|
Again, one of n2sooners notorious partial clips that excludes relevant material so he can twist the meaning. Here is the other part of the article that shows the reporter presented a factual representation of what took place in history. Link to the reporter's actual article. Quote: The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unre... BR sound very different when you read the actual article, don't it? The reason it sounds different is because the author did a stealth rewrite of the article when he realized how stupid the original was. More here How about reading a history of the Sudetenlands which includes this comment by the U.S. representative following World War I, at the Paris Peace Conference, regarding the break up of the Austria-Hungry and land claims by Czechoslavakia. Quote: The U.S. commission to the Paris Peace Conference made the following, unheeded, recommendations. It should be noted they refer to all areas claimed by Czechoslovakia, including areas such as Lusatia, which would for obvious reasons never be joined to Czechoslovakia. [1]
Thus Chamberlain and Daladier followed the recommend strategy of the U.S. when they negotiated to allow Hitler to annex Sudetenland. I always love revisionist history because it makes this ridiculous argument that if Chamberlain and Daldier had said no to Hitler over the Sudetenland that all of World War II would never have happened. This is a ridiculous argument as the British and French were too weak to prevent Hitler from invading Sudetenland and/or all of Czechoslavakia as they went ahead and did in March of 1939. Far more issues at play here than just the Munich meeting. Hmmm, now we have Bobby agreeing with Pat Buchanan, seems the extremists have come full circle and are meeting in some alternate universe where the war wasn't Hitlers fault and he is just getting a bum rap. Of course, this kinda flies in the face of their years of calling Bush Hitler and republicans Nazis or Brown Shirts. I never said that World War II wasn't Hitler's fault. That's a fabrication you have created. What I said is that saying no to Hitler over Sudetenland would not have prevented Hitler from starting World War II, in my opinion. Don't have a clue how you came to the conclusion you mentioned above. Ahhh, I see. So what you are actually saying is you want to change the subject because what Bush said was right, appeasement didn't work. No, I am saying that Bush and the republicans like to whipup frothy excitement about appeasement and banty around the name Hitler in a ridiculous inappropriate manner that takes into consideration no true examination of history. If you actual read anything about the history of the Sudetenland you would see that no one thought of it as appeasement at the time including the U.S. of A. They saw the Sudetenland as an area that most realistically should be governed by Germany. And once again Hitler/Germany in World War II does not equal Iran. That's a ridiculous analogy. Just because no one saw it as appeasement doesn't mean it wasn't. You are supposed to learn from mistakes made in the past, not make excuses for them so you can make them again in the future. Fact is, it was appeasement and it didn't work. Fact is that is ridiculous to use that as a point of reference because regardless of the two actions possible to take World War II was going to start. It's a BS argument which is typical from W and republicans in general over this issue. Why is it ridiculous? Because you don't like the implications? Hell, the left has been calling Bush Hitler and the republicans Nazis and Brown Shirts for years and you haven't complained about that. Did you even read the comparison Bush made, or just read about it on some lefty blog? His comment was about a republican senator who, after Germany started their invasion, said he thought he could have changed things if only he could have talked to Hitler before hand. Appeasement didn't work, doesn't work, and will never work when it comes to long term peace. Saying no to Hitler over the Sudetenland wouldn't have stopped anything either. That is the point n2. Find a better example. The fact is the French and the English weren't powerful enough to deny Hitler the Sudetenland in 1938 regardless of anything the had. Read your history. There is a legitimate argument that Neville Chamberlain was opting for more time because in 1938 they [Britain] didn't have sufficient Navy or Air Force. By 1939 they had significantly upped their military spending and had given away free bomb shelters to their citizenry. Anybody looking at history and witnessing the allied defeat at Dunkirk would easily see that it would have made zero difference to say "no" or "ye... If there are any parallels coming from World War I and II, and the treaty of Versailles that caused all this mess is that you don't punish the loser harshly, which happened time and time again in Franco-Prussian wars. That's why after World War II we took a different tack and rebuilt Germany and Japan and used the Marshall Plan. Israel is in direct violation of that lesson. |
View the Top Clips from May 17, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||
|
|
||||
