Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelSandersLite
I don't care what the title of that article is, actually look at the dates of the events in said article:
The King and Country Debate 1933
The East Fulham By Election 1933
The Peace Ballot 1934
Rhineland crisis 1935
Perhaps the fault here is that you didn't bother to go past a "simple reading of the title" and actually read the thing. It is right that nobody really cared about the Anschluss though (except maybe Austrians). Basically everybody viewed Austria as rightfully German anyways.
Saying that Chamberlain was "Elected Twice" is straight up ridiculous. Firstly, it's exactly like saying that since we elected John Boehner to the senate, we also elected him president (and therefore has our popular support) if Obama and Biden both die just because Ohio voted for the guy. Sure, he would have been elected to something, just not the oval office. Secondly, he wasn't elected by his party for the job, his predecessor recommended him to the king and that's as far as the decision went. At the time of his appointment, nobody viewed Chamberlain as anything but a temporary caretaker.
Maybe you should start "looking stuff up". The fact that you're talking "off the cuff" really, really shows.
I do agree with you that Chamberlains actions where probably generally right though. Brittan did need time to rearm.
Still no facts though. Numerous egregious factual errors are required for your pet theory to work, and so far you've hardly made any attempt to back up a single one. Good job.
|
The amount of animosity is just amazing. I'd hate to have a discussion on what to eat for dinner. We'd starve to death.
And as you and everyone else can see, looking up the facts backs me up. Of course, when speculating about alternate courses of events which did not happen there is always room for doubt. Would Britain really have fallen for a buddy-buddy approach by Germany extending back to the middle 1930s where Germany went out of her way to befriend Britain? That's difficult to say, but I think that we can agree that Britain was never seeking war, they are not a bloodthirsty people and all their responses to Germany were responses to perceived threat. Without the threat there would not have been war with Britain, especially if Germany made it crystal clear that its ambitions were continental Europe only.
And we see that just that strategy worked for the Rhineland and the Sudetenland, France and Britain signing off on both. My alternate theories are nothing but extensions of what really happened.
The only way that you are right is if Britain hated the Germans and sought to engage in some war of conquest there. If anything is off-base and ridiculous it is that kind of thinking.
You're distorting my position on the Prime Minister. I'm saying that he was not selected by the monarch because there were no alternatives. It was an automatic thing. The aspects of his position of Prime Minister which were not automatic was his election to the body and his election as party leader by his peers. Without those elections he could not have been selected as Prime Minister. Therefore his political positions reflected the will of the people and the will of the Conservative Party. I can't see how that is "ridiculous" to you. It's straight facts, apparent to anyone over the age of six.
Let's deal with and make fun of your entire paragraph because it is really strange:
Quote:
|
Saying that Chamberlain was "Elected Twice" is straight up ridiculous. Firstly, it's exactly like saying that since we elected John Boehner to the senate, we also elected him president (and therefore has our popular support) if Obama and Biden both die just because Ohio voted for the guy. Sure, he would have been elected to something, just not the oval office. Secondly, he wasn't elected by his party for the job, his predecessor recommended him to the king and that's as far as the decision went. At the time of his appointment, nobody viewed Chamberlain as anything but a temporary caretaker.
|
First sentence we'll dispose of as hyperbole. You have a right to hyperbole. It's what makes conversations fun.
Then making a statement about John Boener that goes off the deep end is really entertaining. First of all, John Boener is not president and never will be. Secondly, president is an elected office and making an analogy between the US office of president and the UK office of Prime Minister is makesanosensa. Yes, it's remotely possible that the Speaker of the House could become president--It happened it the case of Gerald Ford. But Boener was not elected Speaker in order to make him president. Chamberlain WAS elected party leader with the intention of making him Prime Minister. That is what party leaders do in the natural and intended course of events.
Then you slide into nonsequitors. Doesn't matter that his predecessor recommended him, he was party leader and was automatically selected anyway. Doesn't matter what people's speculations regarding his possible tenure in office was, it matters what he did.
Logically your paragraph is fallacy built on fallacy. Correct facts do not make a coherent thought. They must be teamed with appropriate logic. That factor is entirely missing.
It is the disjointed logic, coupled with the apparent hostility that makes your posts fascinating. I don't represent my opinions as fact here, but as interesting possibilities not worthy of anger or hostility.
After all, it is a GOOD thing that Hitler used U-boats and brought the US and Britain against Germany. It's GOOD that, not satisfied with guaranteed defeat, Hitler doubled down on foolhardiness by invading the Soviet Union. It's a good thing that Chamberlain used appeasement as a means of demonstrating that there was no possible way to deal with Germany but the application of brute force and that the terrible price that would be paid to accomplish that was worth it because the alternatives were much more terrible. It's a good thing that events transpired the way they did, leaving the world a much better place, not only for the victors but for the defeated as well.
And it's a good thing that Hitler did not from the beginning have a plan, carefully worked, of how to keep the US and Britain out of the war. It might just have worked.