Re: US Self Defence nut (History derail)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We need a tap-dancing smiley.

Bookmarked.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm sensing it will get a workout with mack. On my part.

[mistermack]

You're wrong. You're wrong about Churchill's objection to appeasement being hindsight, you're wrong about British impotence in the 30s, and you're wrong in the fact that not only Americans, but Britons as well criticize appeasement as a failed policy, an opinion borne out by fifty million deaths.

That's your standard of argument, is it? "you're wrong" ?
Well, it's pathetic, but it is an improvement I suppose.
The less you say, the less stupid it sounds.

Wait, now you're criticizing Churchill because he did not foresee the rise of Hitler twenty-five years before the fact?

No, you ASKED FOR A LINK where he cut arms spending when in office. If you don't want an answer, don't bother asking.

I think you SHOULD stick to posting smilies.
It's the safest option for you.
It seems to be the only way you can post something, without saying something embarrassingly silly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're wrong. You're wrong about Churchill's objection to appeasement being hindsight, you're wrong about British impotence in the 30s, and you're wrong in the fact that not only Americans, but Britons as well criticize appeasement as a failed policy, an opinion borne out by fifty million deaths.

That's your standard of argument, is it? "you're wrong" ?
Well, it's pathetic, but it is an improvement I suppose.
The less you say, the less stupid it sounds.

I've already laid out his contemporaneous speeches. Your inability to read is not my problem.

No, you ASKED FOR A LINK where he cut arms spending when in office. If you don't want an answer, don't bother asking.

Well, I didn't expect I should have to specify that the link be relevant to the conversation. 1908! Perhaps next you'll chastise the Archduke for plotting the rise of OPEC with his wrong turn in Sarajevo.

I think you SHOULD stick to posting smilies.
It's the safest option for you.
It seems to be the only way you can post something, without saying something silly.

I'll let you know when I value your advice and opinion. I don't anticipate that happening any time soon.

[Warren Dew]

You're wrong. You're wrong about Churchill's objection to appeasement being hindsight, you're wrong about British impotence in the 30s, and you're wrong in the fact that not only Americans, but Britons as well criticize appeasement as a failed policy, an opinion borne out by fifty million deaths.

I was somehow under the impression that the deaths happened only after appeasement was abandoned.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're wrong. You're wrong about Churchill's objection to appeasement being hindsight, you're wrong about British impotence in the 30s, and you're wrong in the fact that not only Americans, but Britons as well criticize appeasement as a failed policy, an opinion borne out by fifty million deaths.

I was somehow under the impression that the deaths happened only after appeasement was abandoned.

That was my point. My apologies if I wasn't clear about it.

[mistermack]

You're wrong. You're wrong about Churchill's objection to appeasement being hindsight, you're wrong about British impotence in the 30s, and you're wrong in the fact that not only Americans, but Britons as well criticize appeasement as a failed policy, an opinion borne out by fifty million deaths.

I was somehow under the impression that the deaths happened only after appeasement was abandoned.

That was my point. My apologies if I wasn't clear about it.

You're not clear about much at all, are you?

[MrJonno]

Chamberlain policy was appeasement and massive rearnament, it was the only valid strategy at the time (appart from actually forming an alliance with Nazi Germany which is what the russians did)

[mistermack]

Chamberlain policy was appeasement and massive rearnament, it was the only valid strategy at the time (appart from actually forming an alliance with Nazi Germany which is what the russians did)

Quite right. Nearly any fool should see that.

In fact, Americans are of course entitled to criticise appeasement, but they should bear in mind that that's exactly what THEIR country did as well.
The only difference is that American appeasement lasted two years longer than British appeasement.

[MrJonno]

You could also add there was significant pro-fascist anti-communist views on both sides of the Atlantic

[hadespussercats]

Heya!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You could also add there was significant pro-fascist anti-communist views on both sides of the Atlantic

Plus a lot of anti-fascist anti-communist views.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're not clear about much at all, are you?

... says the guy who thinks Churchill should have foreseen Adolf Hitler in 1908 and taken action accordingly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You could also add there was significant pro-fascist anti-communist views on both sides of the Atlantic

Yeah, I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. The point was that doing nothing was not really productive.

As to whether something should have been done in 1936, the balance of strength on the two sides doesn't seem nearly so bad as is being portrayed. Not to mention the fact that the nascent Wehrmacht armored doctrine had not yet been made possible by the necessary equipment and operational expertise.

These problems hadn't even been ironed out two years later when Austria was swallowed up.

[MrJonno]

You could also add there was significant pro-fascist anti-communist views on both sides of the Atlantic

Plus a lot of anti-fascist anti-communist views.

Not an awful lot, people were either anti fascist pro communist or pro fascist anti communism. They simply werent that many people who were neutral through many were indifferent.

You had the Nazi sympathisers of Mosley in the UK and Lindenburg in the US wew good examples, those who volunteered to aid the Republicans in Spain were definitely motivated by socialism/communism even if it wasnt neccessary to support Stalin