Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Uh-oh. Looks like Spanky missed the "irony" again....
|
Not really. It was my impression that Slave thought the sentiments were good but that the practical application was impossible. I was trying to point out that the sentiments were really evil in that the priorities are screwed up. It is like the difference in the idea of going out and getting some money and making some money. Going out and making money is a good thing. You will get wealthy. Going out and getting money means obtaining it is as quickly as possible, which usually means stealing which in the end places you in Jail. You should go out and find a good job, or start a good business and then money will come in the end. The same is true with Peace. If you go out to directly achieve Peace the most direct route is appeasing aggression and tolerating injustice. If you go out to achieve justice, a secure and lasting peace will be the good byproduct.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch You were doing really well until that statement. Rather than tell you what I think about it, let me just ask -- huh? Cite, please? What are you talking about?
|
There were times that Hitler was really vulnerable and the allies from WWII could have easily stopped him. Each time he broke the treaty of Versailles nothing was done. The industrialized western border of Germany, which contained all the steal and coal, was meant to remain demilitarized. In violation of the Versailles treaty Hitler marched right in. At this time France was totally superior to Germany in military might let alone including the forces of Great Britain. If France had moved into to prevent this violation of the treaty, Hitler's army would not have stood a chance. But the overwhelming sentiment in France and England was pacifism "Give Peace a Chance". There were constant Peace marches that were usually started with a viewing of "All Quiet on the Western Front" which was banned in Germany. At this time France and Britain started disarming because "arms races" will only lead to war.
Mussolini and Stalin were both very wary of Hitler. When Hitler absorbed Austria, Mussolini was the one with the biggest objections but he got absolutely no support from the other Allies (Italy was on the allied side in WWI). The Munich treaty convinced both Stalin and Mussolini that the Allies were completely weak and could not be trusted. Therefore they both moved for treaties with Hitler. The pacifists and liberals in both France and Britain treated Chamberlain like a hero for Munich. When Germany invaded Poland, because of their prior conduct and all the Peace marches in Europe, he was convinced the allies would do nothing. Fortunately the allies did declare war on Germany to protect Polish sovereignty.
However, Germany was completely vulnerable because all its armed forces where in Poland. Germanys left Flank was completely exposed and France would have rolled though Germany like a hot knife through butter. Unfortunately, at this point, France still thought that they could avoid further "bloodshed" through some sort of negotiated settlement.
Each one of these opportunities could have prevented the hundreds of millions of deaths in WWII.
