Article

2003-03-03 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-03-03 09:51 am|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Kennedy is full of it. At the time of the Munich conference in 1938, Hitler had only invaded Austria, and that operation wasn't much of an invasion as the Austrians didn't mount any resistance. In 1939, when Hitler actually started invading countries, appeasement was no longer the official policy, at least not in Britain, which started to rearm. The French are a different matter entirely, but they like foul smelling dictators as much as they like stinking cheese.

Posted by Peter 2003-03-03 05:03:17|| 2003-03-03 05:03:17|| Front Page Top

#2 The result of the US pre-emtive strategy is that Saddam must go not primarily for what he has done in the past or present (which is reason enough in itself) but what he might do in the future. This theoretical and probable threat to America's security is paramount. Not only must Iraq be destroyed, but the message of Iraq must be a clear warning to any other state (Iran, or PDRK if they are capable of paying attention) that the USA has a zero tolerance for terrorism and WMD.

The irony is that as the anti-war movement grows and becomes more vocal, it can only reinforce the will of the United States to make Saddam's regime a sentinel example.

The rigidity in position that this creates results in the diplomatic turmoil that we see within the UN, EU, and NATO, as nations struggle to adjust to the new world order: Conclusion of the Gulf War is simply not negotiable. Denial is not an option.

"You are with us or with the terrorists". Bye bye Saddam. Who wants to be next?

Posted by john 2003-03-03 06:26:01|| 2003-03-03 06:26:01|| Front Page Top

#3 I don't think that Blair's comparison with appeasement of Munich 1938 is accurate. At this time Britain and France were already facing a very powerful adversary. A war against Germany would have been extremely risky and would already have caused WWII and millions of deaths. You don't "appease" an enemy because he is weak but may become stronger, you appease him because he is already too strong and you hope he might just spare you if you let him have his way with others.
The situation now is closer to 1933-35, when Hitler (illegally) pushed the militarization of Germany, entered demilitarized Rhineland. At this time he broke the Versailles Treaty (unjust as it may have been but a treaty Germany signed), so the allies would have had a legal cause to invade Germany and disarm it. A pre-emptive strike in 1935 would have made a difference (probably not considered because Britain and France were still war weary). In 1938 a pre emptive strike would not have had a wide backing in France and Britain (people desperately wanted to keep the peace). America would not have joined (remember the U.S. had to be attacked by Japan and declared war by Germany to join the war). In 1940 the U.S. (while helping Britain) still did trade with Germany and would not be dragged into the war.
If we believe that Saddam will regain his power and be a real danger in a few years then acting time is now, not later. It's 1934, not 1938.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-03-03 14:24:53|| 2003-03-03 14:24:53|| Front Page Top

#4 America would not have joined (remember the U.S. had to be attacked by Japan and declared war by Germany to join the war). In 1940 the U.S. (while helping Britain) still did trade with Germany and would not be dragged into the war.

Well... not quite accurate. By Dec. 7th 1941 the US was doing everything but firing the gun. The notion that they had to be dragged into it isn't true. Military cooperation between Britain and the US began as early as Jan. 1941, which included discussions on how to "handle" Germany and the agreement that Germany was to be defeated first. In Jul. '41 troops from General Marston's 1st Marine Brigade landed in Iceland relieving the British forces stationed there. At the same time USN aircraft started regular antisubmarine patrols from bases in Newfoundland. Not to mention Lend-Lease and all that other stuff they were sharing with Britain.

Posted by RW 2003-03-03 17:37:34|| 2003-03-03 17:37:34|| Front Page Top

#5 Well.. I said 1940. And my point is that Britain and France could not have counted on the U.S. had they led a "pre-emptive strike" against Germany in 1938.
Appeasement was certainly wrong then but understandable. It's a lot easier to rally your own people behind you if you are attacked.
Without 9/11 its highly unlikely that the U.S. public would approve a full scaled invasion of Iraq now, even if Saddam had broken some more UN resolutions.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-03-03 19:11:34|| 2003-03-03 19:11:34|| Front Page Top

20:11 Brett_the_Quarkian
19:15 Frank G
17:50 Anonymous6136
02:26 Rocky
06:56 raptor
00:49 Hugh Jorgan
00:35 flash91
00:19 Hugh Jorgan
23:55 Frank Martin
23:47 B.
23:33 Michael Levy
22:31 Steve White
22:31 Steve
21:57 Bomb-a-rama
21:39 J. Michael Krause
21:38 Chap
21:32 Bill
21:24 Ptah
21:18 Ptah
21:16 Johnny
21:16 Ptah
20:51 Steve
20:39 Alaska Paul
20:22 Alaska Paul