WWII–-75th ANNIVERSARY POLLS--#16 NOVEMBER 1940



  • Arthur Neville Chamberlain, FRS (18 March 1869 � 9 November 1940) was a British Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 1937 to May 1940. Chamberlain is best known for his appeasement foreign policy, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the German-speaking Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany. However, when Adolf Hitler later invaded Poland, the UK declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, and Chamberlain led Britain through the first eight months of World War II.

    After working in business and local government and after a short spell as Director of National Service in 1916 and 1917, Chamberlain followed his father, Joseph Chamberlain, and older half-brother, Austen Chamberlain, in becoming a member of parliament in the 1918 general election at age 49. He declined a junior ministerial position, remaining a backbencher until 1922. He was rapidly promoted in 1923 to Minister of Health and then Chancellor of the Exchequer. After a short Labour-led government, he returned as Minister of Health, introducing a range of reform measures from 1924 to 1929. He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in the National Government in 1931.

    When Stanley Baldwin retired in May 1937, Chamberlain took his place as Prime Minister. His premiership was dominated by the question of policy toward the increasingly aggressive Germany, and his actions at Munich were widely popular among Britons at the time. When Hitler continued his aggression, Chamberlain pledged Britain to defend Poland’s independence if the latter were attacked, an alliance that brought Britain into war when Germany attacked Poland in 1939. Chamberlain resigned the premiership on 10 May 1940 after the Allies were forced to retreat from Norway, as he believed a government supported by all parties was essential, and the Labour and Liberal parties would not join a government headed by him. He was succeeded by Winston Churchill but remained very well regarded in Parliament, especially among Conservatives. Before ill health forced him to resign he was an important member of Churchill’s War Cabinet, heading it in the new premier’s absence. Chamberlain died of cancer six months after leaving the premiership.

    Chamberlain’s reputation remains controversial among historians, with the initial high regard for him being entirely eroded by books such as Guilty Men, published in July 1940, which blamed Chamberlain and his associates for the Munich accord and for allegedly failing to prepare the country for war. Most historians in the generation following Chamberlain’s death held similar views, led by Churchill in The Gathering Storm. Some recent historians have taken a more favourable perspective of Chamberlain and his policies, citing government papers released under the Thirty Year Rule. Nevertheless, Chamberlain is still unfavourably ranked amongst British Prime Ministers.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

    Neville Chamberlain died 75 years ago this November.  This really isnt a poll as much of a matter of opinion.  What do you guys think of him as the British Prime Minister and how he handled Adolf Hitler before the start of WWII?  Remember…we have the benefit of hindsight, where Chamberlain did not.  Lets discuss the man and his legacy if you guys feel he had one.



  • Under the Versailles Treaty, the Rhineland had been under hostile French occupation. One of Hitler’s first acts upon taking power was to restore the Rhineland to German rule. Winston Churchill stated that German ownership of the Rhineland was a moral outrage–an offense which should not have been tolerated. In taking that position, Churchill made it abundantly clear that he rejected the ideal of self-determination. He again rejected that principle at Munich. The Sudetenland was German territory under hostile Czech occupation. The principle of self-determination would have required this land be restored to Germany–exactly as the people of the Sudetenland wanted. What was misleadingly called the “appeasement” of Germany was simply a case of upholding principles Woodrow Wilson had said he’d cared about during and after WWI. (Principles which bore no relationship at all to anything the Allies did in the Versailles Treaty.)

    In the months leading up to the German invasion of Poland, Britain sought an anti-Nazi alliance with the Soviet Union. Stalin’s asking price for the alliance was the eastern half of Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland. Chamberlain refused. In a speech in the House of Commons, Churchill denounced Chamberlain’s decision, and stated that Britain should agree to Stalin’s asking price. Not only did Churchill believe that self-determination should not apply to Germans, he also felt it should not apply to Poles, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, or Finns. Also, Stalin had murdered millions of innocent people prior to the outbreak of hostilities–a fact which did not seem to dampen Churchill’s eagerness to appease the expansionistic Soviet dictator. Churchill’s proposed appeasement (letting Stalin have all that territory) was a much more extreme act of appeasement than letting the people of Sudetenland have their wish of rejoining their German homeland (which is what Chamberlain had agreed to at Munich).

    In the early part of WWII, Hoover had been involved with famine relief efforts in German-occupied Poland. Those efforts ended when Churchill came into power and imposed a food blockade. Through that food blockade, Churchill demonstrated the same cynicism and contempt for the lives of innocent people that he’d shown in 1939, when he stated that Britain should have given Stalin his asking price. Based on Stalin’s track record, it was certain that giving him large swaths of territory could only result in mass murder.

    Was Chamberlain a better human being than Churchill? Absolutely–there is no question at all on that point. Chamberlain’s compassion has been lyingly represented as weakness. Chamberlain had the kind of courage which causes a man to stand up to a lynch mob. Churchill had the “courage” which causes a man to lead such a mob.

    However, Chamberlain’s character was far from perfect. In 1939, Britain and France made two promises to Poland. 1) If Germany invaded, Britain and France would go to war against Germany. 2) If Germany invaded, France would launch a general offensive within 15 days of mobilization. Promise 2 had been an outright lie from the day it was made. Chamberlain knew it was a lie, because his own nation’s joint military plans with France included no general French offensive. Also, one questions why Britain and France had guaranteed Poland against German invasion but not against Soviet invasion. There were 1000 victims of prewar Soviet mass murder for every one victim of prewar Nazi mass murder. Was it really so important for Poland to fall to the Soviet Union instead of Nazi Germany?

    Chamberlain’s policy towards Poland tainted what would otherwise have been a reasonably good legacy.



  • Neither were great leaders, Kurt.  That is true.  I agree with you that Chamberlain may have been the lesser of the two evils.  However, he wouldn’t have survived the cancer, anyway, probably.  Churchill failed horribly with the Gallipoli campaign in WWI and was forced to lead ground troops from the trenches as a “demotion,” which I wouldn’t have put him in, either.  Then, he failed to make any headway with any British campaign for most, if not all, of WWII (Fall of Dunkirk, Market Garden, etc.).  Apart from defending the islands during the Battle of Britain.  Yeah, man.  While a lot of your rhetoric can be hard to swallow, or I may disagree with, I find that these two, including the French, were way more a part of the problems than the solutions for this war.

    He gave cool speeches, though.



  • @WraithZer0:

    Neither were great leaders, Kurt.  That is true.  I agree with you that Chamberlain may have been the lesser of the two evils.  However, he wouldn’t have survived the cancer, anyway, probably.  Churchill failed horribly with the Gallipoli campaign in WWI and was forced to lead ground troops from the trenches as a “demotion,” which I wouldn’t have put him in, either.  Then, he failed to make any headway with any British campaign for most, if not all, of WWII (Fall of Dunkirk, Market Garden, etc.).  Apart from defending the islands during the Battle of Britain.  Yeah, man.  While a lot of your rhetoric can be hard to swallow, or I may disagree with, I find that these two, including the French, were way more a part of the problems than the solutions for this war.

    He gave cool speeches, though.

    Good post, and I agree with what you’ve written. In North Africa the British did very well against the Italians. But when fighting against the Germans, they did not achieve significant victories until after they’d achieved overwhelming numerical superiority. Subsequent British offensives (such as the one into Italy, or Operation Market Garden) were not exactly what one would have expected from Alexander the Great.

    While a lot of your rhetoric can be hard to swallow, or I may disagree with . . .

    In the past, a boy would be born into a kingdom, and would grow up to be a man. He was told that his king had his nation’s best interests at heart. He was told that his king’s enemies were his enemies, and that a mutual loyalty should and did exist between the people and their king. That system worked reasonably well as long as this mutual loyalty was upheld by both the people and the king.

    Today most nations no longer have kings. But we have the same genetics–the same hard wiring–that people had 1000 years ago. Instead of kings we have various leaders: politicians, powerful business people, etc. We assume that the relationship we have with those people is roughly similar to the relationship yeomen once had with their king. We assume that our leaders’ enemies are our enemies; that their friends are our friends.

    One of the reasons some people find my posts hard to swallow is that I do not assume that our leaders have any loyalty at all to the people or to the nation. Nor do I assume they are necessarily better human beings than some other, foreign nation’s batch of leaders. I do not assume that their friends are my friends; or that their enemies are my enemies.

    When a king is loyal to his nation, loyalty to the king and loyalty to the nation are the same thing. But when a king has cynically and callously betrayed his own nation, it becomes impossible to be loyal to both king and nation.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

    Chamberlain, like much of his generation, was haunted by the trenches of WWI and driven by a desire for peace. Events proved his attempts at peace a failure. He did fail to defend Czechoslovakia, but held the line on Poland, which he might not have done. Overall I would not condemn him for making a final attempt to avoid war. It is always worth attempting to avoid war, even if the chances are slim. Having made that attempt he did not compound the “error” by repeating it when Poland was invaded.

    However, Chamberlain should have done more to prepare Briton for the war that was increasingly likely.

    Churchill - as others have brought him into the thread - was a deeply flawed man. As a child of the British Empire many of his views are anachronistic today and some were even then. But at the time many in Britain and elsewhere credited him with Britain’s willingness to continue to fight, which was essential to the success that followed America’s later entry into the war. He was not a great strategist, but he was a great war leader, imbued with the willingness to fight that many British political and military leaders lacked early in the war.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Private:

    He did fail to defend Czechoslovakia, but held the line on Poland, which he might not have done.

    Chamberlain “held the line” largely in symbolic rather than concrete terms.  He declared war on Germany, but then did almost nothing as Poland was overrun.  Apart from the war at sea, which did accomplish some significant things, Britain and France spent the period from September 1939 to April 1940 taking virtually no combat action against Germany.  The French “Saar Offensive” saw the French army advance a few kilometers into Germany – whose western borders were practically undefended – then quietly withdraw back into France not long thereafter.  The only “bombing” actions which Chamberlain would authorize against Germany was the dropping of propaganda leaflets.  Chamberlain seemed to have convinced himself that Hitler had no support domestically, and that propaganda leaflets would cause the German people to rise up against Hitler and depose him, at which point the war could be settled without any of the actual fighting on land that Chamberlain was so desperate to avoid.  He also objected to the bombing of German armaments factories on the philosophical grounds that they were private property.  Over in France, meanwhile, General Gamelin’s long-term plan was to “hold the line” (i.e. do nothing) until France had built up enough strength to launch a real offensive against Germany…which by his estimation would not be before 1941.



  • The main goal of the Versailles Treaty was to weaken Germany. Several measures were undertaken to effect that objective:

    • Germany was only allowed a token military. It was not allowed to have tanks or planes.
    • Pieces of German land were given to Germany’s neighbors. Poland was given West Prussia and Danzig, Czechoslovakia was given the Sudetenland, and France was given the Rhineland and the Saar. This created a permanent bone of contention between Germany and its neighbors, and ensured Germany would always be encircled by enemies.
    • The above-described territorial arrangements also served to weaken Germany in terms of industrial capacity, population size, and access to natural resources.
    • Germany’s colonies were taken from it, and awarded to Allied nations.
    • Germany was crippled economically due to truly staggering reparations payments. As a result, it was unable to afford the food purchases necessary to feed the German people.

    One of the (many) problems associated with this approach was that it represented an open, ongoing invitation to the Soviet Union to invade all of Europe. The Soviets first attempted to take advantage of that invitation in the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921. Step 1 of the Soviet plan was to conquer and annex Poland. Step 2 was to move into Germany. Germany was weak and disarmed because of Versailles, and was on the brink of a communist revolution. Upon arriving in Germany, Soviet communists would join forces with local German communists, and together would seize control over Germany. With the exception of a few French military advisors, the Allies did precisely nothing to help Poland. Polish victory in the Polish-Soviet war was due to two factors: 1) The courage and ability of the Polish military. 2) The fact that the Soviet Union was still in a state of civil war.

    As a result of its defeat in the Polish-Soviet War, (and as a result of Germans communists’ failure to seize control over Germany), the Soviet government decided to postpone its plans to annex Germany. The purpose of this delay was to build up Soviet strength, so that the next attempt to conquer Germany would be more successful. During the delay, the communists destroyed their opposition in the civil war, industrialized, and militarized.

    During the '20s, the leaders of Western democracies did not provide solutions to the long-term problem of Soviet aggression. The Western democracies did not guarantee the nations of Eastern Europe against Soviet attacks. The understanding was that if the Soviet Union invaded any nation in Eastern Europe, the Western democracies would do nothing more to help that that nation than they’d done to help Poland defend itself against the Soviet invasion of 1919 - '21.

    During the Battle of France, the Allies fielded 144 divisions. By the late fall of 1941, the Red Army consisted of over 600 divisions. If the Soviet Union was allowed to absorb Eastern Europe and Germany without Western democratic opposition, Allied strength would have been insufficient to prevent a subsequent Soviet conquest of France. During the 1920s American presidents were isolationist. Starting in 1932 they were pro-Soviet. Neither an isolationist president nor a pro-Soviet president can be relied upon to resist Soviet expansionism. At no point prior to 1948 did the American government sign any treaties or take any military action intended to prevent Soviet expansion.

    At least for some Allied politicians, the lack of interest in preventing Soviet expansion was due to a primitive, almost tribal hatred of Germany and of all things German. They were so focused on their idea that Germany was the enemy and the problem that they were blind to the tens of millions of innocent people Stalin had murdered. Blind to the Soviets’ stated long-term goal of world conquest. Blind to the implications of Stalin’s aggressive industrialization and militarization. Racial slurs such as “Hun” were used to describe Germans. Western democratic leaders almost never employed similar hate speech when describing Stalin or his henchmen.

    Western democratic politicians were unwilling or unable to defend Europe from Soviet invasion–a fact which Hitler understood. Hitler’s proposed solution to that problem was for Germany, alone and unaided, to oppose Soviet invasion. In order to bear that burden, Germany needed strength. Upon taking office, Hitler rapidly grew Germany’s economy and its military. He began efforts to reclaim the German land taken from Germany at Versailles. Western politicians were alarmed by Germany’s growing strength, but (oddly enough) were not alarmed by Stalin’s massive efforts to industrialize and militarize the Soviet Union. Stalin’s efforts began well before Hitler took power; and were offensive, not defensive, in nature.

    Some politicians–such as Hoover–felt that the Nazis and the Soviets were equally bad, and that they should be left alone to fight things out among themselves. However, the “equally bad” theory is not supported by mass murder totals. There were 1000 victims of Soviet prewar mass murder for every one victim of Nazi prewar mass murder.

    For a time, it seemed as though Chamberlain had chosen the same “let them fight it out” perspective as had Hoover. His decision to allow the Sudetenland to be restored to German rule was consistent with a larger policy of allowing Germany to become stronger, so that it could better resist the Soviet Union. But due to the lies told by his political opponents, Chamberlain’s reputation suffered after Munich. In 1939, Chamberlain might have been motivated by the desire for political self-preservation, or by the desire to revenge himself against Hitler for perceived wrongs done to him. But whatever his motives may have been, he discarded his previous policy of neutrality in the Nazi-Soviet cold war. In place of that neutrality, he adopted the same kind of thinking the Allies had employed at Versailles, and that was also embraced by the British government during Churchill’s regime. Germany alone was considered the problem. German expansion alone must be contained. (While allowing Soviet expansion.) Poland was guaranteed against German invasion, but not against Soviet invasion. This was the second time in less than 20 years in which the Western democracies had chosen to do nothing at all in response to a Soviet invasion of Poland. From 1939 - 1941, the population of the eastern, Soviet-occupied half of Poland was decimated. One person out of every ten was either executed or deported to a gulag. Under Stalin, deportation to a gulag usually meant slow death due to cold and hunger.

    In 1939, the Red Army was much better prepared to take advantage of its “free pass” to invade all of Europe than it had been during the Polish-Soviet War. How strong was the Soviet Union militarily? During the Nazi-Soviet War, the Red Army could expect to lose about 500,000 men in a typical month. That’s more men than the United States lost during the entire war. At the end of the war, the Red Army in eastern Germany outnumbered the democracies’ armies in western Germany by a margin of about 3:1. That numerical advantage continued into the postwar era. In the late '40s, the Truman administration decided that the Western democracies could not resist a Soviet invasion of Europe by conventional weapons alone. If the Soviet Union invaded, it was expected that Stalin’s armies would quickly push west. The only plan for stopping them consisted of dropping nuclear bombs on advancing Soviet soldiers. The Germans were less than delighted with this plan, considering that the nuclear bombs would be dropped in West Germany, and would have killed large numbers of Germans as collateral damage. The point here being that even after the Red Army experienced staggering losses in its war against Germany, and even after the United States had chosen to station large numbers of troops in West Germany to defend against Soviet invasion, the Red Army was still strong enough to conquer all of mainland Europe. Up until his death, Stalin had been making preparations to launch an invasion of Western Europe.

    The policies of Chamberlain in 1939, and later of Churchill, represented the completion of the failure the Allies began at Versailles. Europe was to be left defenseless against the Soviet threat. The one European nation which might have had the strength to resist that invasion had been smashed to rubble. The western part of Europe was saved from the consequences of that failure by pure good luck. That good luck consisted of the following.

    1. American foreign policy unexpectedly became anti-communist. Prior to 1948, American politicians typically came in one of two flavors. Anti-communist isolationists, and pro-communist interventionists. The idea of an _anti-_communist interventionist was almost unheard-of–at least prior to 1948.

    2. Stalin died sooner than expected. His death appears to have been the result of having been given rat poison.

    3. The United States invented nuclear weapons.

    Had even one of those pieces of good luck not occurred, it’s very likely that Western Europe would have fallen to the Red Army. France, western Germany, Italy, and perhaps even Britain would have experienced the terror of the NKVD.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Some politicians–such as Hoover–felt that the Nazis and the Soviets were equally bad, and that they should be left alone to fight things out among themselves. However, the “equally bad” theory is not supported by mass murder totals. There were 1000 victims of Soviet prewar mass murder for every one victim of Nazi prewar mass murder.

    Thats why Hoover was seen as insane and marginalized by his ridiculous views. In addition, the ‘trick’ of labeling prewar mass murder as something knowing fully well the totals of murdered during war in terms of deaths caused by Nazi Germany was 1,000 fold greater than what the Soviets did. And those murders are not war deaths but rather systematic extermination of entire groups of people.

    As long as you got that clear



  • @Imperious:

    Thats why Hoover was seen as insane and marginalized by his ridiculous views. In addition, the ‘trick’ of labeling prewar mass murder as something knowing fully well the totals of murdered during war in terms of deaths caused by Nazi Germany was 1,000 fold greater than what the Soviets did. And those murders are not war deaths but rather systematic extermination of entire groups of people.

    As long as you got that clear

    Your libelous statements about Hoover and misrepresentations of mass murder during WWII are not relevant to this thread’s topic.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Your attempt to yet again somehow point out false statements about how the Soviets/Allies were more evil than Nazi Germany are not relevant to this thread’s topic.

    Stop denying where evil came from during the war.



  • @Imperious:

    Your attempt to yet again somehow point out false statements about how the Soviets/Allies were more evil than Nazi Germany are not relevant to this thread’s topic.

    Stop denying where evil came from during the war.

    This thread is a discussion of Neville Chamberlain’s legacy. In 1939, Chamberlain reverted to the traditional Allied policy of containing Germany while allowing Soviet expansion. Chamberlain’s (and later Churchill’s) consistent policy of appeasing the Soviet Union led directly to Soviet domination of postwar Europe. A situation in which European democracies could not possibly have defended themselves against a Soviet invasion even with the assistance of non-nuclear American aid.

    Had the Soviet Union successfully invaded France, western Germany, and perhaps even Britain, what would the consequences to those nations have been? For an answer, we can look to the experience of other nations the Soviet Union had annexed. The below text is a description of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States.


    The Soviets had previously carried out mass deportations in 1940–41, but the deportations between 1944–52 were even greater.[79] In March 1949 alone, the top Soviet authorities organised a mass deportation of 90,000 Baltic nationals.[81]

    The total number deported in 1944–55 has been estimated at over half a million: 124,000 in Estonia, 136,000 in Latvia and 245,000 in Lithuania.


    Deportation is a vague word. The below text paints a clearer picture of exactly what deportation meant.


    According to the Serov Instructions, the deportations were swift and efficient and came in the middle of the night. Deportees were given an hour or less to get ready to leave. . . . The families would then be taken to the railway station. That was when they discovered that the men were to be separated from the women and children. " . . . the head of the family be placed separately from his family in a car specially intended for heads of families."

    The trains were escorted by a NKVD officer and military convoy. Packed into barred cattle cars, with holes in the floor for sanitation, the deportees were taken to Siberia. Many died before even reaching their final destination because of harsh conditions. Many more perished during their first winter.


    Also, there is this:


    In 1941, to implement Stalin’s scorched earth policy, destruction battalions were formed in the western regions of the Soviet Union. In Estonia, they killed thousands of people including a large proportion of women and children, while burning down dozens of villages, schools and public buildings. A school boy named Tullio Lindsaar had all of the bones in his hands broken then was bayoneted for hoisting the flag of Estonia.


    Had the Allied policy of appeasement toward the Soviet Union reached its natural conclusion, British boys would have been tortured, then bayoneted for hoisting the Union Jack. French men, women and children would have been packed into cattle cars, with holes in the floor for sanitation. NVKD officers would have knocked on Italian families’ doors in the middle of the night. Belgian fathers would have been separated from their wives and their children. Good fortune prevented the nations of Western Europe from feeling the full effects of Chamberlain’s (and later Churchill’s) pro-Soviet foreign policy. Those behind the Iron Curtain were not so lucky. By the mid '50s, a third of the world’s population lived under the evil rule of communism. That is Chamberlain’s legacy. That is also Churchill’s legacy, Daladier’s legacy, and FDR’s legacy.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    @CWO:

    Chamberlain “held the line” largely in symbolic rather than concrete terms.Â

    Quite right Marc. I used the phrase to mean that Chamberlain did at least go to war when Poland was invaded.

    He then proved himself the opposite of the great war leader that Churchill subsequently proved himself to be. That same lack of willingness to fight I referred to in my previous post.

    Thought by responding to you I might get this thread back on track. Pigs might fly ….



  • @Private:

    @CWO:

    Chamberlain “held the line” largely in symbolic rather than concrete terms.�

    Quite right Marc. I used the phrase to mean that Chamberlain did at least go to war when Poland was invaded.

    He then proved himself the opposite of the great war leader that Churchill subsequently proved himself to be. That same lack of willingness to fight I referred to in my previous post.

    Thought by responding to you I might get this thread back on track. Pigs might fly ….

    You and several of your friends are on board a ship. The ship also contains a grizzly bear and a mountain lion. The bear is murderous, and has already killed ten people so far. While the mountain lion hasn’t killed or maimed anyone (yet?), it’s still a wild animal.

    The ship crashes near a remote island. The bear uses the opportunity to kill a few more people before it swims to shore. You and the other surviving people from the ship are now trapped on this island–along with the mountain lion and the bear. It turns out that the mountain lion and the bear hate each other. They are determined to fight, and it’s likely that only one of them will survive the fight. All the weapons went down with the ship, so the human involved have only the very primitive weapons they’ve been able to contrive from island-based materials.

    The grizzly bear greatly out-masses the mountain lion. It has far more muscle mass, and can take a lot more punishment, than can the feline. However, the mountain lion has faster movement speed and reflexes than the bear. He’s also more intelligent. The bear’s victory over the mountain lion is less than completely certain.

    That absence of certainty results in a debate among the humans. Some favor neutrality between the mountain lion and the bear. Others favor helping the bear! After an acrimonious debate in which people call each other a lot of names, the pro-bear faction wins out. As the mountain lion and the bear face off against each other, people use what primitive weapons they can to inflict as much punishment on the mountain lion as possible. Whenever there is a lull in the fighting, the humans use the opportunity to mend the bear’s wounds or to give it primitive armor. Others seek to deprive the mountain lion of fresh water to drink between bouts.

    Thanks in large part to human help, the bear wins the fight and devours the mountain lion. Then he goes to his cave for a time, to rest and recover from the injuries the mountain lion inflicted upon him. Once the bear is finished with his rest, he will awaken with blood red eyes. He will awaken with a murderous heart. He will awaken with the desire to exterminate every last human on the island. And there will no longer be a mountain lion to stand up to him.

    In the meantime, the humans congratulate each other on their courage in killing the mountain lion. They celebrate their great “victory,” and sing pseudo-patriotic songs. They congratulate themselves on having gotten rid of the “real threat.” They ignore unpleasant truths, such as the fact that most of the island has now been claimed by the bear; and is off-limits to humans.

    He then proved himself the opposite of the great war leader that Churchill subsequently proved himself to be.

    Churchill was a “great war leader” against the mountain lion. He actively aided and abetted the bear.



  • Wow, man.  You really did want the Nazis to win.  You wanted us to help them conquer Stalin, and, in turn, probably cede to letting them take over most of Europe.  Until this long-storied analogy, I believed you were just defending a well-read argument for the hindsight of the goings on of WWII.  I was really intrigued by taking a neutral look in to things, but I knowingly can’t ever choose any side other than my own country in this venture.  I am sure you say patriotism be damned, but out of your “3 evils” of the western allies, Russia, and Nazi Germany, I will always choose the allies.  Sorry, Kurt.  😞


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    The lion had already attacked me and my friends before the bear became involved. So I was not in a position to choose sides.



  • @WraithZer0:

    Wow, man.  You really did want the Nazis to win.  You wanted us to help them conquer Stalin, and, in turn, probably cede to letting them take over most of Europe.  Until this long-storied analogy, I believed you were just defending a well-read argument for the hindsight of the goings on of WWII.  I was really intrigued by taking a neutral look in to things, but I knowingly can’t ever choose any side other than my own country in this venture.  I am sure you say patriotism be damned, but out of your “3 evils” of the western allies, Russia, and Nazi Germany, I will always choose the allies.  Sorry, Kurt.   😞

    I appreciate the sincerity and candor of your post. I also respect your patriotism.

    When a soldier turns traitor, you shoot the soldier. When a general turns traitor, you hang the general if you possibly can. But what happens when a nation’s leader betrays the nation he’s charged with ruling? What happens when, as a result of that cynical treason, he leads his own nation down the road to its own destruction?

    When FDR died, Truman inherited his administration. A number of the members of that administration owed their loyalty to Joseph Stalin and to communism–not to the United States. According to Herbert Hoover’s book Freedom Betrayed, members of Truman’s state department talked about their desire for South Korea to fall to the communists. But they wanted to avoid the appearance of having pushed it over.

    In 1946 the U.S. government embargoed weapons deliveries to the Chinese nationalists, because members of Truman’s administration thought those weapons shouldn’t be used in a civil war against the communists. Also, the nationalists were pressured to cede more and more to the communists–to meet them halfway. But the United States government never pressured the communists to be more reasonable to the nationalists. After WWII ended, Stalin had plenty of American Lend Lease weapons lying around. He gave a large portion of those weapons to the Chinese communists. The communists also received Japanese weapons caches which the Red Army captured during its invasion of Manchuria. Chinese communists had access to more and better weapons than did the nationalists–which proved an important factor in the ultimate communist victory in China.

    That same cynical, deliberate treason against the United States was also seen toward the end of WWII. Harry Dexter White was a known Soviet agent within the FDR administration. (One of many.) He was also the original author of the Morgenthau Plan. The central objective of the Moregenthau Plan was to create hunger (and outright starvation) in the democratic portion of postwar Germany. Partly, that was intended as revenge against Germany for having gone to war against the Soviet Union. But the main (communist) reason for formulating the Morgenthau Plan was so that West Germany would go communist.


    It took two years (1945 to 1947) of death and disease, and fears that starving Germans might “go Communist” before U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes made his Stuttgart speech.


    Given the Soviets’ stated long-term goal of world conquest, starving West Germany into the acceptance of communism represented deliberate treason in the face of an avowed (and very powerful) enemy. The Morgenthau Plan was formulated under the FDR administration, and FDR himself was a strong supporter of the plan. It was implemented under the Truman administration, in the form of JCS 1067. Not only was JCS a crime against humanity, the apparent motive for that crime was the advancement of a treasonous objective.

    At what point did the “contain Germany, appease the USSR” crowd knowingly commit treason? When did they first decide to cynically betray the nations they were tasked to lead? For the most part, I do not think that the “contain Germany, appease the USSR” politicians of the Versailles Treaty era were guilty of treason. Many or most of those politicians were fairly despicable human beings, granted. But they were not (so far as I can tell) traitors.

    At least in the United States, the transition from non-treason to treason probably occurred in the election of 1932. FDR (deliberately?) allowed his administration to become a rats’ nest of Soviet agents, fellow travelers, and sympathizers. Whenever there was an internal disagreement within FDR’s administration, FDR typically sided with the Soviet agents. The Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin were therefore able to exert considerable control over the FDR administration, especially when the most important decisions were being made.

    Stalin wanted a one front war, in Europe. It was therefore important that Japan be distracted. Fairly early in the Chinese civil war, Mao captured Chiang Kai-shek. Mao’s instinct was to shoot him. But before doing so, he radioed Moscow for instructions. The instructions came back: “Do not shoot him. Force him to fight the Japanese.”

    But the war between the Chinese nationalists and the Japanese was not alone enough to distract the latter from a possible attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin used his (considerable) influence in the United States, and his influence in Japan, to encourage war between the United States and Japan. The United States government embraced eight separate provocations against Japan; the most serious of which was the oil embargo. (Some of the provocations included moving the U.S. Pacific Fleet from California to Hawaii, basing American strategic bombers in the Philippines, and deliberate violations of Japanese territorial waters by American destroyers and cruisers.) These provocations ultimately resulted in the Pearl Harbor attack. Once the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Stalin knew that the Japanese could no longer afford to launch a serious invasion of the U.S.S.R. He transferred 100 divisions from his eastern front to his western front. Given that the Germans had used only 100 divisions in their initial invasion of the Soviet Union, the appearance of 100 additional Soviet divisions proved devastating.

    After the end of WWII in Europe, General Patton began speaking out against the Soviet-influenced war crimes then being committed by the American government. He strongly disagreed with the decision to ship many or most American-held German POWs to France or the Soviet Union. He pointed out that in French or Soviet custody, many of these men would die of starvation.

    Patton died a few months after having first pointed out the Truman administration’s war crimes. Evidence strongly indicates, but does not prove, that he was assassinated. Patton was the patriot, the men who ordered his assassination were traitors. Traitors who deserved to be hanged not just for the war crimes they had committed, but for having betrayed the nation they’d sworn to protect.

    The Soviet Union was stronger than Nazi Germany in terms of population size, industrial capacity, and access to raw materials. Perhaps even more importantly, it was also much stronger than Nazi Germany in terms of its ability to influence the behavior of Western democratic governments.

    When a man contracts rabies, the rabies virus overrides some of his brain’s programming. Specifically, the virus causes the man to want to bite the people and animals around him. Biting allows the virus to spread. Eventually the rabies virus will kill the man’s brain; and therefore the man. But unless the man has been physically restrained, odds are that before he dies he will have bitten a significant number of victims. His infected saliva will seep into his victims’ wounds.

    The governments of Western democracies had been infected with the communist virus. Due to that infection, they experienced a strong desire to “bite” any nation which stood up to communism. That desire to bite was motivated not by patriotism, but by a treasonous illness.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1
  • 15
  • 1
  • 10
  • 27
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

59
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts