Another World War with a Democrat President in Charge?

Taft2016 said:
Hahahaha, that's a good one. You reminded me of that scene in the movie where Pee Wee Herman falls off his bicycle in a dramatically clumsy manner, and gets right back up and says "I meant to do that."

Hahaha. But seriously, this is a good topic. Try not to troll it.
Click to expand...

If you can't refute hisortical fact, then why do you want to show yourself to be a completely uniformed imbecile? I mean, if that's what you want people to see, then go for it. Otherwise,I would try and challenge with something at the very least some modicom of intellect.
 
jet57 said:
If you can't refute hisortical fact, then why do you want to show yourself to be a completely uniformed imbecile? I mean, if that's what you want people to see, then go for it. Otherwise,I would try and challenge with something at the very least some modicom of intellect.
Click to expand...

Yeah, throwing the Sudetenland under the bus was a great act of courage and foresight. :rolleyes:
 
Heh, just glanced over at my bookshelf, and sitting there was "The Godfather."

Clemenza: "And then if we let them push us around on the little things they wanta take over everything. You gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they shoulda stopped Hitler at Munich, they should never let him get away with that, they were just asking for big trouble when they let him get away with that."

Michael had heard his father say this same thing before, only in 1939 before the war actually started. If the Families had been running the State Department there would never have been a World War II, he thought with a grin.
 
Taft2016 said:
Yeah, throwing the Sudetenland under the bus was a great act of courage and foresight. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The majority of the district were German speakers and expatriots. In the Munich Agreement Sudetenland was returned to Germany. Churhill was against the idea, but Chamberlin and Britain were trying to avoid yet another war: a World War, so the agreement bought time. Neither England nor France felt they had the instant capaicty to go to war. Of course one year later Hitler invaded Poland and bought the farm. So Czechoslovakia like the rest of the Eastern European border lands at that time was a fucked duck no matter what happened. By then Hitler had been gassing east Russians in their own country in his military paddy wagon trucks.

So courgage and foresight? Along with five other countries at the time? You bet it was. Because it gave Europe and of course later the US the instant reason to go to war with Hitler.

As I say; read some books and try not to look so illiterate on the subject: it'll make you look better.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
The majority of the district were German speakers and expatriots. In the Munich Agreement Sudetenland was returned to Germany. Churhill was against the idea, but Chamberlin and Britain were trying to avoid yet another war: a World War, so the agreement bought time. Neither England nor France felt they had the instant capaicty to go to war. Of course one year later Hitler invaded Poland and bought the farm. So Czechoslovakia like the rest of the Eastern European border lands at that time was a fucked duck no matter what happened. By then Hitler had been gassing east Russians in their own country in his military paddy wagon trucks.

So courgage and foresight? Along with five other countries at the time? You bet it was. Because it gave Europe and of course later the US the instant reason to go to war with Hitler.

As I say; read some books and try not to look so illiterate on the subject: it'll make you look better.
Click to expand...

I know what the Sudetenland land was, and the same argument is now being used to annex the Crimean peninsula.

However, I've never seen it portrayed as a brilliant strategic triumph for Chamberlain. The English must hide that in texts that also describe Brian London as one of the great heavyweights of his era.

Beyond laughable. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
FDR actually was beefing the military up, in anticipation of war. We gutted it in the 20s when there was a nationwide antiwar sentiment in full-swing. I've never heard of Wilson shrinking the military, either. The only Dem who was ever particularly noted for gutting the military was Clinton, because he thought it could be done post Cold War.
Click to expand...

Carter did a find job gutting it as well.
 
SJJRSJJS said:
Now we may have a Military showdown with Russia over the Ukraine invasion? History shows US that Major Wars have started because Democrat Presidents have weakened US Militarily and Foreign aggressors want to "try US out". No sooner had President Obama declared major cuts in our Military, that Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, made his aggressive military move into the Ukraine to "save his Russian speaking peoples", just like Hitler did in WW2 with the Sudetenland and Austria. WW1 was started because of a weak Military cutting Democrat President Wilson. WW2 was started because we had a weak military created by Democrat President Roosevelt, hardly any Army manpower strength at the start of WW2. The Korean War and the Vietnam War came about during the terms of two Democrat jackasses named Truman and Johnson, who also cut our Military strength. 911 and Iraq came about after President Cliton weakened US to the point that Saddam Hussein was not afraid of US. We win Wars with Republican Presidents because they strengthen our Military, read your history books. Republican President Reagan made Russia give up because Reagan strengthened our Military especially with Laser weapons technology. The very first 5 minutes after President Reagan was inaugurated, Iran turned loose all those Embassy hostages that they kept imprisoned for two years while the weak Democrat spineless President Carter was in Office, look it up. The question is who will be known as weaker, and Militarily inept, President Carter or President Obama, both military cutting specialists who kowtow to potential enemies..................

....."President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."........
Click to expand...

Laughing my fucking ass off. Why is this drivel in current events instead of conspiracies? Fool.
 
Taft2016 said:
Hahahaha, that's a good one. You reminded me of that scene in the movie where Pee Wee Herman falls off his bicycle in a dramatically clumsy manner, and gets right back up and says "I meant to do that."

Hahaha. But seriously, this is a good topic. Try not to troll it.
Click to expand...

You are the troll, so if you don't want a thread trolled, don't tell lies in it.
 
jet57 said:
The majority of the district were German speakers and expatriots. In the Munich Agreement Sudetenland was returned to Germany. Churhill was against the idea, but Chamberlin and Britain were trying to avoid yet another war: a World War, so the agreement bought time. Neither England nor France felt they had the instant capaicty to go to war. Of course one year later Hitler invaded Poland and bought the farm. So Czechoslovakia like the rest of the Eastern European border lands at that time was a fucked duck no matter what happened. By then Hitler had been gassing east Russians in their own country in his military paddy wagon trucks.

So courgage and foresight? Along with five other countries at the time? You bet it was. Because it gave Europe and of course later the US the instant reason to go to war with Hitler.

As I say; read some books and try not to look so illiterate on the subject: it'll make you look better.
Click to expand...

You are a great addition, Jet. I am glad you are here. That Daft fellow though....oops, that Taft fellow.
 
Taft2016 said:
I know what the Sudetenland land was, and the same argument is now being used to annex the Crimean peninsula.

However, I've never seen it portrayed as a brilliant strategic triumph for Chamberlain. The English must hide that in texts that also describe Brian London as one of the great heavyweights of his era.

Beyond laughable. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nobody ever crowned such a strategy a great triumph: it was what it was; it bought time and the reigion was once before under German control. Sorry, but trying to win this is just not in the cards for you.
 
Rune said:
You are a great addition, Jet. I am glad you are here. That Daft fellow though....oops, that Taft fellow.
Click to expand...

Thank you. The idiotic misinformation and outright lying of the radical right must be shown to be exactly that.
 
Chamberlain's policy toward Germany was terrible. Hitler could have been defeated at multiple stages had Chamberlain desired conflict, from the Rhineland to the Sudetenland (the fortifications that Czechoslovakia had at the point were beyond anything Germany could have handled assuming that the allies came in as well). Drawing a line in the sand over Poland was stupid - there was no way Britain could defend Poland, and everyone knew it.
 
Threedee said:
Chamberlain's policy toward Germany was terrible. Hitler could have been defeated at multiple stages had Chamberlain desired conflict, from the Rhineland to the Sudetenland (the fortifications that Czechoslovakia had at the point were beyond anything Germany could have handled assuming that the allies came in as well). Drawing a line in the sand over Poland was stupid - there was no way Britain could defend Poland, and everyone knew it.
Click to expand...



I'm afraid that you're missing the bigger point of all of that: none of the European allies were prepared to go to war. Moreover, Hitler had been hiding very well what was going on with his cleansing program in the east. Had Hitler not trumped up the reason he invaded Poland who knows how it would have gone.
 
Threedee said:
Chamberlain's policy toward Germany was terrible. Hitler could have been defeated at multiple stages had Chamberlain desired conflict, from the Rhineland to the Sudetenland (the fortifications that Czechoslovakia had at the point were beyond anything Germany could have handled assuming that the allies came in as well). Drawing a line in the sand over Poland was stupid - there was no way Britain could defend Poland, and everyone knew it.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say, that "drawing a line" isn't really a barrier. :dunno:
 
jet57 said:
I'm afraid that you're missing the bigger point of all of that: none of the European allies were prepared to go to war. Moreover, Hitler had been hiding very well what was going on with his cleansing program in the east. Had Hitler not trumped up the reason he invaded Poland who knows how it would have gone.
Click to expand...

Chamberlain always gets a bad press, especially with Americans, yet it was he that ramped up the production of fighters like the Spitfire and Hurricane. His policy of apparent appeasement gave Britain time to have enough ready to repel the Luftwaffe and to get radar defences up and running.

Many fall for the notion that Chamberlain was a weak or pacifist PM. He was not. Chamberlain was PM from 28 May 1937 to 10 May 1940, and Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK Finance Minister) from 1934 to 1937. During those years Chamberlain pushed for war funding and as PM led British re-armament - he was not a PM to neglect the British forces. “Peace in our time” was a farce, and he knew it, but he also knew Britain was not ready, but would be because re-armament was now underway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top