late for the thousands of innocent people who were killed as the world sat back and watched.

Haha. Saddam was crippled. He had nothing: no military, no weapons, no wealth beyond that sufficient to make his fat ass happy. He wasn't a threat. This was known before the war; it was proven by invasion.

I have to believe you're trying to be funny.

Britain and France didn't go for taking action against Hitler either despite the numerous warnings, which later resulted in war in Europe. How many paid with their lives because the world continued to overlook Hitler's violations? You either learn from history or you don't.

Yeah, and what we learn is that Iraq was nothing like Germany. Only overwrought, hysteric propaganda suggests such.

Taking a look back into history, you will find that terrorists were bombing and hijacking US interest many years before 9/11 that had nothing to do with Iraq.

Seems weird that we invaded Iraq, then.

Sarin and mustard gas found in Iraq were of high purity and how deadly is Sarin? Let's not forget the 'chicken coop' where metal and wooden boxes were found hidden and packed with over a million pages of documents, photographs, computer disks, and other materials detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Now, why would anyone want to hide such information? Why did the Iraqi government continue to impede UN inspectors if they did not have anything to hide?

Dude, this is all long debunked *********. Please tell me you're joking.

Some of the Sarin was deadly. There was no reliable delivery mechanism. It was from the early 80's. It was dangerous to people near it - like a toxic waste spill - it was not a weapon of war.

I gave you sources that broke this down in detail, yet you persist with this hysterical nonsense.

[/QUOTE]History has a lesson for us all and Trump had better learn from that history when dealing with the Russians, particularly, Putin..[/QUOTE]

The fact that you compare a nation crippled by bombings in the 90's, then devestated by sanctions over the next decade to the country with the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world shows a total lack of clear thinking.

Are you seriously suggesting that we pre-emptively invade Russia? That's what we did with Iraq. Is that your lesson?

 

[skyeagle409]

This info box is now redundant, see upthread

Posted By: Agatha

Haha. Saddam was crippled. He had nothing: no military, no weapons, no wealth beyond that sufficient to make his fat ass happy.

Do you honestly believe that?! Time for a reality check. Iraq had over 2200 tanks, 2500 personnel carriers, over 1600 artillery pieces, missiles and aircraft. Ever wondered why the no-fly zones were established over Iraq after the Gulf War?

He wasn't a threat. This was known before the war; it was proven by invasion.

Apparently, you are unaware of the rest of the story. I guess you are unaware of Saddam's threats to his Gulf neighbors if they failed to forgive his war debts that resulted from his invasion of Iran. Ever wondered why the U.S. Navy conducted its naval drills in the Persian Gulf prior to the Gulf War? During the Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and Saddam's ambitions were to continue through Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and beyond. Check your military history. I was in Kuwait and saw the results of Saddam's atrocities and Iraqi invasion into Saudi Arabia was no secret. Let's not forget where Khafji is located.

Some of the Sarin was deadly.

Iraqi's Sarin stock was deadly period!!

The fact that you compare a nation crippled by bombings in the 90's, then devestated by sanctions over the next decade to the country with the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world shows a total lack of clear thinking.

Just to let you know that after the Gulf War, Saddam was busy slaughtering his own people in Southern Iraq, which is something that you were unaware of.

Are you seriously suggesting that we pre-emptively invade Russia? That's what we did with Iraq. Is that your lesson?

Of course not. However, Russia did supply military hardware to Iraq and even supplied Iraq with JDAM jammers, which we took out with our JDAM bombs. So once again, Trump had better learn from history when dealing with the Russians and Putin.

 

[Polaris]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps, we should take a look back into history on how the war in Europe began when Britain and France became ignorant and overlooked Hitler's violations that eventually embolden Hitler and led to the slaughter of millions of people before the war in Europe ended.

Britain and France did not ignore Hitler's violations, and did what they could to prevent them leading to another Great War.

Britain and France didn't go for taking action against Hitler either despite the numerous warnings, which later resulted in war in Europe.

The war in Europe was the action Britain and France took against Hitler when efforts to prevent a war failed.

How many paid with their lives because the world continued to overlook Hitler's violations? You either learn from history or you don't.

You have to understand history to learn from it. The Versailles Treaty was widely regarded as unfair outside Germany, so the re-occupation of the Rhineland (Germans occupying Germany), Anschluss (Germans getting together with other Germans) and annexing the Sudetenland (more Germans joining Germans) were not going to be answered by war within 20 years of the Great Slaughter. If it had, an even more resentful Germany would have to be contained for the foreseeable future. The breaking of the Munich agreement led to explicit guarantees to Poland, and subsequently war.

People of that generation were well aware that war is not something to be taken lightly.

 

[skyeagle409]

Britain and France did not ignore Hitler's violations, and did what they could to prevent them leading to another Great War.

The war in Europe was the action Britain and France took against Hitler when efforts to prevent a war failed.

Britain and France did not confront Hitler with appropriate military action during his violations when needed and that embolden Hitler and the rest is history, which the former Soviet Union learned the hard way as well. Let's not forget Chamberlain holding up that infamous piece of paper for all to see. Lack of appropriate action by Britain and France allowed Germany to rebuild its military and the rest soon became history.

You learn from history and failure to do so can result in serious consequences in the future and Trump would be wise to remember that history when dealing with Putin.

 

[CapelDodger]

Britain and France did not confront Hitler with appropriate military action during his violations when needed and that embolden Hitler and the rest is history, which the former Soviet Union learned the hard way as well.

This your conclusion eighty years later. No doubt you have a firm opinion of what military action (aka war ; it was a simpler world in those days) should have been undertaken and at what point, given what you know of what subsequently happened. You'll appreciate that people at the time were living at the time.

Let's not forget Chamberlain holding up that infamous piece of paper for all to see. Lack of appropriate action by Britain and France allowed Germany to rebuild its military and the rest soon became history.

That infamous piece of paper might have worked, and prevented any war, something greatly to be desired.

You learn from history and failure to do so can result in serious consequences in the future and Trump would be wise to remember that history when dealing with Putin.

You'll only learn from history if you can put yourself in the position of the people involved at the time, unaware of their future and the ultimate consequences of their actions, just as we are now.

What would have been the ultimate consequences if the French had fired on German troops re-occupying the Rhineland? Not WW2 as and when it happened, but another war sometime, perhaps with a worse outcome. And so on.

They did what they thought was appropriate at the time, with the best of intentions. Perhaps it was the best they could have done.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Britain and France did not confront Hitler with appropriate military action during his violations when needed and that embolden Hitler and the rest is history,

Just like the leader of a certain country today is emboldened by the lack of appropriate military action against his violations. But what can the rest of the World do when he has more nukes than anyone else, and isn't afraid to use them?

Let's not forget Chamberlain holding up that infamous piece of paper

The truth is, Britain was in no condition to start a war against Germany at that point. They knew that it was almost inevitable, but needed more time to build up their military strength. So Chamberlain did the right thing in trying to buy them some time.

To make matters worse a lot people tolerated or even admired Hitler, in part because he was anti-communist. Fascism had its ugly side, but the thought of having to share one's wealth was downright scary. Hitler's mistreatment of Jews and other undesirables was a small price to pay (or even a bonus) if it kept Communism at bay.

But Russia is no longer communist, so now she is not a threat. Putin can murder his political rivals, violate his citizens' civil rights, interfere in foreign elections or even invade nearby countries, and it's not a problem for them. So long as there's money in it they are happy to do business with him - because in the end making money (and keeping it) is the only thing that matters.

 

[skyeagle409]

That infamous piece of paper might have worked, and prevented any war, something greatly to be desired.

It didn't in this case because it served to embolden a dangerous dictator and it didn't take long before the fireworks were lit. What happened to him afterward should serve as a warning to those who plan to use the tool of appeasement when dealing with leaders such as Putin. Putin is testing Trump to see how far he is willing to go and appeasement will only make things worst especially when dealing with him. Putin has been testing us with his bombers near Alaska lately and it's time to play hardball. Just another way he provides us with real-time hands-on training, but Putin must also be challenged and made accountable for his actions.

 

[skyeagle409]

You'll only learn from history if you can put yourself in the position of the people involved at the time, unaware of their future and the ultimate consequences of their actions, just as we are now.

They did what they thought was appropriate at the time, with the best of intentions. Perhaps it was the best they could have done.

The best of intentions, in this case, had resulted in the loss of millions because violations committed by the fox @ the chicken coop were ignored for several years until it was too late. The now well-fed and strengthen fox began to tenaciously attack those who waited too long to take care of business when the fox was weak with hunger.

Putin is trying to spread his influence in ways that will be a challenge for the U.S. in the future.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Perhaps, we should take a look back into history on how the war in Europe began when Britain and France became ignorant and overlooked Hitler's violations that eventually embolden Hitler and led to the slaughter of millions of people before the war in Europe ended. There are times when action must be undertaken in order to prevent an even larger catastrophe. Passive behavior of the international community had embolden the Serbs and Saddam as well who then went on to commit their atrocities that killed thousands as the world sat back and watched before we were eventually forced to take action, which, unfortunately, was too late for the thousands of innocent people who were killed as the world sat back and watched.

Britain and France didn't go for taking action against Hitler either despite the numerous warnings, which later resulted in war in Europe. How many paid with their lives because the world continued to overlook Hitler's violations? You either learn from history or you don't.


History has a lesson for us all and Trump had better learn from that history when dealing with the Russians, particularly, Putin..

If Britain and France had gone to war in 1938 Britain would have lost the war.
With what? You don't sufficiently appreciate the practical difficulties. Canada, Australia, New Zealand , South Africa and Rhodesia were opposed to war in 1938. There was deafening silence from America.

Chamberlain knew war was inevitable but it was a question of timing. I remember seeing some American goon on TV once saying that Britain should have taken military action when Hitler invaded the Ruhr (Rhineland), I think in about 1936,in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. There was no public support in Britain and France for war at that time and politicians need public support.

There are people on the internet who say Churchill started the war, which is a bit unfair. At least nobody can say that Chamberlain started the war.

 

[CapelDodger]

It didn't in this case because it served to embolden a dangerous dictator and it didn't take long before the fireworks were lit.

The alternative was war, which might well have been won, but with what consequences? The Great War was "won" : WW2 was one of the consequences. Had Britain and France attacked and occupied Germany to enforce the Versailles Treaty it would only have confirmed the Nazis' claims and prepared yet another conflict. It would also have fed the Communist and Socialist narrative that capitalism thrives on warfare, with who knows what consequences.

In the event, war was a late resort, and Hitler's war-hunger was laid bare. You know the result, and are convinced that your way would have had a better result - but you can't know that.

What happened to him afterward should serve as a warning to those who plan to use the tool of appeasement when dealing with leaders such as Putin.

So it should have been war over Crimea, as it should have been over Czechoslovakia?

Putin is testing Trump to see how far he is willing to go and appeasement will only make things worst especially when dealing with him.

So war it is then.

Putin has been testing us with his bombers near Alaska lately and it's time to play hardball.

The case for war is clearly overwhelming.

Just another way he provides us with real-time hands-on training, but Putin must also be challenged and made accountable for his actions.

I don't think you'd find the war as satisfying as you imagine, nor its consequences.

 

[skyeagle409]

If Britain and France had gone to war in 1938 Britain would have lost the war.

Why would Britain and France have lost the war in 1938? Could it have been that Britain and France had failed to take care of business in 1933 when Germany began remilitarization, which was in violation of the Versailles Treaty? They let the fox continue to feed unimpeded at the chicken coop until the fox became too strong for both countries to handle. In other words, it was too late. To sum that up, you don't wait to have an accident before you buy insurance.

So, once again, appeasement serves to embolden the bad guys as it did Hitler and now, Putin. Either confront the bad guys in the present, or face the consequences in the future. Putin continues to send his aircraft toward Alaska and the Russians are not flying near Alaska to scout for new fishing grounds.

 

[skyeagle409]

The alternative was war, which might well have been won, but with what consequences? The Great War was "won" : WW2 was one of the consequences. Had Britain and France attacked and occupied Germany to enforce the Versailles Treaty it would only have confirmed the Nazis' claims and prepared yet another conflict. It would also have fed the Communist and Socialist narrative that capitalism thrives on warfare, with who knows what consequences.

.

Yet, Britain and France did not take care of business and as a result, the war in Europe began and 6 million Jews and millions of others were killed and millions more were wounded. That was the result of appeasement. Dictators like to test waters before they act, and if no one objects, the bad guy will jump right on in and make a big splash that will no doubt, be noticed by all near the 'pool of conflict.' Another example occurred in the Balkans where the Serbs made the UN peacekeepers look inept and weak, which they were, so the Serbs tied some of them to fences as they continued to slaughter thousands of innocent people until military action was called upon to stop the carnage.

Simply doing nothing can have dire consequences. Putin is testing Trump's waters and only time will tell to see how far Putin is willing to go and how far Trump is willing to let him.
.

 

[JihadJane]

.

Yet, Britain and France did not take care of business and as a result, the war in Europe began and 6 million Jews and millions of others were killed and millions more were wounded. That was the result of appeasement. Dictators like to test waters before they act, and if no one objects, the bad guy will jump right on in and make a big splash that will no doubt, be noticed by all near the 'pool of conflict.' Another example occurred in the Balkans where the Serbs made the UN peacekeepers look inept and weak, which they were, so the Serbs tied some of them to fences as they continued to slaughter thousands of innocent people until military action was called upon to stop the carnage.

Simply doing nothing can have dire consequences. Putin is testing Trump's waters and only time will tell to see how far Putin is willing to go and how far Trump is willing to let him.
.

"Military action" in the Balkans is what triggered the mass slaughter.

 

[jimbob]

"Military action" in the Balkans is what triggered the mass slaughter.

Military action by the Serbs in 1992

 

[CapelDodger]

.

Yet, Britain and France did not take care of business and as a result, the war in Europe began and 6 million Jews and millions of others were killed and millions more were wounded. That was the result of appeasement.

What do you imagine would have happened if Britain and France had overturned the German government in 1933, by some combination of blockade and invasion, and replaced it with one more to their liking?

You seem to think that the German people would be cowed, accept that they cannot escape the Versailles Treaty, embrace their new government, blame the nationalists for getting them into the situation, and nobody but nobody would ever suggest that The Jews were behind it. On the back of this history which didn't happen (and lets face it was never going to) you suggest that Putin should be faced down in some indeterminate way, cowing the Russian people, and not in any way storing up problems for the future.

Can you not hear the same fatuous rhetoric in "taking care of business" and "mission accomplished"?

 

[CapelDodger]

Chamberlain knew war was inevitable but it was a question of timing.

Chamberlain was not convinced that war was inevitable, and of course nobody knew what the future held.

 

[skyeagle409]

"Military action" in the Balkans is what triggered the mass slaughter.

What did the UN do to prevent military action? Serbs were slaughtering innocent people while the rest of the world sat back and watched and that was before NATO became involved, which ended the carnage with its own military action that should never have happened if someone had taken care of business in the first place before things got out of hand.

 

[skyeagle409]

What do you imagine would have happened if Britain and France had overturned the German government in 1933, by some combination of blockade and invasion, and replaced it with one more to their liking?

As history has shown, that didn't happened and as a result, millions upon millions of people would eventually lose their lives in the coming years because no real action was undertaken to confront Germany when it would have made a difference.

Putin is testing the rest of the international community to see how much he can get away with.