RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Zonie63 -> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. (8/1/2013 5:12:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Zonie, love the way Appeasement is thrown about, what were the US doing to stop Hitler prior to 1939 ?


We didn't really see that it was our job. Hitler was your creation, not ours. He was on your continent, not ours. He was the responsibility of Europeans to deal with.



Your Government didnt see it that way, since the Fourteen Point Plan was written by Wilson.... You all knew that, right ?


Wilson's Fourteen Points were discarded at Versailles, mainly at the insistence of the French who wanted a war guilt clause. The Russians also called for peace without annexations or indemnities, but that was also rejected by the French and British.

The Germans based their surrender in WW1 on the offer that the Allies would go along with the Fourteen Points, but when they didn't do that, it sparked an angry reaction in Germany which eventually led to Hitler's rise to power.

If Britain and France had faithfully followed the Fourteen Points and pledged an honorable peace without annexations or indemnities, it might very well have turned out differently.

Regardless of what was or wasn't written by Wilson, the fact remains that the US Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles or the US entry into the League of Nations. So, the volcanic resentment created within Germany afterwards was largely the fault of Britain's and France's governments, not our government.

The real tragedy of it all is that the Germans actually overthrew the Kaiser, the one who was truly guilty of causing the war, yet the British and French let him off the hook and instead chose to blame those who overthrew him and sued for peace. Germany was making an honest go at democratic government, while Britain and France kept poking at them and grabbing their pound of flesh all through the 1920s. So, when Hitler rises to power, Britain and France decide they're going to appease Germany?

That's what makes the Anglo-French position all the more curious and inexplicable. They put the screws to those who would have favored a peaceful and democratic Germany, yet gave a free pass to militant nationalists like the Kaiser and Hitler.

The main reason why Appeasement was even necessary was because the British and French needed to buy time. The Germans had been rapidly building up their armaments, reached parity with Britain and France, then kept building. Britain and France were caught unprepared, which was not a wise policy if they intended to enforce the terms of the Treaty of Versailles indefinitely.

So, that was another mistake on their part. They imposed an aggressive, heavy-handed policy on Germany, yet failed to maintain the military might needed to enforce that policy.

I don't see where any of this would have been the responsibility of the United States government. We didn't see that we had any obligation to stop Hitler at that point, but even if we did, it would still have had to be done with the cooperation of Britain and France. If they were unwilling to attack Germany back then, it's doubtful they would have allowed the U.S. to use their countries as staging areas to launch an attack. Our military was also undermanned and undersupplied at the time, so we didn't have the strength to stop Germany either, not in '38 or '39.

So, to answer your question "what were the US doing to stop Hitler prior to 1939 ?" it should be noted that that's something that many Americans ask each other. That brings us back to the earlier point of why the United States acts so aggressively and unilaterally around the world. The fact is, we didn't do enough early on to stop Hitler before he got going, and that's something that weighs heavily on the American collective conscience.

Both the US and UK have since recognized that Appeasement was a mistake, so I'm not even sure why you're defending it or trying to shift the blame to the U.S.

I've already mentioned that there's a sense of remorse and guilt in the U.S. over our failure to join the League of Nations or actively take steps to stop Hitler before 1939, so Americans already blame themselves. That's why the U.S. has the policies it does now, because we don't want to make that same mistake again.

By the same token, those who oppose US interventionism and militarism around the world are seen as making the same mistakes of Appeasement. It's a bit of a false argument, since it assumes that every rogue leader in the world is "just like Hitler" (or we might hear the phrase "Axis of Evil"), but all I was trying to do was explain the historical factors and motives behind America's apparent aggressive militarism in the present day.






Zonie63 -> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. (8/1/2013 5:36:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
It just gets better and better dont it? It was our europroblem for sure. But thanks to the americans we were saved, thanks again![:D]


I didn't say that America actually "saved" Europe. I was only suggesting that the reason Americans tend to scorn and not listen to advice, suggestions, or criticisms coming from Europeans is because of the results of history. As we've seen how Europeans have run their own continent and the rest of the world over these past centuries, we conclude that maybe they're not the most qualified to give advice to Americans as to how to run a nation or an empire.





Powergamz1 -> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. (8/1/2013 5:48:55 AM)

The more venal among us (cough cough Dulles, cough) tried their best to emulate Europe's worst examples.

There seems to have been a sense at some point that America was better than that, but it is hard to find in political practice today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I didn't say that America actually "saved" Europe. I was only suggesting that the reason Americans tend to scorn and not listen to advice, suggestions, or criticisms coming from Europeans is because of the results of history. As we've seen how Europeans have run their own continent and the rest of the world over these past centuries, we conclude that maybe they're not the most qualified to give advice to Americans as to how to run a nation or an empire.







VideoAdminChi -> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. (8/1/2013 7:42:16 AM)

FR,

This thread is locked for review.




VideoAdminChi -> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. (8/1/2013 10:31:03 AM)

In the interest of unlocking this thread in a timely manner, only the last page has been reviewed and cleaned. As a reminder, please stick to the topic and do not make other posters the topic.




Politesub53 -> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. (8/1/2013 4:11:22 PM)

Zonie, every nation that wins a war expects the losers to pay the costs. Thats exactly what happened after the America Civil War, WW1 and WW2. After WWI no amount of monies could replace a lost generation, which partly explains the reluctance to have a second world war. The very same reason resuled in the UN being formed after WW2.

Britain was also against some aspects of the treaty and UK officials had considered the terms the French wanted as greedy. You are correct to say Britain wasnt in any way ready to confront Hitler when the Munich Agreement was signed, so why mention appeasment. It was more a case of being prctical and wary of having a second world war. I have seen the word and the charge banded about by many Americans on this forum and it is far from accurate, more so given our lone stand against Hitler during the early years of the war.

Even at Yalta, the three main powers, Britain, US and Russia had one eye on how events after WW2 would affect their own nation. This was overiding of any issues world wide after the war. History has always been the same.





dcnovice -> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. (8/1/2013 6:01:47 PM)

quote:

given our lone stand against Hitler during the early years of the war.

This brings to mind one of my favorite Churchillian utterances:

When I warned [the French] that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did,
their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet,
"In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken."
Some chicken! Some neck!


Winston Churchill, Ottawa, Dec. 30, 1941




Zonie63 -> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. (8/1/2013 6:54:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Zonie, every nation that wins a war expects the losers to pay the costs.


That doesn't mean it's a good policy. Peace without annexations or indemnities would have been the wiser course of action.

Besides, after World War II, we worked to help (West) Germany and Japan rebuild their economies so that they would still be viable and not destitute like Germany was after WW1. We didn't want them as enemies again, and in fact, we needed them as allies against the USSR. So, we weren't going to make the same mistake that was made at Versailles in 1919. We learned from that as well.

quote:


Britain was also against some aspects of the treaty and UK officials had considered the terms the French wanted as greedy. You are correct to say Britain wasnt in any way ready to confront Hitler when the Munich Agreement was signed, so why mention appeasment. It was more a case of being prctical and wary of having a second world war. I have seen the word and the charge banded about by many Americans on this forum and it is far from accurate, more so given our lone stand against Hitler during the early years of the war.


I'm not denying that or taking away any credit from Britain. But the fact remains that they did get caught unprepared and were forced to buy time at Munich.

But that aside, my only point in mentioning that at all was because it's still very much on the mindsets of Americans in terms of supporting our foreign policy. We recognize our own mistakes leading up to that war, as well as the mistakes made by European powers. Not wanting to repeat those mistakes has been the primary justification behind U.S. foreign policy as we know it today. I didn't just mention Appeasement out of the blue; it was just an example in the context of the larger discussion on U.S. foreign policy in general and how it has developed over our history.







dcnovice -> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. (8/1/2013 7:02:26 PM)

quote:

Peace without annexations or indemnities would have been the wiser course of action.

Woodrow Wilson tried arguing for this:

[I]t must be a peace without victory..... Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor's terms imposed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand. Only a peace between equals can last, only a peace the very principle of which is equality and a common participation in a common benefit. The right state of mind, the right feeling between nations, is as necessary for a lasting peace as is the just settlement of vexed questions of territory or of racial and national allegiance.

--Speech to the U.S. Senate, January 22, 1917




Page: <<   < prev  13 14 15 16 [17]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0546875