Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on March 20, 2002, 11:25:52 AM
-
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020320-167972.htm
World tax my ass!:mad:
We already have to worry about a couple hundred crooks in our congress, why would we want to worry about a whole worlds worth of American haters having the power to tax anything in our country?
-
We are already being taxed for foreign aid.
-
We should tax the world for giving them "Iron Fist" support.
-
When did the US ever particpate in a war that wasn't in there own best interest? Iraq should pay for your military to kick it's ass?? Go IRON FIST!!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
When did the US ever particpate in a war that wasn't in there own best interest? Iraq should pay for your military to kick it's ass?? Go IRON FIST!!
negative, Canada should pay us for them not being invaded yet in the last 50 years., Mexico for that matter too.
-
Hey Rip, are you familiar with Canada's Nato obligations over the past 50 years? Or that of western Europes...hell even the US's?
On top of that, do you think that the US military was always as good as it is now for the whole last 50 years.
-
When did the US ever particpate in a war that wasn't in there own best interest?
Normally Thrawn I admire your passion and your politics, however this statement is just plain silly. When has anyone gone to war when it wasn't in their own best interests?
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Normally Thrawn I admire your passion and your politics, however this statement is just plain silly. When has anyone gone to war when it wasn't in their own best interests?
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Probably never. But an American suggested that the rest of world should pay a tax to the US, for Operation: IRON FIST SUPPORT.
Not slammin' American's here, I just think that rip went a bit far. The US supports other nations for their own self interest, the rest of the world shouldn't have to pay for this.
-
Thrawn, I went too far in asking the opposite of the ridiculous 'world tax'...in other words, if they're going to ask for a world tax, we should ask for back payment for military build up that kept the Communists out of most of Western Europe, one ridiculous request deserves another in reply (as speaking to them, not you)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
negative, Canada should pay us for them not being invaded yet in the last 50 years., Mexico for that matter too.
:D
I seem to remember that the US DID try to invade Canada once....during the War of 1812 - but it was more than 50 years ago.
I think Rip is just bitter that Canada didn't pay to have the White House rebuilt after they followed the retreating US army and burned it down!
;)
:p
-
World Tax? pffffft
I would like to see Mexico try and collect....
- GW- "Let's see Mr. Vincente...you owe us like billions of dollars and you want us to pay what????"
-
Don't get me started! Who supplied Britain in her darkest hour with her unlimited resources? Who rebuilt Germany and Japan after helping to win the war? Want more? Who has given out more money to just about every country in the world in terms of loans, or charity? and THEY have the nerve to say the rich countries like the US should be taxed...:eek:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Thrawn, I went too far in asking the opposite of the ridiculous 'world tax'...in other words, if they're going to ask for a world tax, we should ask for back payment for military build up that kept the Communists out of most of Western Europe, one ridiculous request deserves another in reply (as speaking to them, not you)
Gotcha rip, me stoopid, my apologies.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Gotcha rip, me stoopid, my apologies.
On the contrary, my friend, you are smart in forcing me to be more clear on my opinionated opinion! :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Don't get me started! Who supplied Britain in her darkest hour with her unlimited resources? Who rebuilt Germany and Japan after helping to win the war? Want more? Who has given out more money to just about every country in the world in terms of loans, or charity? and THEY have the nerve to say the rich countries like the US should be taxed...:eek:
Ugh, now I'm going to be a jerk again.:(
It could be argued that Britain's darkest hour was during the BoB. And Britain paid for every bit of materiel it recieved from the US. Please, I don't mean any disrespect to you. I'm trying to deminish the US's contribution to the Allies during WW2 nor could I if I wanted to.
-
I'll go for a world tax on rich countries as long as foreign aid given out by a country aside from the world tax acts as a deduction from the world tax. In other words, if a country is already given foreign aid, they shouldn't be taxed for more foreign aid. This is much like how Americans can deduct their charity contributions from their income tax.
Either that or we'll stop giving out foreign aid on a country by country basis and the UN can decide appropriate the aid.
That's the main issue though. They want to start taxing before they say how they are going to spend the tax. No chance of the US signing off on that one.
Anybody have links to what the US has given out in foreign aid recently?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
And Britain paid for every bit of materiel it recieved from the US.
Actually "payment" was in the form of granting the US the right to have naval and air bases in a bunch of countries...including Bermuda...not cash. Effectively it was no real "skin off their nose".
And....it COST the US a ton of money to set them up and maintain them. These bases then provided the host countries with millions in cash into their respective economies for many years.
The US just pulled out of Bermuda recently....my only beef is that they left one hell of a mess when they left!
-
i don't see anything wrong with it.
i already step over people lying in pools of vomit with a cup out every day. they get over $600 p/mo in this town plus medical care , food stamps, shelter and clothing not to mention handouts on every block.
i remember as a pizza deliverer in highschool how much our biz increased on the first and 15th - and staring at those $50 nail jobs when they handed me the money......
if i could take the money they get and redistribute it to some starving kid who really would work if they got a chance that'd be great.
besides, i like anything that moves us toward a world government and away from the primitively divided world we live in now.
taxation leads to calls for greater representation, leads to a more formal structure or greater power of the u.n. ........maybe......worth hoping for at least.
as for 'who's the biggest baddest crewcut on the block' i'll leave that to you guys :rolleyes:
-
Has anyone that supports this actually looked at the proposed taxes? Talk about regressive, if you proposed something like that domesticly in the US you'd be run out of town as a right wing rape the poor wacko.
-
..and to add to Curval and Thrawn, it *was* in our best interest to help Britain out, after all, once the Germans had England, it was only a matter of time to either make peace with Germany, or encounter the Germans moving to Iceland, Canada, and eventually attacking America.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
Anybody have links to what the US has given out in foreign aid recently?
no link, but I read it was in the neighborhood of 2 trillion per year.
-
"tax activities such as airline travel, currency transfers and carbon emissions "
i dont think taxing currency tansfers is going to wreck a budding financial institution or that airlines wil go out of business with a small tax. it can be almost negligible because it is drawn form the world population. imagine a .0001 cent tax from the whole world....thats a lot
carbon emissions is the only thing i see that could penalize a developing industrial base - what else is there?
either way it's more about the idea than the specific details - a world buy in is the first step, making it equitable is the second. the details can be ironed out i think it's the idea that's stopping everyone and bringing out the reactionaries...
-
What are u guy's talking about.....I thought Canada was the 51st State.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
"tax activities such as airline travel, currency transfers and carbon emissions "
i dont think taxing currency tansfers is going to wreck a budding financial institution or that airlines wil go out of business with a small tax. it can be almost negligible because it is drawn form the world population. imagine a .0001 cent tax from the whole world....thats a lot
carbon emissions is the only thing i see that could penalize a developing industrial base - what else is there?
either way it's more about the idea than the specific details - a world buy in is the first step, making it equitable is the second. the details can be ironed out i think it's the idea that's stopping everyone and bringing out the reactionaries...
YES!!!!!! You are correct!
It's the idea that makes me want to throw up. I don't care what they want to tax, as far as I'm conserned they can go stick their heads in a small dark stinky hole. I don't care if it's only .0000001% of all the money I will ever make. It's mine and you can't have it :p
-
Originally posted by mrfish
"tax activities such as airline travel, currency transfers and carbon emissions "
i dont think taxing currency tansfers is going to wreck a budding financial institution or that airlines wil go out of business with a small tax. it can be almost negligible because it is drawn form the world population. imagine a .0001 cent tax from the whole world....thats a lot
carbon emissions is the only thing i see that could penalize a developing industrial base - what else is there?
either way it's more about the idea than the specific details - a world buy in is the first step, making it equitable is the second. the details can be ironed out i think it's the idea that's stopping everyone and bringing out the reactionaries...
Okay, but who will administer this tax?
The administration of such a system would be an absolute nightmare...prone to all kinds of abuse.
It would also COST a fortune.
Think about this...when Canada introduced their GST tax (Goods and Service Tax...much like UK VAT) it was discovered a couple of years later that the administration costs were almost as much as what was being taken in! Basically it kept a bunch of civil servants employed.
:rolleyes:
-
No fish, it's not going to wreck any financial institutions. The successfull ones (1st world) are going to remain in first world funds. It's the 3rd world that needs and would continue to exchange to 1st world currency.
3rd world looking to hold stable currency will either be taxed further, or reduced in accumulation of stable, 1st world currency (or both). 1st world speculative investment in 3rd world would also lose attractiveness with increased cost. Why bother, keep it domestic.
Udie you needn't worry unless you're converting your funds to the Uganda Shilling.
-
Wasn't this tax originally called the "You have it and we want it" tax?
AKDejaVu
-
i think it would cause us to rethink our foreign aid dispersals as well. if we are already being taxed to help impoverished countries then maybe the apathetic public would sit up and pay attention to where their money goes.
the average american and even the richest american wouldn't even feel this tax but the idea of a tax is so fundamentally outraging to americans that it would draw attention anyway and that's a good thing. we can kill a few foreign aid bills that are loaded with special favors and political buyoffs.
as it stands we tend to only support countries for political reasons - if the decisions were made on a world level it could be more justly distributed. the u.n. could handle it.
as it is i have zero say where our foreign aid budget (or any of our tax dollars for that matter) goes....write my senator? yeah right, i laughed the first time i heard that joke, now it's just irritating...
dear mizzz feinstein,
shalom!
i think we should consider holding up on foreign aid to israel and instead consider redirecting the money to famine wracked so that warlords don't come to power and kill another million people.....
i trust the entire world more than any senator in washington with my dollars. my agenda is a world government and this seems to fit that agenda. i agree that some of the details are prohibitve at present but that doesn't mean it can't work in some form.
-
Ripsnort, Curval -
Neither of you are right.
In 1939 the Neutrality act allowed American aid to be sold to Britain providing it was paid for, in full, up front and in cash.
By 1941 Britain had been fighting Germany for 2 years, alone and unaided; virtually bankrupt, there was no money left to buy arms or supplies (even ownership of American based companies had been sold off) and the Lend-Lease Act was passed. This allowed credit to be given for arms - which was totalled £27,000,000,000 by 1945.
The transfer of ownership of military bases was part of this second agreement.
Lend-Lease wasn't a freebie. It was the exchange, sell, lending of material. I also believe the UK is still making interest payments on the debt, although I can't seem to find information regarding the extent of debt remaining.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
By 1941 Britain had been fighting Germany for 2 years, alone ...
Would not be alone if you hadn't sold out Czechs and Poles.
-
That was just nasty. Sure, nobody to rushed to Polands aid, but what were they going to do anyway? Realistically.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
By 1941 Britain had been fighting Germany for 2 years, alone and unaided;
Shhhh...what's that sound? Oh, it's my grandfathers rolling over in their graves.
Pretty frickin' arrogant statement there Dowding. But I suppose colonials don't really count.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by gavor
That was just nasty. Sure, nobody to rushed to Polands aid, but what were they going to do anyway? Realistically.
Britts was obligated by a treaty they've signed. Obviously there is no way to tell what would happen, but had Hitler been presented with a two front war, things might have been a bit different.
-
Maybe, but Britain was a little slow in making a decision. They didn't abandon Poland, the Prime Minister just dithered about because he believed Hitler when he said he wouldn't be invading people.
Perhaps a two front war would have made a difference, but in all likelyhood the Germans would have rolled over both defenders and Britain would have even less troops and materials for defending England itself. Remember Britain wasn't exactly in a prime position itself and didn't have the resources to go around saving everyone. Perhaps if the US became involved a little earlier things would have been different.
-
They didn't abandon Poland, the Prime Minister just dithered about because he believed Hitler when he said he wouldn't be invading people.
You're right, they didn't abandon Poland. They just sold out Chekoslovakia.
-
Anybody have links to what the US has given out in foreign aid recently?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no link, but I read it was in the neighborhood of 2 trillion per year.
US foreign aid is about $15 billion ayear, of which about $3 billion goes to Israel.
Would not be alone if you hadn't sold out Czechs and Poles.
Britain gave a security guarantee to Poland, that it would go to war on Germany if Poland was attacked.
The Germans attacked, Britain went to war, and stayed at war when all countries other than the Empire had dropped out.
How is that a sell out?
The other point is, why the hell should Britain have had the responsibility of defending Poland and Czechoslovakia?
The Americans "sold out" the Czechs as much as the British did, and more so Poland because America didn't try to help. Why not accuse them of a sell out?
-
If such a tax is ever enacted the US must pull out of the UN. Two weeks later the UN will be finished and things will be fune. :)
World tax my ass.
-
Due to a 1934 law , all countries that had defaulted on their WW1 debts (as did Britain) were to be denied credit, and had to purchase all their materials in cash or bonds.
The bases in Bermuda etc were traded for 50 WW1 vintage destroyers, for by the summer of 1940 Britain was virtually bankrupt. Churchill had negotiated the deal so it was an early precendent of exchange in part gift, part payment.
It was only when Roosevelt was satisfied that Britain was truly nearly bankrupt, that he introduced the Lend-Lease Bill. In dec 1940 the USS Louisville was sent to Sth Africa to pick up 42 million pounds in gold, the last of Britains negotiable assets after Britain was audited by the US treasury department to truly satisfy they were infact bankrupt. On the 1st of March 1941 depts of $540 million were due for settlement by Britain (not all to the US). It was double the amount cash Britain possessed.
Churchill had asked both the Norwegian and Dutch govt in exile for cash but was refused. Only a 60 million pound loan by Belguim's govt. in exile saved Britain from complete economic collapse.
Who supplied Britain in her darkest hour with her unlimited resources?
It could be seen that the US govt was quite happy to let Britain completely exhaust it self fighting the Germans, and only supplied the materials to fight the war because it knew it needed Britain as a base to invade Europe. It was only free because Britain had nothing left to give.
They didn't abandon Poland, the Prime Minister just dithered about because he believed Hitler when he said he wouldn't be invading people
This is not true. By march '39 the British government knew war was inevitable. But the cost, and slow rearming of the British army had made even the idea of sending units to Poland after Sept3 impossible, let alone even finding a way to get there. The French army was even in worse shape.
The other point is, why the hell should Britain have had the responsibility of defending Poland and Czechoslovakia?
In 18 April 1939 Maxim Litvinov proposed a Russo-France/Anglo alliance of between 5-10 yrs, in the case of agression by Germany. The French were willing to explore the pact, however the British were told by Poland that in no circumstances would it allow Red Army units on Polish soil, even if it was at war with Germany. Negotations between the British and Russians had significantly bogged down , when Stalin decided that a pact with Germany was in Russia's better interest.
Pretty frickin' arrogant statement there Dowding. But I suppose colonials don't really count
It is pretty safe to assume that even though the Dominion armies (Canada, New Zealand, Australia,and South Africa) were led by Dominion commanders that answered to their respective governments, that Dowdings statement of Britain was on her own also included these Dominion forces.
Tronsky
-
The Germans attacked, Britain went to war, and stayed at war when all countries other than the Empire had dropped out.
you kidding right? can you please tell me the exact day when Britain went to war? by that date i mean when Britain DID something, not TOLD THAT WILL DO.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The Germans attacked, Britain went to war, and stayed at war when all countries other than the Empire had dropped out.
What leads you to believe that Canada was part of the Empire at this point in time?
Canada declared war on Germany as an independant country. The decaration of war was a bill proposed by Canadian Members of Parliment and voted on Canadian Members of Parliment, who were voted into power by...you guessed it Canadians.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Due to a 1934 law , all countries that had defaulted on their WW1 debts (as did Britain) were to be denied credit, and had to purchase all their materials in cash or bonds.
The bases in Bermuda etc were traded for 50 WW1 vintage destroyers, for by the summer of 1940 Britain was virtually bankrupt. Churchill had negotiated the deal so it was an early precendent of exchange in part gift, part payment.
It was only when Roosevelt was satisfied that Britain was truly nearly bankrupt, that he introduced the Lend-Lease Bill. In dec 1940 the USS Louisville was sent to Sth Africa to pick up 42 million pounds in gold, the last of Britains negotiable assets after Britain was audited by the US treasury department to truly satisfy they were infact bankrupt. On the 1st of March 1941 depts of $540 million were due for settlement by Britain (not all to the US). It was double the amount cash Britain possessed.
Churchill had asked both the Norwegian and Dutch govt in exile for cash but was refused. Only a 60 million pound loan by Belguim's govt. in exile saved Britain from complete economic collapse.
It is pretty safe to assume that even though the Dominion armies (Canada, New Zealand, Australia,and South Africa) were led by Dominion commanders that answered to their respective governments, that Dowdings statement of Britain was on her own also included these Dominion forces.
Tronsky
Thank you for correcting Dowding, I had left work yesterday with intent to search for this.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
If such a tax is ever enacted the US must pull out of the UN. Two weeks later the UN will be finished and things will be fune. :)
World tax my ass.
I'm not so sure about that. There is many socialist dicks in our government who would be more than happy to tax us for the UN.
An income tax was unthinkable once.
-
Originally posted by gavor
Perhaps a two front war would have made a difference, but in all likelyhood the Germans would have rolled over both
I'm not suggesting that Hitler would be defeated. With Russian attack Poland would probably be crushed anyway.
I was merely responding to Dowdings whiny lament that Britain fought alone.
They have architected this scenario.
-
OK, let em pass the tax then we can dress up like Native Americans and throw their whatever in the harbor. Then they can send troops over to collect the tax and .... wait I think we've been here before??? ;) :D :D
-
ARTICLE V
The Government of the United Kingdom will return to the United States of America at the end of the present emergency, as determined by the President, such defense articles transferred under this Agreement as shall not have been destroyed, lost or consumed and as shall be determined by the President to be useful in the defense of the United States of America or of the Western Hemisphere or to be otherwise of use to the United States of America.
OK, give it back......I know you got a couple B-17's over there, and a few Ponies too.....give it up or we will taunt you a second time.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by bike killa
you kidding right? can you please tell me the exact day when Britain went to war? by that date i mean when Britain DID something, not TOLD THAT WILL DO.
Britain declared war Sunday, 3rd September 1939. Within hours of the announcement the first units of the BEF were shipping to France.
If your suggesting that the British sat and procrastintated until forced into action, that is simply not true.
Poland's fate was sealed from the beginning. Perhaps if the Russians were part of a alliance with the French and British before September 1st then maybe Poland may have been saved, but they weren't and Poland fell after 4 weeks. The British could have never saved Poland, and infact as the campaigns in Norway, and Greece showed they would have never been able to supply, let alone provide the aircover needed for an expeditionary force in Poland.
The BEF, and French armies were wholey inadequate to force an early second front. On the 7th September 8 French divisions advanced into the region between the west wall, and the maginot line. The Saar offensive lasted until the end of September, the French suffering 27 causalties. Gamelin commander of the French, then withdrew his forces back behind the Maginot line having no faith in the Polish army to keep the germans occupied and believing they were in fact facing 20 German divisions (instead of the 3 that were really there), prefering to keep his army behind the safety of the Maginot fortifications. Gamelin liked the idea of a "modern Somme" instead of the Blitzkreig that would follow in 1940.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
It is pretty safe to assume that even though the Dominion armies (Canada, New Zealand, Australia,and South Africa) were led by Dominion commanders that answered to their respective governments, that Dowdings statement of Britain was on her own also included these Dominion forces.
Tronsky
I disagree. Regardless of the officer corp. Canada, at least, wouldn't have been there if we chose not to be. And the the only way that the Canadian force were Dominion force is in the sense that they came from the Dominion of Canada. They were part of the Coomonwealth forces. We went there out of choice, not because we owed fealty to Britain.
A comparison: The CO of NATO is a position that rotates between officers of the member countries. Lets hypothesise that the current CO is an officer from Germany. Germany is attacked an NATO responds. Can the Germans then say that they were alone, because the forces were commanded by a German? Of course not.
Britain was not alone. Might be a nice image, but it simply wasn't the case. Canada, as an indepenant country joined her. Who had strategic over Canada's forces is a straw man. The only reason those forces were there was because we CHOSE for them to be there.
-
screw a world tax. I don't care if it costs $0.01 I refuse to give up my money so some bastard in another country can have it. I don't make money so someone else can have it.
Besides we already supply foreign aid to these countries when they need help. Now the same people want to tax us? well screw them.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
screw a world tax. I don't care if it costs $0.01 I refuse to give up my money so some bastard in another country can have it. I don't make money so someone else can have it.
Besides we already supply foreign aid to these countries when they need help. Now the same people want to tax us? well screw them.
Bingo, but...
When they rallied for the income tax in US they "assured" the public that it will never be paid by more than 1% of the population (like in "the rich guys only"), and thet it will never exceed 1% of the income (like in " insignificant and sure THEY can afford it)
And don't get me started on a so called "16-th ammendment".
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I disagree. Regardless of the officer corp. Canada, at least, wouldn't have been there if we chose not to be. And the the only way that the Canadian force were Dominion force is in the sense that they came from the Dominion of Canada. They were part of the Coomonwealth forces. We went there out of choice, not because we owed fealty to Britain.
A comparison: The CO of NATO is a position that rotates between officers of the member countries. Lets hypothesise that the current CO is an officer from Germany. Germany is attacked an NATO reGermans then say that they were sponds. Can the Germans then say that they were alone, because the forces were commanded by a German? Of course not.
Britain was not alone. Might be a nice image, but it simply wasn't the case. Canada, as an indepenant country joined her. Who had strategic over Canada's forces is a straw man. The only reason those forces were there was because we CHOSE for them to be there.
You've missed my point entirely.
When the dominions declared war on Germany there was no formal treaty or agreement to do so. The South African parliment voted to commit to the war by a narrow margin, and only then as purely garrison troops. So I am not debating at all the independance of the dominions. Only India was truly a member of the British Empre and was commited to the war by the then Viceroy.
My point was that given the independance to the Empire of the dominion troops, and that the Governments of those troops had given strict instructions that they were to be led by their own officers to maintain that independance as to insure that the reckless use of those soldiers would not be repeated in such slaughters as Passschendaele, Ypre, and Gallipoli. Dominion commanders could infact refer back to their own Prime ministers before committing to actions, Just as Blamey commander of the AIF wired his concerns over the commitment of Australian troops to the foolhardly Greek campaign, and waited for Prime Minister Menzies to consult with him before embarking.
That despite these differences, a generalisation such as "In 1941 Britain sttod alone" it was quite obvious that Britain mean't Britain and her Dominions. Nato is a completely different situation compared to the British army in 1941.
e.g : The Eighth Army in the second battle of El-Alamein consisted units like: 4th Indian Division, 9th Australian Division, 2nd New Zealand Division, 1st South African Division, plus the 6-7 other English Divisions
But it is also correct to call it the British Eighth Army.
I am not debating the fact that Britain was alone, far from it. The middle east was Britain's primary theatre until 1944 and the ANZAC forces there were a primary component.
But it should be remembered that the term British is encompassing the whole body of soldiery ,not excluding when used in context of that time period.
Tronsky
-
Gotcha tronski, I understand what you are saying now. I can narrow down where I disagree now. I don't believe Britain means her and her dominions. I believe it referred to England, Scotland, Wales, Irland and India, at that time, because the other countries were independant states.
"reckless use of those soldiers would not be repeated in such slaughters as Passschendaele, Ypre, and Gallipoli. "
To bad it didn't work out that way, as Dieppe was the same crap all over again.
-
i'm not saying that Poland had a chance to survive a strike from both sides (German and Russian). Our neighbours made a trade and shared us into 2 pieces, fortunatelly this deal didn't worked out for long. what i'm saying is - IF Hitler wouldn't attack France in '40 i don't believe that ANY of our allies would help us there... just like after the war... who slod us into Stalin slavery?
maybe nothing is strange in it, cuz we were poor and weak country (no surprise while we were fighting with Sovieta and Germans all the time) and it was worthless to save us from commies? no matter now.
sorry, i just don't believe with "declaring war" without any military actions... what's worth the ALIGNMENT when one of sides thinking "it's too dangerous to save you now buddy... maybe in a year or so" and drinking his tea in peace ;)
-
The Americans "sold out" the Czechs as much as the British did, and more so Poland because America didn't try to help. Why not accuse them of a sell out?
The American's weren't kissing Hitler's bellybutton at Munich. They weren't part of Europe. They weren't even in the hemisphere for crissake. Yes in today's globalpolitik it's easy to question why the USA wasn't involved earlier, considering how today we get ourselves involved in every little skirmish throughout the world it seems. But in 1938 Germany was in GB and France's back yard, not ours. They could have stopped WWII and all of its horrors, but they didn't. The appeasers "won", and the world lost.
Now if some country was threatening to invade Canada in 1938, I'm almost certain we wouldn't have stabbed her in the back.
But feel free to somehow make this an American issue. It's the vogue thing to do today.
-
Thrawn - Just for clarification, when I said Britain I did mean commonwealth forces, and was not speaking geographically. It really is as simple as that.
Mietla - if my comments were 'whiny', I believe you should re-read some of your own posts. By your own admittance you were talking bollocks just to make a point. Furthermore, I didn't sell anyone out. It seems strange to have to point this out to you, but I wasn't to be born until 40 years after Czechoslovakia was invaded. Fancy that!
koala - your comments merely state the obvious, as seen through the benefit of hindsight. But back in the late 1930's, with the horrors of WW1 still fresh in the minds of both French and British people you're damned right they'd do anything to avoid war - or at least buy time to prepare. Also, you'll find that America is in the same hemisphere as Europe. You do also realise that the Czechoslovakian land ceded to Germany in 1938 (the Sudetenland) was ethnically German and was part of the territory taken from Germany at Versailles? A treaty seen as unfair by many in Britain by 1938 - there was a definite feeling of 'rightful ownership' being finally restored. Perhaps they were naive to think Hitler would stop with the Sudetenland - but it wasn't a 'stab in the back', more a 'head in the sand'.
-
Me slow, me understand, when you say "Britain stood alone". You mean Britain and the Commonwealth stood alone. Me apologise. Now I can turn off my brain cell.
Seriously though, thanks for the clarification.
-
Also, you'll find that America is in the same hemisphere as Europe.
Oops. Okay, that point I'll concede ;)
You do also realise that the Czechoslovakian land ceded to Germany in 1938 (the Sudetenland) was ethnically German and was part of the territory taken from Germany at Versailles?
Yes, and I suppose you realize that the Sudetenland provided the bulk of Chekoslovakia's natural land defenses? And that having that occupied made the collapse of the rest of the country pretty much a foregone conclusion?
Perhaps they were naive to think Hitler would stop with the Sudetenland - but it wasn't a 'stab in the back', more a 'head in the sand'.
I think Chamberlain and company knew very well that they were pretty much sacrificing the Checs in the hopes that Hitler would be satisfied with that. I call that a stab in the back.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"reckless use of those soldiers would not be repeated in such slaughters as Passschendaele, Ypre, and Gallipoli. "
To bad it didn't work out that way, as Dieppe was the same crap all over again.
Well it is a sad fact that British High Command had a tendancy to use Aussie,Kiwi, and Canuck soldiers as "storm troops" rushing them all over theatre. Especially in the middle east, but I think perhaps its an indication of how generally superior the commonwealth soldier could be. Dominion formations suffered proportionately higher casualties because they contained more front line soldiers, and less support troops.
The Americans "sold out" the Czechs as much as the British did
Following Dowdings line of thinking, I think it is completely unfair to pass any real blame to America when it comes to the appeasement of Hitler in the late '30s. The US was truly concerned with her own affairs, and considered events in Europe ,an european affair. Polls in 1939, even after the invasion of Poland, were overwhelmingly in support of staying out of the war. Those opinions only really changed towards the middle of 1941 - but then only slowly.
It should be remembered how important context is, and how post war American foriegn policy was light years in difference than pre-war.
I think Chamberlain and company knew very well that they were pretty much sacrificing the Checs in the hopes that Hitler would be satisfied with that. I call that a stab in the back.
Imo that is a true statement, Chamberlain probably did think , as Dowding previously posted, that to concede ethnic German parts of the Sudetenland was a resonable thing to do to satisfy Hitler, and more importantly stave off a war. At the time Britain was desperate not to fight WW1 again, and considering the price she paid it is not an unreasonable thing to try to do. But it was hardly a stab in the back.
Tronsky