|
|
Posted by mv on 08/15/06 17:11
In message <12e3jva1ieimq7e@corp.supernews.com>, Richard Crowley
<rcrowley@xpr7t.net> writes
>"Bill Fright" wrote ...
>> Here Here! Well said. I'd love to notice thoughtful deeds that have
>>been sorely missing in our government - and others.
>
>Where is Neville Chamberlain when we need him?
>Have we learned nothing from "appeasement" with the Nazis of the
>previous generation?
So what then Richard do you propose is the best approach to resolving
this conflict? More escalation, nuke the entire region perhaps? Because
that's what it'll take to pacify them. It's a different perspective
though when the fighting, killing of loved ones and the destruction of
homes and infrastructures hit the comfort zone of red necked racists. I
bet there'd be a little more willingness to tolerate compromising deals
at that point.
With regard to your allusions regarding Chamberlain and Churchill;
Even Neville Chamberlain drew a line in the metaphorical sand. He
allowed the Germans to have the Sudetenland, since the ethnic German
inhabitants of that region of the recent and artificially constructed
Czechoslovakia were almost unanimous in wanting reunification with
Germany, and quite frankly, it earned the Brits the extra year they
needed to build up their Hurricane and Spitfire force and the worlds
first defence radar system, that ultimately saved western civilisation
from what could easily have been many decades of tyranny. Without the
unsinkable troopship and aircraft carrier that these islands provided,
there'd have been no D Day and the Germans would have been exploiting
their technological advantages exponentially by 1945, including atom
bombs, together with strategic missile technology that had not advanced
beyond the vague notion stage in our camp and jet fighters that could
piss all over anything we had, including our own British jet fighters,
let alone the best piston engine types that the US had at the time. So
Chamberlain's expedience was nothing like as unacceptable as some
pretensions of learning assert. It was the invasion of Poland in 1939
that was unacceptable, upon which the civilised world, with the
exception of the USA, acted by declaring war on Germany. Winston was
required to put some steel and backbone into the British government at a
time when most observers, including most in the USA, fully expected
these islands to be overrun. Despite which impending disaster, the USA
remained neutral. However when it comes to geopolitical expedience, even
Churchill knew when to compromise, as he did when the Soviets took the
other half of Poland, ostensibly to prevent it falling into the hands of
the Nazis, though as all knew full well, it was a set up. Churchill
continued to pretend that Stalin was a buddy because he knew that Hitler
would sooner or later fight the Russians.
The Germans, being masters of tactical warfare and the application of
advanced and powerful military technology were, thankfully absolute
duffers at the strategic game. Fortunately for really civilised decency,
as opposed to the mere presumption of it as the Nazis astonishingly
believed of themselves, the Nazis proved to be too arrogant in their
assumptions of their own racial and moral superiority to be aware that
those 'sub human Slavs', who they regarded as being unworthy of normal
humane considerations, were actually just as proud and patriotic about
themselves and just as brave and determined as they were, if not more
so. Does anyone notice any parallels here?
The day Hitler attacked Russia, despite Britain being in the
temporarily weakened position of having a ridiculously small army and an
RAF that had just scrapped through the Battle of Britain, Churchill knew
the war was won. He also said he'd sup with the devil (meaning Stalin)
if he'd fight against Hitler. The great strength of Churchill and the
British war game in general, was in strategic planning, remember the
chess game, the winner is the one who can see the end game from the
beginning and not the one who steams in all guns blazing, mostly from
the hip, shooting up everything that moves, including their own side
much of the time. In the sort of close combat insurgency fighting we now
find ourselves in, one skilled soldier is worth twenty unskilled, no
matter how well armed they are. Sometimes it pays to give a little to
win the spoils.
--
John Lubran
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|