We were talking about Trump's treason. You get confused so easily, baby boi.
"McCarthy says he will look at expunging Trump impeachment"
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
We were talking about Trump's treason. You get confused so easily, baby boi.
I think the GOP is dead. A bunch of fat, old, white hicks trying to hold down everyone else in society. These are their death throes.
ExpressLane
Verified User
What does you expect from someone that eats mice.One of us smells like fish, and it ain't me.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win
Sorry white trash goyim, born and raised in NYC own homes in NY and NC, I wasn't brought up in white trash goyim land like you and yours . Yes, we do literally look down at you
Sorry white trash goyim, born and raised in NYC own homes in NY and NC, I wasn't brought up in white trash goyim land like you and yours . Yes, we do literally look down at you
Sure you do Guno,...surrrrrrre you do. Heh heh heh heh
Do you STILL feel the lash to your'e back?
Sorry white trash goyim, born and raised in NYC own homes in NY and NC, I wasn't brought up in white trash goyim land like you and yours . Yes, we do literally look down at you
And btw......you know as well as I do that you have been looked down at since the day you were born. You prove it every single day,...its why you act the way you act.
We eat your pain like candy.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I see no reason why a purely political act could not be reversed by another purely political act......
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
The MAGA GOP cannot govern. They're all about settling scores and playing culture wars. That party needs a serious makeover!
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
Just shows you how childish the MAGAs are. McCarthy, himself is on record stating twump is responsible for 1/6. Look at how quickly he backpaddled when he realized he was angering the other Nazi fucks in his party.
McCarthy will go down in history like another Chamberlain. He's nothing but a Nazi appeaser.
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
Why not go all the way? Make an Ashley Babbit statue of her breaking through a window and replace the Lincoln Memorial with it?
Drug induced Fever dreams.
Says the drug addicted fatty who never earned a dollar in his fat ass days.
Says the drug addicted fatty who never earned a dollar in his fat ass days.
Says the sad little envious rat face.
serendipity
Verified User
Chamberlain saved dear old Blighty with his fighter procurement initiatives, you Septics are woefully ill informed peasants.
Neville Chamberlain Was Right
The maligned British prime minister did what we would want any responsible leader to do.
All of this factored into what Chamberlain was hearing from his top military advisers. In March 1938 the British military chiefs of staff produced a report that concluded that Britain could not possibly stop Germany from taking Czechoslovakia. In general, British generals believed the military and the nation were not ready for war. On Sept. 20, 1938, then-Col.Hastings Ismay, secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defense, sent a note to Thomas Inskip, the minister for the coordination of defense, and Sir Horace Wilson, a civil servant. Time was on Britain’s side, Ismay argued, writing that delaying the outbreak of war would give the Royal Air Force time to acquire airplanes that could counter the Luftwaffe, which he considered the only chance for defeating Hitler. British strategists, including Ismay, believed their country could win a long war (so long as they had time to prepare for it). This was a common belief, and doubtless factored into Chamberlain’s calculations.
Historians disagree whether the British military’s position relative to Germany was objectively better in 1939 than it was in 1938. The British military systematically overestimated German strength and underestimated its own in the lead-up to the Czechoslovak crisis, then shifted to a more optimistic tone in the months between Munich and the outbreak of war. Whatever the situation on the ground, it’s clear that the British military’s confidence in its abilities was far higher in 1939 than it was during the Munich crisis, especially because of the development of radar and the deployment of new fighter planes. In 1939, the military believed it was ready. In 1938, it didn’t.
Chamberlain’s diplomatic options were narrow as well. In World War I, Britain’s declaration of war had automatically brought Canada, Australia, and New Zealand into the fight. But the constitutional status of those Commonwealth countries had changed in the interwar period. According to the British archives, it was far from clear that Chamberlain could count on the backing of these countries if war broke out with Germany over Czechoslovakia. “There was really a feeling that the odds were against the potential of Britain being able to prevail facing Germany and potentially Italy and Japan, and with very few potential allies,” Dutton says. Soviet Russia was seen as a potential enemy to be feared, not a potential ally. America’s neutrality laws made it unlikely that even a willing president could bring the United States into the fight. There is also plenty of evidence in the archives that the British government had near-total disdain for the stability and fighting abilities of France, its only likely major-power ally. The average duration of a Third Republic government in the 1930s was nine months. When war did break out, Chamberlain’s doubts about France’s staying power proved prescient.
Nor was the British public ready for war in September 1938. “It’s easy to forget that this is only 20 years after the end of the last war,” Dutton notes. British politicians knew that the electorate would never again willingly make sacrifices like the ones it had made in World War I. The Somme and Passchendaele had left scars that still stung, and few, if any, British leaders were prepared to ask their people to fight those battles again. Many people saw the work of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War and feared that aerial bombardment would ensure that a second war would be more devastating that the first. Any strategy that claimed to offer an alternative to sending large armies to Europe therefore found supporters on every level of British society. “There was a feeling that any sensible politician would explore every avenue to avoid war before accepting war was inevitable,” Dutton says.
If Britain were to go to war with Hitler’s Germany, most people didn’t want to do so over Czechoslovakia. “People spoke of Czechoslovakia as an artificial creation,” Dutton says. “The perception by the ’30s was there was a problem, it was soluble by negotiation, and we ought to try. It was not the sort of thing that would unite the country [as] an issue to go to war over.”
Nor is the modern view of Hitler reflective of how the Nazi dictator was seen in the late 1930s. Blitzkrieg and concentration camps were not yet part of the public imagination. The British had already been dealing with one fascist, Benito Mussolini, for years before Hitler took power, and top British diplomats and military thinkers saw Hitler the way they saw Mussolini—more bravado than substance. Moreover, many Europeans thought German complaints about the settlement of World War I were legitimate. We now see Hitler’s actions during the early and mid-1930s as part of an implacable march toward war. That was not the case at the time. German rearmament and the reoccupation of the Rhineland seemed inevitable, because keeping a big country like Germany disarmed for decades was unrealistic. Hitler’s merging of Austria and Germany seemed to be what many Austrians wanted. Even the demands for chunks of Czechoslovakia were seen, at the time, as not necessarily unreasonable—after all, many Germans lived in those areas.
So, when Chamberlain returned from Munich with the news that he had negotiated a peace agreement, cheering crowds filled the streets and the press rejoiced.
To Chamberlain’s credit, his views changed as Hitler’s intentions became clearer. When Hitler took Prague and the Czech heartland in March 1939—his first invasion of an area that was obviously without deep German roots—Chamberlain said he feared it might represent an “attempt to dominate the world by force.” He doubled the size of the Territorial Army (Britain’s version of the National Guard) and, on April 20, launched peacetime conscription for the first time in Britain’s history. Then, on Sept. 3, some 11 months after Munich, he took his country to war.
Historians often find themselves moving against popular opinion. In the case of Chamberlain, though, the gap between public perception and the historical record serves a political purpose. The story we’re told about Munich is one about the futility and foolishness of searching for peace. In American political debates, the words “appeasement” and “Munich” are used to bludgeon those who argue against war. But every war is not World War II, and every dictator is not Hitler. Should we really fault Chamberlain for postponing a potentially disastrous fight that his military advisers cautioned against, his allies weren’t ready for, and his people didn’t support? “People should try to put themselves into the position of the head of the British government in the 1930s,” Dutton says. “Would they have taken the apparently huge risk of a war [that] might mean Armageddon for a cause that nobody was really convinced in?” Chamberlain’s story is of a man who fought for peace as long as possible, and went to war only when it was the last available option. It’s not such a bad epitaph.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...the-british-prime-signed-the-munich-pact.html
One thing many people, especially American conservatives, forget about Chamberlain, was he declared war on Germany. When Hitler had gone too far, he declared war on Germany. He tried for peace, but when that failed, he was willing to turn to declare war.
TOP
Retired Teacher
His avatar guy must be thrilled with the representation...I wonder if he knows he's being used?Says the sad little envious rat face.
serendipity
Verified User
Yes again true, sadly far too many believe the myths rather than the truth.
The other big myth we always hear from many American conservatives is that Chamberlain is a liberal. He was in fact a member of the Conservative Party, much like Churchill or Thatcher.
serendipity
Verified User
Why are you telling me, don't you think I know all that already? Why is it even relevant anyway, as you readily agreed Chamberlain did what needed to done.
You are not an American conservative, so I was not saying you did not know.
Why is that relevant? Americans conservatives really do not understand Chamberlain, or many other historical figures.