View Story | 529 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
"Superstition, idolatry, and hypocrisy have ample wages, but truth goes begging." - Luther
by Cartoon Messiah on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:40:33 AM PDT
We often forget that it was runaway inflation that allowed a certain A. Schickelgruber to come to power.
This is just wrong. The inflation in Germany happened in the 1920s. Hitler came to power in 1933 during the Great Depression (which is just about as complete an opposite from inflation as is possible.)
I KNOW this is USA where inflation is considered the ultimate evil because rich folks believe it is, but whenever someone claims Hitler came to power because of inflation, one wonders if such a person can actually read a calender.
Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans
by techno on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:29:13 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
. . . are often blamed for part of Germany's woes in the years preceeding Hitler's rise to power. Germany had thrown a great deal of its resources into that conflict and yet was asked to pay reparations which further empoverished the country. It also helped many Germans perceive themselves as being picked on and can be credited, in part at least, with forging them into an anti-rest-of-Europe nation. Made it easy for Hitler.
Funny, I wonder if the economic hardships imposed on the people of Iraq in the run up to Shrub's Iraq will be viewed in a similar manner . . .
by Myrrhis on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:43:14 AM PDT
It was equal to 269 billion gold marks, which was more than the gold reserves not just of Germany, but of the entire world at the time.
It was estimated (this is 1921, mind you) that it would take them until 1984 to repay everything, making Germany a permanent pauper state.
What's really scary? The US is now in the same position. Our national debt is $9.3trillion dollars. What's the value of all gold ever mined today? About $4.66 trillion dollars. And we can't even point to another country that conquered us - we did it to ourselves. That strikes me as several different kinds of pathetic.
by Canatheist on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:32:06 AM PDT
Not only were the amount of reparations extremely punitive to say the least, but the heart of Germany's manufacturing economic sector, the Ruhr District, was being occupied and exploited by France. So basically Versailles said, "hey, pay us this unfathomable amount of money, and oh yea, do it without an economy because we're taking that too." We impoverished, and shamed Germany and created the conditions where NAZI party of Germany was able to come to power. Of course, not many people know the whole story, or any of it for that matter, of the post WWI to pre WWII time period.
But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false--about Hope ~BHO -6.38/-7.08
by OH 09 Dem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:39:24 AM PDT
First, as people pointed out, the German hyperinflation happened a few years before the US Depression.
So the Germans were dinged by inflation, started to recover, then dinged by the Depression again - which did affect Europe to a great degree.
Second, Chamberlain was not defeated by Churchill in elections. They both belonged to the Conservative party. As WWII started going bad, there was an internal revolt within the party and Chamberlain was forced to resign in May 1940. He handed the keys over to Churchill, but remained in the government for several months until he fell ill with cancer and died shortly afterwards.
Just look up any encyclopedia, online and offline, and you'll get this info.
Yesh Gvul, The Villages Group
by Assaf on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:42:44 AM PDT
attacks on Hawaii (and other Pacific possessions), Alaska and yes, California, some how "do not count" as attacks on US soil.
Several thousand Americans were killed during Dec. 7, 1941 and the perceived backbone of the Pacific fleet, the battleships on Battleship Row, were devastated. A Japanese submarine also succeeded in shelling an oil depot on the Cali coast which was much more of a psychological hit than material. The attacks creating a climate of vulnerability and fear in Hawaii and the West Coast which contributed to the decision to round up Japanese-Americans and detain them in camps.
There is no need to diminish the fears of one group to bolster the hardships of another group.
ePluribus Media - Truth be told.
by Stoy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM PDT
It was comparable to what Prussia demanded France pay after the Franco-Prussian war.
by Robobagpiper on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:27:56 AM PDT
The gold comparison you're making is specious at best. The best analogy would be to compare US debt to the total value of the world economy (which is analogous to gold in circulation back when everyone was on the gold standard). This value is currently about 65 trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy), with the U.S being responsible for about 13.54 trillion growing at about 2.9% a year.
Still discouraging, but nowhere NEAR as frightening as you seem to be promoting.
by SoCalRefugee on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:10:55 PM PDT
Is this correct, or have I confused something along the way?
-- "Cheap Labor Conservative"-use the term everywhere
by pdrap on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:38:49 AM PDT
...of the treaty: Reparations were to be repaid with Deutsche Marks. Germany did what the US is doing now: Print more money. Why do you think the Bush "Administration" suspended reporting M3?
I want my Two Dollars!
by Ken in MN on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:02:57 AM PDT
the Bush crime family reacts so badly to oil-exporting states refusing to denominate their petroleum transactions in dollars... Iraq first, now Iran. See a pattern? I think I do.
by uffdalib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:49:54 AM PDT
on his list for Cabinet positions.
We're up for a very ugly upcoming bunch of years here.
by reklemrov on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:11:52 PM PDT
printing additional money was going to lead to inflation on the scale that occurred, but it wasn't purposeful--the intention was not to create inflation, the intention was to pay the war debts, and that was the only avenue. Bad policy, but not systematic.
by OH 09 Dem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:44:03 AM PDT
Papiermark in postwar Germany to help the economy? Isn't that what we expect the Chinese to do with US dollars? The Papiermark lasted about 10 years from the start of WWI until October 1923 when it was replaced by the interim Rentenmark. The Reichsmark (on the gold standard) became the permanent replacement the following year.
For every difficult question, there is an answer that is simple, easily understood and wrong.--H.L. Mencken
by The Totalizer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:02:14 PM PDT
by OH 09 Dem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:06:23 PM PDT
crash resulted in American banks calling in German loans which plunged them into economic havoc?
by The Totalizer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:33:46 PM PDT
thanks for the question.
by DorothyT on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:34:45 PM PDT
The way that their point read, they were saying that it helped lead to Hitlers' rise.
Inflation, in my opinion, was only part of the issue... and I think you're really downplaying the effect that it can have.
Problems don't always have affects when they're present. In fact, one could make the same calender point about you since you're effectively stating that it had no effect because Hitler came to power later...
Technically, you're proving his point because effects happen after causes.
by Eireknight on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:44:06 AM PDT
you beat me by 16 seconds...
NFTT Progressively supporting the troops
by Timroff on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:45:40 AM PDT
Something that happened in the mid 1920s was critical in 1933, but an opposite something that happened in the late 1920s to early 1930s was not?
Do you REALLY believe such nonsense? You should go to your college and demand your money back.
by techno on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:19:10 AM PDT
are not mutually exclusive.
Borrowed Suits
by Gooch on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:35:33 AM PDT
"I wouldn't trade one stupid decision / for another five years of life." -- LCD Soundsystem
by tomjones on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:40:12 AM PDT
of the '20s was certainly a factor in the weakening of the Weimar Republic. Only a fool would deny that Hitler's rise was enabled by a totality of factors - hyper-inflation, reparations, Great Depression - that lead to a perception by the people that the Republic was ineffectual.
by tomjones on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:39:53 AM PDT
The thousand year Reich wasn't built in a day.
by Downpuppy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:04:55 AM PDT
The worst period of the inflation was in 1923, also. It's not a mere coincidence that the Beer Hall Putsch and the inflation happened at more or less the same time.
The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin
by Korkenzieher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:14:20 AM PDT
but don't forget, Ebert and the Social Democrat coalition successfully ended the hyper-inflation of the 1920s with help from US bankers and the creation of the Rentenmark.
Weimar was doomed from the start because it was seen as an illegitimate government forced upon the German people by outside powers. Also, there were armed paramilitary groups tying to enforce their will while the government was powerless to stop them. (heh, heh.) Actually, there were a lot more factors than that, but there's the historical parallel for you.
Politics ain't beanbag--Mr. Dooley
by LeftCoastTimm on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:36:56 AM PDT
In many cases, they were armed by the military, and were essentially an extension of the power of the rightwing aristocratic military officers' corp, which opposed and despised the Wiemar Republic, not to mention the socialist movements that were strong in Germany at that time. (There had been a remarkable socialist uprising in Bavaria at the end of the war, which was running much of Bavaria for a brief time, until the army came in and crushed it.)
During the 20's, there were many assassinations of socialists, communists, labor leaders, and dissidents of various kinds. On the left. THose on the right were not attacked. This long period of violent suppression was important in laying the groundwork for Hitler's rise. Many of those who would have strengthened the opposition to him were already dead.
THe Wiemar Republic was ineffectual in significant part because they existed at the sufferenace of the aristocracy and the military it still controlled, and never dared go to far beyond what the military found acceptable.
Vote John McCain for a Hundred Year War!
by Fiona West on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:15:54 AM PDT
was actually only superficially strong. It is a well known historical argument that the cultural and economic successes of 1920s Weimar masked serious structural and social problems.
and the loans from the USA turned out to be calamitous for Weimar because the USA called on the loans after 1929. Hence the effects of the Great Depression were especially strong in Germany.
John McCain is against a fair minimum wage.
by BenDisraeli on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:17:53 AM PDT
but it did survive the hyperinflation crisis. Challenging (or successfully subverting) the armed militias would have put it on the road to political credibility and stability. The parallels to the government in Baghdad are startling. Iraq is occupied by a foreign army, though.
by The Totalizer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:17:36 PM PDT
by cjaznik45 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:23:49 AM PDT
This inflation-caused-the-rise-of-Hitler meme is a pernicious lie. The people who repeat this lie must be called on it.
by techno on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:42:14 AM PDT
And made his move when the Depression set it???
"There is no trickle down, because greed expands to absorb any excess." - Devilstower
by Rich Santoro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:12:35 AM PDT
It is hard to imagine where you got that from.
There were a lot of factors that allowed the Nazis to form, exist, grow and eventually take power. The economy and reparations were major factors in radicalising and building membership for the nazis and fascists. From that membership they used positively Bushite barbarism to finally take power but economics, or to be more precise the extreme misery forced on the German working classes by the failure of german capitalism most certainly was the major seed. The racism and all the rest were merely scapegoating to redirect the attention of that radical group and germans in general from the real cause of their problems: plutocracy, capitalism and the murder for money we call offensive war.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ
by cdreid on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:19:22 PM PDT
...attribute traits to me that I have not professed, I find your insinuation insulting and arrogant.
I did not insult you, I pointed out a flaw in your logic.
by Eireknight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:13:43 AM PDT
The HR was for screwing up an interesting discussion with WWF style one-liners.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Program Activities
by wmdrpa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM PDT
By your logic, Bush Sr's term has no effect on policy today, since it was well over 10 years ago. The whole 1st war on Iraq, that didn't affect anything. Carter's term and Reagan's are ancient history with no possible bearing on today. Iran/ Contra, Iran Hostage situation, supply side "voodoo" economics, the lowering of tax brackets. All of that is completely unrelated to what is transpiring today.
by Chrisfs on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:51:03 PM PDT
No.. I didn't. What I said was that causes have affects and those affects are in turn causes.
My college did a fine job. Yours on the other hand...
by Eireknight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:10:45 AM PDT
it's not like an "If A then B" statement. There were many steps that led from A (inflation) to B (Hitler). But if A had never been, then B would have failed to emerge as well.
The inflation in Germany in the 1920's led to greater problems when the depression finally hit in the early '30s. If said inflation had been kept better in check, both here in the US and abroad, the conditions would not have gotten to a point where someone like Hitler (or Stalin, or Mussolini, or Prescott Bush for that matter) could rise to power.
by Timroff on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:44:22 AM PDT
payments became a problem once the Great Depression hit. True the diarist didn't get it completely right, but the Great Depression was a catalyst for the rise of Hitler (as the hyperinflation, where Germans lost their entire savings was still only 10 years before, and they had a long memory of how painful it was).
John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"
by beachmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:46:47 AM PDT
started well ahead of the US. Germany never really got itself together after WW1, & Britain went into depression in 1925. I seem to recall that it had something to do with a Chancellor putting them back on a gold standard, and telling striking miners to eat grass. Winston something or other; wonder what happened to him?
by Downpuppy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:48:18 AM PDT
The Great Depression started in 1921. The effects only reached Wall Street in 1929. An economic catastrophe that only affects farmers can be easily ignored, but a problem that affects the moneychangers on Wall Street, now THAT is serious. (/snark)
By the way, my grandfather HATED Churchill for his role in putting England back on the gold standard and the global effects of that decision. He would be so proud that you remembered.
by techno on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:25:14 AM PDT
That the farmers (she's from Indiana) were in depression long before the rest of the country.
by Norbreacht on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:03:00 AM PDT
in the 1920s, as other writers have pointed out, but the Great Depression was unquestionably American in its origin and unquestionably had a very severe effect in Germany.
If you look at the statistics of unemployment in Germany you will see how they rise in connection with the Great Depression and how the Nazi party won victories in the Reichstag in proportion with unemployment.
Things were actually starting to get better by 1933 and the Nazi party was on a downward curve when Hitler took managed to take over for good.
by BenDisraeli on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:23:20 AM PDT
College...
In Germany, the rise of Hitler and his Nazi Party was unquestionably connected to the Great Depression. - Norman Davies, Ibid.
I'll take his word for it. But thanks. All points of view are welcome.
by Cartoon Messiah on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:03:33 AM PDT
Hyperinflation created the circumstances that allowed the Nazi party to grow in size and influence. Sure they didn't get to power until 1933, but Mein Kampf was written in 1926.
by magnus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:59:54 AM PDT
moving towards it, in the 1920's. He became the Fuhrer of the National Socialist party in 1921. The Great Depression came to Germany in 1930, and yes, the destruction of German currency preceding it through hyperinflation was a massive influence on political events in Germany at the time. Let's say you've just sold all your stuff to the Jew down the street running the pawn broker's, because inflation is eating you alive. You think you might be tempted to join a party that tells you all of your troubles were caused by Jews, and the communists who were running the government when hyperinflation destroyed the German middle class? In those circumstances, I probably would.
by steve davis on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM PDT
it was the culmination of a decade of political maneuvering and violence. Hitler followed a strategy of legality which gave him time to reorganized the Nazi Party for governing. Economic unrest was the background to his rise to power.
by The Totalizer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM PDT
The inflation that happened in Germany in the 1920s wiped out many of the German citizenry’s life savings making them more receptive to Hitler’s massage of nationalism. So it did play a role in helping him come to power.
by William Domingo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM PDT
My parents (and grandparents of course) are immigrated from Germany. When I asked them about WW II, both cited the experience of hyperinflation and reparations among the general populace as being big factors that lead to Hitler having such a huge following. He promised prosperity to people who had been having a rough time for many years. The concept of 'well that was the 20s and now we are in the 30s and the hyperinflation is ancient history' was not at all a concept in most people's minds. The fear of it's return was very real.
by Chrisfs on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:33:56 PM PDT
Thank you from a Brit :)
by snarkyspice on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:30:52 AM PDT
standing at the airport waving that bit of paper around. Thanks from anther Brit for giving our brothers and sisters a little historical perspective to the great 'appeaser'.
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE happening anytime soon!
by Dirk Thrust on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:58:50 AM PDT
It's all well and good to call Chamberlain a coward, an appeaser, et. al. But so far, no one has come forward with an alternative strategy that might even arguably have protected Czechoslovakian sovereignty and prevented World War II.
The outcome of München was undeniably tragic. That doesn't prove Chamberlain made the wrong choice. I submit that merely it proves he had no good choices left to make.
by NCrissieB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:07:54 AM PDT
I am reading this fascinating book at present, of the background diplomacy of a possible Anglo French Soviet alliance in 37 38 which would have supported the Czechs against Hitler, and hopefully prevented the war.
There are all sorts of reasons why it did not happen, including the fear of Stalin and Communism.
So his options included
People forget that the gallant Poles which faught German Panzer's with cavalry in 1939, were supporting Germany in helping to break up Czechoslovakia in 1938, and refusing any Soviet offers to cross their territory to get Soviet troops to the Czechs if needed. If war had broken out in 1938, it is possible Poland could have ended up on the other side.
Meanwhile as has been said elsewhere Prescott Bush was concentrating on making money and the US was showing no interest whatsoever.
by dansmith17 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:22:05 PM PDT
You are absolutely right. It was either concessions to the Nazis or to the Communists. In this alternate world where Chamberlain gave concessions to the Soviets the criticisms of "Appeasement" to the Communists in 2008 would not have been any less intense than the criticisms of "Appeasement" to the Fascists in 2008 in this world.
As I posted in the diary that dropped off the radar, this economic curve really explains it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
(The graph is labeled in French, so: PIB = GDP; ALL = Germany; R-U = United Kingdom; E-U = United States; URSS = Soviet Union)
Out of the Great Depression, the Communists came up top, the Fascists second, the Capitalists way behind in third. The English and the French were too destitute to save the Czechs, who also happen to be on the opposite side of Germany for them to do much to help.
It is all fine and good to say that the Jews could be saved and World War II prevented. But by the time 1938 came along it was all too late.
by sesquioxide on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:42:19 PM PDT
old democracy in Czechoslovakia. There was million man army and political leadership willing to defend the country against German encroachment. If the Western Powers hadn't arraigned for its dismemberment and done the opposite by standing up for the economically and politically stable nation, then a world war may have been avoided.
by The Totalizer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:50:13 PM PDT
The Czech army had a reputation of being better than others in the area based on some history form regiments of the Army coming from what was historically the Austro-Hungarian army, but as an independent Czech state they had never fired a shot in anger.
At the time of Munich if a strong 1,000,000 man army was willing and able to stand up to Germany there was nothing to stop them. They chose not to as they knew they would lose without outside support and France and Britain in the end were not willing to go to war over German majority populated areas. The US was of course also not willing to go to war for the Czechs but for some reason Britain seems to always get the blame for not immediately supporting the Czechs while no blame attaches to the US for taking the same decision.
The Soviet Union was willing to fight for the Czechs IF France and Britain did too, but it feared it was being, manoeuvred into a position whereby France and Britain got Hitler to fight Stalin and we let both of them destroy each other, so was not willing to fight alone, and the Czech President Benes did not want to fight with only Soviet support as feared his country being destroyed or occupied by the Soviets.
Poland to the Czechs North took the opportunity to demand some Czech territory, which they took in late 38 and again in early 39 when Czechoslovakia was finally dismembered .
Hungary took the opportunity to demand some Hungarian majority territory from Czechoslovakia which they grabbed in November 38, when they had the opportunity, and they also took more in March 39 when the Czechs and Slovaks split.
Yugoslavia and Romania were allies of the Czech and had promised to come to their aid but when it came to it both refused.
Yes a World War just might have been avoided if Britain and France had stood up to Hitler in 1938 and backed the Czechs, it is possible Hitler would have been deposed in a military coup, but more likely.
Germans, Poles and Hungarians invade, Czechs are faced with 3 enemies and a large German minority supporting the Germans from behind the lines, and a significant Hungarian minority supporting their fellow countrymen.
The Soviets intervene to help the Czechs and cross Polish territory whether they agree or not.
So either Czechoslovakia is gone million man army or not before Soviet intervention or if it survives till the Red Army can get there and you have full scale war across large swathes of Eastern Europe with France and UK becoming involved, and potentially the conflict quickly merging with the still ongoing civil war in Spain.
by dansmith17 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:37:26 PM PDT
an independent Czech state they had never fired a shot in anger.
The Nazi Army hadn't fired a shot in anger yet either. The Wehrmacht Heer first attacked an opposing army in Poland later. Obviously, Hitler would have divided his army to protect against attack from France or Britain. That would be a very weak starting point for invading and occupying a country as large as Czechoslovakia. He would have waited or picked another target.
by The Totalizer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:53:04 PM PDT
Suppose England and France had stood firm in Munich.
NeoCons like to say that Hitler would have been humiliated and deposed. Yeah... just like Saddam Hussein after the Iraqi army was expelled from Kuwait!
A confrontation in Munich could just as easily have postponed the start of WWII until 1950, after Germany had perfected the jet fighter and the ballistic missile and figured out that an atomic bomb was actually feasible.
BushCheney Inc. - They lied to me, they lied to you, they lied to our troops.
by jjohnjj on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:22:28 PM PDT
without appeasement WW2 is avoided/postponed and Hitler remains a dominant figure in the 20th century.
Fantasies of regime change by standing firm against German re-militarisation never actually explain how Hitler would be deposed or subdued.
Pea Coil?
by Grass on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:09:14 PM PDT
fight. And their army was ready at the border. IF the British and French governments hadn't threatened the Czechs with war IF they resisted Hitler (and I insist that was a mistake) the Czechs might have had a chance to stop the German Army - they certainly had more of a chance than probably any other Continental army at the time.
by Virginian in Spain on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM PDT
The British and French did not threaten to wage war against Czechoslovakia if she defended herself from Germany. They simply said they would not go to war on her behalf. The Czechs saw the handwriting on the wall and chose not to self-immolate trying to fight Germany on their own.
by NCrissieB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:45:52 PM PDT
The decision to partition their country was made by Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain, and Daladier (who reneged on the Franco-Czech military pact).
by The Totalizer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:58:58 PM PDT
leaving Stalin to conclude Britain and France were trying to push Hitler against the USSR, a conclusion made all the more credible in March 1939 when Churchill too refused to include the USSR in his "guarantee" to Poland.
by LanceBoyle on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:09:42 PM PDT
Czechoslovakia. Great Britain and France (and liberal democracy) lost all credibility in Eastern Europe. The Communist takeover of 1948 can be traced to Munich 1938.
by The Totalizer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:40:32 PM PDT
Czechs resisted, they would be in direct hostility with the French and British. So even if the British didnt SAY it, THAT is what it meant. In pratical terms, evidently the Czechs would have enough of a hard time resisting the Germans alone without being able to count on France and the UK for ANY kind of support. THEY SOLD THE CZECHS OUT, as simple as that.
by Virginian in Spain on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:30:57 PM PDT
Why do so many Americans always take the high moral ground about how terrible it was that Britain refused to go to War to defend Czech territorial integrity, when they were not offering to intervene either.
Britain had no treaty relationship with the Czechs, France did and the Soviets did which was written in a way that said they would honour it if the French did too.
Britain was no more obligated to defend Czechoslovakia than the US was.
If the Czechs had resisted the British and French would NOT have intervened on Germany's side, and they may have been able to get the Soviets to intervene on their side. But the Czech government took the same view in the end that if they allowed Germany to have the Sudeten area that would end the issue and they could keep the rest of their country. We now know that within 6 months the rest of the country was gone as well.
by dansmith17 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:46:57 PM PDT
Britain at the time was the world's pre-eminent power, not the US. It would have been to Britain's benefit to engage Germany when she was small and weak. That is reason enough for a British leader to be criticized: he failed to provide the leadership his nation needed.
It is beyond tedious to hear every historical disaster laid that the feet of the US. This instance is particularly presposterous.
Psst! Don't panic
by Quicklund on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:00:32 PM PDT
I could not argue the US should have intervened in 1938 over the Sudetan border dispute.
My point was that it was debatable as to whether it was in Britains intrest.
Yes Britain was the superpower of the time but it was weakened and had lots of other worries besides what seemed to be initially a minor dispute in Central Europe. Hitler was arguing for a relativly minor alteration of the border to include in Germany a population of Germans who wanted to be in Germany, and were willing to vote to that effect.
Yes 6 months later it became clear Hiter would not stop there but at the time of Munich it was at least debatable.
At the same time, Britain was worrying about..
by dansmith17 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:25:23 PM PDT
In continental Europe? I respectfully disagree. Britain had had to acheive its power outside of 'The Continent' long before it had only Calais and Gibraltar. What existed was a tenuous balance of power between the nation-states of Europe. The British Empire dominated, perhaps, but it did not control, except perchance through careful diplomacy, as did France. Germany, on the other hand, lacking colonies but with a strong cultural reach throughout Central and Eastern Europe remained a great question mark - straightened breifly into a fatal lightning-flash exclamation mark by Bismarck and Prussianism. Each of the powers had different strengths and weaknesses, but the overall result was a delicate, tenuous balance. It is also worthwhile to remember that, old as Europe may be, many of the nation-states involved were younger than the United States: Italy and Germany were both creations of the 1800s; prior to that they were a collection of republics and principalities sharing common cultural ties. "Duetschland über alles" originally meant: das Reich should come before the interests of the constituent German states. And they were nation-states forged in the turmoil of post-revolutionary, post-Napoleonic Europe.
by Cartoon Messiah on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:11:36 PM PDT
UK had lost an entire generation of young men, as ww2 dawned, no one wanted to loose another generation of young men/ boys. this is what my father always taught me, we lost relatives in both wars.
even the Devil slaves for the fortunate
by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:55:33 PM PDT
Great Job, and thank you.
by OWO on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:36:16 AM PDT
Gaza punctuate his speech.He goes home.Everyone else stays.The people who live in the middle east should resolve their own problems.
by Barry Leonardini on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:41:28 AM PDT
to Germany.
George Bush stands ready to give away half of the occupied West Bank to appease our militaristic ally, Israel's appetite for more land.
So who is the real appeaser here?
Olmert has threatened another IDF killing spree into Gaza. Last year the IDF killed 40 Palestinians for every Israeli killed by Palestinians. It's very clear which side perpertrates the vast majority of the violence in the conflict. When force doesn't work to solve a problem, Israel always resorts to even more force.
Government should treat its citizens like human beings, not profit generating units for the Corporate Aristocracy to use and abuse any way they choose
by Lefty Coaster on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:14:41 AM PDT
for his war, it almost seems after reading this we are somewhat living it also.
by pjbamerica on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:05:35 PM PDT