Imagine saying this 15 or 20 years ago when we still had lots of WWII vets alive. He’d be done.
“All wars are fought twice, the first time on the battlefield, the second time in memory”
I don’t think so. My father was in the RAF during the war. Bombed by the Germans and shot at by the Japanese. He is also the reason I’m a pacifist.
His brother-in-law was part of the BEF, that was rescued at Dunkirk.
Neither of them were particularly chatty about the war.
I think that for those that faced the horror of the war, almost all of them would have preferred not to have to endure that brutality. If an earlier intervention with Hitler could have prevented D-Day, I think most veterans of that conflict would be all for it.
Total opposite experience in my family. Especially the Jewish side.
If there had been an earlier interdiction, I’m reasonably certain the Nazi’s Final Solution would not have come to fruition. Or been stopped far earlier than D-Day. I’m pretty sure Senator Graham’s argument is exactly that.
We celebrated the 80th anniversary of D-Day. It was a failure. It was the 'unnecessary war, ’ described by Winston Churchill. We had a dozen chances to stop Hitler. It’s not about NATO. It’s not about American weapons in Ukraine. It’s about a megalomaniac wanting to create the Russian Empire by force of arms.
Bad choice of words, but this reads to me like we should have acted earlier with Hitler. And we should now with Putin as well.
Even though he says it’s not about NATO, he’s trying to lay groundwork for anti NATO posturing. Anything that makes it more cozy for pro Putin sentiment his guy is championing.
The Neville Chamberlain of our time is Angela Merkel. Her softballing of any and all reactions to the 2014 invasion (more or less the Anschluss of our time) was categorically inexcusable and deeply wrongheaded.
And the continued softballing. Even economically.
For sure. Her ceaseless push for rapprochement with Russia in the face of their incredibly obvious territorial ambitions - not to mention, the fact that she outright ignored and disparaged pretty much all of Eastern Europe’s concerns about Russia (which, by the way, largely turned out to be spot on) was so deeply imbecilic that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. The history, the signs, and the evidence were all there; she just refused to see it.
The Neville Chamberlain of our time is Angela Merkel.
I thought the modern view of Chamberlain had evolved. Chamberlain knew that the UK wasn’t prepared for war. If the UK had instead went head to head with the Axis powers in Europe the UK armed forces would have been quickly been overwhelmed. Instead, with the “appeasement” doctrine, it bought time for the UK to prepare to be on the front lines of war, as well as turn up the war machine of USA industry.
I didn’t think the old thought that Chamberlain didn’t think think Hitler was a threat was still the common idea.
Wait, what?
As far as I am aware, Chamberlain was central to the UK (and their allies at the time) following an appeasement policy instead of intervening in Czechoslovakia (which, crucially at the time, had arguably the most advanced defense industry in the world, which Nazi Germany co-opted to substantially augment their own defense industry), Austria, or Poland. Add that to the fact that his defense policy was much more along the lines of bluster and bravado, instead of actually trying to gear the UK up for an obviously imminent (so long as one didn’t subscribe to the “appeasement” point of view) major conflict. This materially negatively affected the BEF’s combat ability during the UK’s attempt to help the French push back the Germans (TL;DR Dunkirk), and overall, gave the Third Reich the breathing room they needed to significantly strengthen their military industry, and as a direct consequence, their military.
All that said, if you have some sources regarding the “modern reinterpretation” of Chamberlain’s policies and actions vis a vis WW2, I would be quite interested to check them out.
“Therefore, British military intervention on the continent might be necessary “at any time within the next, say, three to ªve years.” Under these circumstances, the report concluded, the British military was woe- fully underfunded and unprepared, which necessitated a signiªcant rearma- ment campaign. 43”
“The rearmament campaign would be a slow one, particularly given the eco- nomic constraints imposed by the world economic crisis and British war debts to the United States. Consequently, the government needed to buy time and became obsessed with “the importance of not giving Germany any excuse to re-arm without further parley.” 44 Thus was born the policy of accommodating German demands in the face of increasing German perªdy, in an attempt to slow the pace of German challenges.”
“Their idea was that if Hitler were to begin open, full-scale rearma- ment in violation of part 5 of the Versailles treaty, Britain would be powerless to oppose the fait accompli; therefore, they were better off acknowledging Ger- many’s covert rearmament and permitting it, in exchange for freely agreed- upon limits on German armed forces.”
“This hardly refects a belief that appeasement would bring lasting peace. Instead, the documents reveal a wide- spread pessimism and feeling of powerlessness to stop the German challenges until Britain fully rearmed. 53”
You can also read the notes from Chamberlain on his meeting with Hitler, as well as UK General Ismay to the British Cabinet.
"(b) So far as air power is concerned, Germany may be able to maintain her lead over the Franco-British Air Forces in air striking power. On the other hand, it is open to us, provided that we make the necessary effort, to catch her up, or at least greatly reduce her lead, in the matter of defence (both active and passive) against air attack. By so doing we shall have heavily insured ourselves against the greatest danger to which we are present exposed: indeed by substantially reducing Germany’s only chance of a rapid decision, we shall have provided a strong deterrent against her making the attempt.
© It follows, therefore, that, from the military point of view, time is in our favour, and that, if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months’ time, than to accept the present challenge.
Fascinating.
While I agree that the UK had few options at the time - and none of them great - the fact remains that Germany was subject to largely the same economic constraints: global economic recession, and (more onerous even than the UK’s war debts) war reparations that further crippled their economy. It’s just that Hitler and the Nazi Party simply built their military industry and armed forces up anyways.
One of the approaches Chamberlain could have taken would have been to open talks with the US government to discuss extensions on their repayment schedule, due to the disturbingly escalating tensions in mainland Europe (and don’t forget that the Soviets were also a significant threat at the time, ultimately culminating with their invasions of Finland and Poland). All that said… there were significant fascistic elements in the US at the time, many of which pushed for outright alliance with Germany, so unfortunately, that may have ended up as a non-starter.
TL;DR: while I appreciate the data and context, I still don’t think I agree with the characterization that Chamberlain did all that was possible at the time. Though, to be fair, fascism itself was a new and novel political system at the time, and not many people outside of fascist political leaders themselves really fully understood the full implications of a fascist world power (Italy; Germany). Also to be fair, Stanley Baldwin (Chamberlain’s predecessor) and Ramsay MacDonald (Baldwin’s predecessor) absolutely set the stage for the difficulties that Chamberlain faced. And, to again be fair, almost every single world power at that point was kinda also preoccupied with the Great Depression.
Edit: all of which is creepily similar in a lot of ways to the situation the world finds itself in now.
God, what a shitty article. The title quote is literally just from some random internet person.
Lindsey Graham supports Ukraine. If you look at anything else he’s said on the subject, including the rest of the interview, his stance on it is abundantly clear. Newsweek, for example, covers the remarks while doing the most basic level of journalistic integrity by presenting the context rather than covering a bunch of random social media dunks from randos who don’t know what they’re talking about.
Graham firmly responded, “No, it represents him and him alone. If you spend 15 minutes studying Putin and what he wants, he wants to recreate the Russian Empire. He’s not going to stop in Ukraine. It’s not about NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization], it’s not about American weapons in Ukraine, it’s about a megalomaniac wanting to create the Russian Empire by force of arms.”
“If we help Ukraine now, they could become the best business partner we ever dreamed of They’re sitting on a goal mine. To give Putin 10-12 trillion that he will share with China is ridiculous.”
“There’s $300 billion sitting in Europe from Russian sovereign wealth, assets that we should seize and give to Ukraine. We have Russian money in America we should seize. We should make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law. When I suggested that to President Zelensky, he lit up like a Christmas tree. Making Russia a state sponsor of U.S.- state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law would be a very big blow to Russia.”
You’re eating your own, libs.
Lindsey Graham supports Ukraine
Lindsey Graham doesn’t hold a single real position on any issue, other than “what currently benefits me the most?”
As with most politicians. But do you have any actual evidence to support the idea that Graham’s support of Ukraine is not genuine?
Yes. His name is Lindsey Graham. A staunch anti-Trumper until it was detrimental to him too continue to be so.
Sorry, I was asking you for evidence about his position on Ukraine. Since you presented unrelated evidence, I’m afraid you’re going to lose two bars of health.
Go away, bot.
Nope I just completely made it up off the top of my head to be a silly guy. Lindsey actually has an impeccable track record of never flip flopping his words or voting against his own stated stances on issues. It’s why he’s known as one of the greatest and most reputable congresspersons of our generation. He’s more than earned the benefit of the doubt wouldn’t you say?
Got it, so you don’t have any evidence.
Nope I completely made it up! Certainly Lindsey Graham will never change his stance on Ukraine, that would be a silly thing to think given his historic track record of staying on the same side of issues. I should continue reading and believing things that Lindsey Graham says
I understand that this whole thread is just about repeating unsubstaniated bullshit about a shitty person because he’s a shitty person, you don’t have to keep telling me that.
I guess the difference is that I care about whether the things I’m saying are actually true, even when I’m talking about someone I personally dislike.
The things you’re saying are not true.
Oh but you and I agree. We both love defending Lindsey Graham and giving him the benefit of the doubt because he’s earned it. Keep on fighting the good fight brother
“A loan on friendly terms allows America, who is deeply in debt, a chance to get our money back and changes the paradigm of how we help others,” Graham said. “President Trump is right to insist that we think outside the box.”
Graham, usually a national security hawk who previously had supported aid to Ukraine, voted against it.
Graham is a flip-flopping spineless coward. You can tell that because they put a ‘R’ behind his name.
Interesting, thank you. It appears there is evidence that he’s not fully supportive of Ukraine.
“We celebrated the 80th anniversary of D-Day. It was a failure. It was the 'unnecessary war, ’ described by Winston Churchill. We had a dozen chances to stop Hitler. It’s not about NATO. It’s not about American weapons in Ukraine. It’s about a megalomaniac wanting to create the Russian Empire by force of arms.”
He did say what was in the title quote.
If I was being really generous, I’d say this is a nuanced statement saying that Hitler could have been stopped in a hundred different ways before it ever got to that point. I’m not inclined to be generous to Lindsay Graham, however. Part of that is because people who were Graham’s political ancestors in Germany–people like von Hindenburg, or Georg Neithardt, the judge in the Beer Hall Putsch trial–are the one’s at the top of the list of people who could have stopped it much sooner.
He did say what was in the title quote.
Who was it who said “He’s truly lost his mind,” the quote that appears at the start of the title, which some might describe as, “the title quote?” Was it, perhaps, an Internet user identified in the article only as “SnarkyPanda,” who some might describe as, “a random internet person?”
If I was being really generous
That’s not “being really generous,” it’s the obvious interpretation and the only coherent one. How do you interpret it, exactly? That he thinks fighting Hitler was bad because he thinks Hitler was good? How on earth does that make any sense whatsoever with the overall point he was making?
It’s clickbait soundbite outrage porn for people who either can’t read or have no interest in reading. It’s no different from what you’d find in a celebrity tabloid, just for a different audience.
