726
Trump suggests giving Vladimir Putin whatever he wants
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
726 points (98.8% liked)
politics
18931 readers
3266 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No need to imagine when we have history to reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
To his credit, Chamberlain wasn't as bad as he's made out. When he implemented his policy of appeasement, Britain was not actually capable of meaningfully resisting nazi Germany. He basically brought time to bring Britain back to a war footing. When it became obvious to the public that war was coming, he fell on his sword. This cleared the way for Churchill to take charge, without significant infighting. He also inherited Britain on a far better war footing, and even then it was a close thing.
Basically, Chamberlain knew his plan wouldn't work long term. He took one "for king and country", likely knowing how it would be perceived. I can at least respect him for that.
I'm not arguing it was or wasn't right for Britain position at the time. Just making the point we know, from direct history, a policy of appeasement does nothing to stop further advancement.
It did though. Hitler could have gone after Britain and france earlier. However, he thought Britain was staying out of things, and so played more safe and slow. This brought Britain the time it needed. Hitler honestly didn't expect Britain to declare war on him, and that slowed his assault on that front. If WW2 had gone serious even 6 months earlier, Britain would have been in serious trouble. The RAF would have collapsed under the luftwaffa, and WW2 would have been very different. Appeasement traded lives for time.
Don't get me wrong, it was a dick move, and threw others under the tanks tracks to save Britain. It's also worth noting that this is not what Trump is trying to do. He's just being a boot licker to the most powerful person who will talk to him. Appeasement at least had a positive goal.
I think the person's point is that the situations are not entirely analogous. For one, the US at the moment is certainly not "not on war footing," nor do we need to buy time to build up forces.
The only reason it "worked" for Britain in WW2 was due to the specific situation that you described; that they needed to buy time.
I would not call that a useful strategy in any other circumstance.
Hitler didn't have a strong military in 1930's either. It gave Hitler time to build.
"The Rhineland coup is often seen as the moment when Hitler could have been stopped with very little effort; the German forces involved in the move were small, compared to the much larger, and at the time more powerful, French military."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland#:~:text=On%207%20March%201936%2C%20using,decided%20against%20enforcing%20the%20treaties.
No they didn't, people tend to think it was all tanks zipping all over the place, but a good proportion of their army was still horse driven. I was stationed in (British Army) barrack in Germany in the 1980's. Barracks that had been built during the German build up prior to WW2. There was more space for horses than troops.
"how do you remove your hand from a lion's mouth?"
"very carefully."
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.