Bad Historical Comparisons and What Iraq is really about
Capital of Nasty Electronic Magazine
Monday, March 24, 2003 (597/109)
ISSN 1482-0471
By Tim King
I've heard people who think they know a lot about history saying that we shouldn't be Neville Chamberlains about this. If we turn away from war we encourage our own destruction--much like Britain did with Hitler prior to World War 2.
Comparing Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler is absurd under any context. Hitler was voted into power. He then recontextualized and consolidated a demoralized country into the most formidable military power of its time. Iraq is an impoverished, third world country run by a dictator who has to spend most of his time watching his back, and has nothing like the cohesive government let alone the economic and military might, that Hitler wielded before and during WW2.
This is not 1936; Iraq is not Nazi Germany (in fact I'd place bets that Nazi Germany with 1940's equipment would beat Iraq in an armed conflict tomorrow). If we were to do a reasonable comparison of economic/military might with the world of the mid nineteen thirties and the early twenty first century, the only countries that might be considered comparable to Nazi Germany in the thirties would be the US, China or Russia - big military and economic powers with strong militaries and cohesive governments capable of stirring up their citizens into a patriotic fervor sufficient to destroy their enemies. I'd say that of the three China, with its profoundly centralized government and militaristic culture, is the best comparison.
Now, if China were to be building up its military and beating the war drums, obviously interested in conquest, we could get all historical about this and say we shouldn't be Neville Chamberlains. In fairness to Neville though, he was looking into the maw of the most powerful military beast ever formed. Efforts to calm that beast, considering the historical context, wouldn't be absurd. If China were to rear up in a prelude to strike, I somehow doubt that the US and the world in general wouldn't try and resolve it peacefully before preemptively striking the beast just to avoid being compared to Neville. Poor old Neville was in a no win situation, as we would be if China ever chose to strike. Apples to apples kiddies!
So enough already with these lame comparisons that don't hold any water. If we're going to do this thing (and believe it or not, I think we should), then let's do it without the rhetoric or moral dressing. With a clear, Machiavellian eye I get this:
From a Canadian point of view, I'm not sure I see the point of refusing to back a sure thing. There is little doubt this will be over quickly, and the US will be sure to remember who supported it and who didn't. Like it or not, the reason Canada is a G8 country is simply because it is next to the States. If we weren't, I imagine we'd be similar to Australia (NOT a G8 country with an economy about half as big as Canada's). I doubt all the morally upright types who are advocating not supporting the US on principle would be willing to do so if it meant unemployment and the loss of almost half of our economy. Nothing drives me crazier than Canadians thinking that they are independent from the States. This morning I heard that less than 4% of primetime dramas that we watch on TV are Canadian. We watch American television, imitate their culture, wear their clothes, sound like them and enjoy a standard of living almost twice what it should be because of them and we don't want to see it? C'mon, we all know what Canada is! We're Ameri-whores! Just admit it!
And as Ameri-whores, we should know that at the end of the day the United States gets what it wants; morality doesn't figure into their foreign policy. Whether it's screwing Canadian soft wood lumber exporters, inventing tariffs for Japanese imported cars or bombing the unholy snot out of Iraq, Americans (in general) are a protectionist, self-interested, isolationist people motivated mainly by their own well being… and who can blame them? We're all in it for ourselves. Wealth isn't spread equally across the earth because of a lot of history. That history dictates that if we want to hang on to what we've got and get even more (even if we are taking it from people with bugger all), we should abuse our power for our own benefit. If the world were a fair place we'd all be renting our land from aboriginal tribes, right?
The moral dressing the States throw on this whole Iraq thing is absurd. They are quite willing to support dictatorships if the dictator in question is willing to cooperate with American foreign policy (Pakistan, Philippines, Argentina, Panama, etc, etc). A great protector of Democracy they ain't. If we know this, then why would we stand on principle when we know it doesn't mean anything to them? If we depend on them to power our economy, why would we antagonize them, especially if it is over removing a vicious animal like Hussein?
And why not remove Hussein? Even a puppet government that allows American corporations into Iraq tax free would be better, wouldn't it?
On the one side we've got the anti-war at all costs "useful idiots". People who don't care what the issues are, and adopt a protectionist, isolationist stance of not dealing with anything that doesn't affect them directly. These people often follow their anti-war statement with something like, "we've got enough of our own problems to deal with." In an interesting twist the once globally minded left has become stay at home protectionist right - or at least they use the argument if they think it will server their agendas.
On the other we have the boo-ya, let's go kick some towel head ass, right wing (weekends at the lodge in white hoods) types who are just longing for an opportunity to kick some a-rab ass. They don't need much of a push when it comes to pulling the trigger; most of them are already there.
Now I like kicking ass as much as the next guy, but I'm not really spun by the whole racial issue, so getting me onside with the whole towel head thing isn't going to work. For me, the most satisfying kicking of ass is morally guided, and I think that Hussein's makes a fine piñata in that regard. A righteous ass kicking of Saddam would be most satisfying. On the other hand, if we're going to do the right thing, we should try and be consistent about it (immoral ass kickings are a big downer). If G.W. walked into the U.N. tomorrow with a revised U.S. foreign policy that promised no further economic aid, support or trade to dictatorships and that all the money formally going into that would be solely for assisting developing democracies around the world, I'd be there in a flash. That's an ass kicking I'd like to see happen: the U.S. supporting its wonderful Bill of Rights internationally rather than just for its own citizens. Of course this is outright standing on principle, and if it doesn't work for Canadians, why should it work for Americans? Standing on principle is a silly thing to do. It's much better to be self serving. It's just harder to be proud about it (though everyone sure is trying).
The irony is that taking out Saddam is the right thing to do, but the Coalition of the Willing is doing it for the wrong reasons. Rather than doing it for motivated self interest, why not do it because it's the right thing to do? ... And then keep doing it because it's still the right thing to do. I'll tell you why: 'cause that don't pay!
It appears that the path of the modern man is beset on all sides by extremists who's shear volume of noise reveal a simple, modern truth: IF YOU'RE NOT AN EXTREMIST, YOUR OPINION IS MEANINGLESS! Paint it simple and hate people who don't agree! Welcome to the twenty-first century. Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur!
Comments
24 comments found
| [prev] al-Qaidaville | A gift, not a right [next] |
"And why not remove Hussein? Even a puppet government that allows American corporations into Iraq tax free would be better, wouldn't it?"
I hope you believe so, because that is precisely what is going to happen.
America is notorious for training, assisting or condoning the actions of one dictator/militant group in order to overthrow another (whose interests create conflict with their own). This group includes the one and only Osama bin Laden. They also have a great track record of creating massive political and civil instability and suffering in regions where they implant an artifical government or (better yet) allow one of the aforementioned terror groups to take over once they have achieved whatever goal lead them to conflict in the first place.
Any Iraqi citizens who remain alive after the States has finished 'liberating' them (of their loved ones and oil, amongst other things), will be left with either a US-sponsored government with American interests at heart, or a US-endorsed government from a neighbouring country (which will ultimately lead to bitter civil revolt similar to the current Isalei/Palestine conflict).
You said: "America is notorious for training, assisting or condoning the actions of one dictator/militant group in order to overthrow another"
Which sounds a lot like what I said above: "(americans) are quite willing to support dictatorships if the dictator in question is willing to cooperate with American foreign policy"
You say that the Iraqis will be left with "a US-sponsored government with American interests at heart"
I have to ask the question: is this really worse than a home-grown, homocidal lunatic with illusions of grandeur and a taste for his own people's blood? Saddam has killed more Iraqis than any opponent in war - and I never saw any demonstrations about that on Yonge Street.
I'm thinking I'd take Seven Elevens on every corner over assasination squads headed by home-grown dictator's murdering sons. Yeah, the Seven Eleven thing sucks, but if this is a matter of this choice or that choice, I'd take the Big Gulp (so to speak).
Tim, I assume from your comments that you are a canadian and that you are advocating that we should jump in there with the Americans because they are our neighbours and we share everything with them. You say that 96% of all that we watch is american content. You say that we strive to be like them. I can't see where you're getting your information from.
In spite of the way that it may appear, we are not joined at the hip. We are entitled to and we do have our own opinions. And you are right that when we negotiate with them, we get the shit end of the stick. They're only interested in what suits them. In spite of any agreement that we might have already signed, they change the rules as they see fit as they did with the sale of Canadian lumber south of the border. And they will support with arms and money any regime that is willing to work for their interests and then turn on it, with or without the support of the rest of the free world.
In a recent television special in which the North American reporter traveled to Arab countries to talk to peoples about their feelings about the United States, the Arab people said that Americans make everyone feel so small. They are only inerested in what they need, or want. They discard the rest. They don't listen to the needs and feelings of anyone. I believe that we in Canada also fit into this category.
And I do believe that we have an obligation to the oppressed people of the world to do our part to make the world a better place for them. We will do that.
I cry for Baghdad
I cry for her people ...Sunni, Copts, Shiites, your Arab tribes I cry for her lost beauty ...for the old city I cry for the Tigris flowing red ...the golden domes, the houses of mud ...the chattering colours of her children Your history continuous relentless, immemorial, cruel Like your river and its twin. to flow, to flood. Invasion road. Roads for death.
I cry for the Babylon's that toll her death
Babylon within Babylon without I cry for what Daniel said for the writing on the wall I cry for not knowing Revelations as I should not knowing what prophecy we're living living ti live, living to die because die we will This time in Baghdad
Wars, battles, death, blood ... revenge
it's an Old Testament thing And I cry with that toothless man By that Tigris bridge Smiling Sharing his chai, our sweet hot Lipton Red lyme He with the Koran and I and I with a New Testament That speak of love
A love spoken
A love not practiced
(this poem is copyrighted)
"Rather than doing it for motivated self interest, why not do it because it's the right thing to do? ... And then keep doing it because it's still the right thing to do. I'll tell you why: 'cause that don't pay!"
We are doing it for the wrong reasons?
What are our reasons?
Please back your opinions.
Even if our reasons were impure the fact is that this is the right thing to do and people may very well be better off for it.
I agree that the worlds dicatators should be the target of the UN however the UN will never address dictators because many of them are dictators. The US is the reason they have ever taken action.
As such as the US is the one who puts its bodies and money on the line for such actions and as the US is a limited resource we only address ones which favor us.
IMO this war is about stability, freedom, US security, ally security, and to kill a scum sucking sadistic son of a bugger.
When the UN starts prosecuting wars and correcting the worlds wrongs the US may actually be able to stand down as world police. Until then its either us and our choices or no one.
But once again I pose the question. Had the current UN and the UN of history been the only authority and had the US remained as just another member of the do nothing crowd, I contest that we would be fighting a much larger much stronger Iraq. This Iraq would be working on syria, turkey, iran, under the threat of nukes and bio weapons. Israel would be littered with the bodies of thousands of bodies which lead to the dropping of nukes on bagdad killing millions. Argue that. Sometimes war is the only way.
The biggest mistake of gulf war II is really not a mistake of this war at all. It was the mistake of listening to a liars promises of compliance after gulf war I. For listening to the stupidity of the UN expecting saddam a confirmed liar. I had no problems with sending in the first inspectors. But at the first or second stall or delay I would have resumed the war.
Doing the right thing for dubious reasons is fine by me. Saddam needs to go, and I would hope most people would agree with that. I think it may be a little early to call the weapons of mass distruction 'fictional'. What about the thousands of Iraqi chemical suits they are finding or the prisioners they take who are carrying Cipro? Seems a wee bit suspicious to me. Even if they can't find any womd's, the way he does business is enough to justify his removal.
As far as Canada not helping out, well so what. I think we in the US are starting to get used to our 'friends' only being around when it's convenient or there's money to be made. Naturally we'll still be the first place they run to when they need help or a handout, and sadly I doubt if we'll hold a grudge. I understand France is already worried about not getting enough contracts when the rebuild of Iraq starts. I hope they don't get a dime's worth of work. With our economy in the tank, those contracts should go to American companies first.
As for the protesters, hope they have fun. I was in the elevator with a guy wondering if there would be a protest in Dallas. Said he thought it would be 'cool' to go, even though he's really not sure if he's against the war. Wonder how many others are out there protesting for the novelty of it.
Anyway you Canadians are still ok in my book. Stevie Nash is doing a great job at point for the Mavericks, so he'll keep you guys off my $h*t list for now.
I sit by my yard, and it is fenced, they call it borders. I do what I think makes the yard work, and it's true sometimes it interferes with the neighbours. It happens. It can get aggravated because neighbours can be cantankorous (however it is spelled at this time of the night) At the end it is only a power struggle, for money for goods for trading rights, right back to slavery and the crusades. Why shoul evangelical white america dictate my life and come clean my house. Who says my house is dirty? Chew on that and keep lamenting on baghdad, its really about people not buildings.
Ep asks above what the reasons are that we're (I'm American, and must use that shameful "we") at war with Iraq and why those reasons are wrong.
The reasons are, of course, plain. The neocons have written them down in many books and articles for us all to read. Nothing has been hidden. The most famous of these is here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf but there are other examples.
In short, they've decided that it is in America's best interest to impose a global military rule and ensure that no one can ever challenge it, not even what few friends we have left. They argue that it needs to be done now, because we won't have the power to do it in twenty years.
It has nothing to do with "liberating" anyone. It is blatant imperialism.
You argue that even if the reasons are wrong, this is still the right thing to do. I disagree. Yes, Saddam is evil and brutalises his people. He's a member of a large club on that score. His people hate and fear him. You know what? His people hate and fear us to an equal extent. They don't view us as "liberators", they view us as just another nasty tyrannical regime battling to determine who can kick them around.
Is it possible to "liberate" a people who don't want us to? What arrogance! They'll fight us, too, which means that we have to kill them to "liberate" them. Doesn't any of this bother you, even a little?
Who decided that it is America's job to liberate all the oppressed people of the world by bombing them? If we are to take this seriously, then we're talking about war with the majority of the planet. Perpetual war. If we're not going to liberate everyone, then you have to ask why Iraq is so special that it deserves our attention.
If you say "terrorism", that still puts you into the problem of having to fight most of the world, since the things that keep being cited as why Iraq is a threat to the US are equally true of hundreds of other nations. Perpetual war.
The document I linked to above explains why. Iraq is a military toehold. Once we're done there, it's off to Iran, and so on, until the entire region belongs to us. This isn't a war of liberation or self-defense, this is a war of conquest.
It is wrong, immoral, and dangerous.
Let me leave you with a quote from that granloa hippie communist, George Washington. Remember him?
"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be
unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
I'm now us citizen, coming from canada near 20 years ago (at 15, first, actually, back in '73 under student visa).
There's acouple of things here, primarily the lily livered liberal p.m. madman jean chretien and his tax 'em to death politicide. He is too close to those french nuts, who would definntely be speaking german today had we not landed in normandy more than a half century ago.
I believe Canada is fully behind the effort, as a people, just as 78% Americans also agree with the need tio end this brutal bullies regime. Canada, however, does not spend alot on defense, full well knowing a threat to them means a threat (3600+ miles undefended border, nowhere else in world) would be acted upon by the US as threat, thereby not being of material assistance...BUT thats no excuse for moral turpitude and blatant refusal to stand next to our most important ally.
France also knows we would be there, cause thats the people we are. We've been misconstrued in monstrous ways, and our very democracy enables that very loud, obnoxious, illogical liberal minority who wants to maintain staus quo and CONTINUES to protest war. It aint pretty, but who was gonna do it? I think King George1 should have, we may have even woke up to the related 9-11 threats.
France, on other hand, has provided 13% (credibly, possibly more) of sodums arsenal despite the trade bans implemented by UN. Its no surprise either, as they also aided in the black market Iraqi oil (check out their pump prices, paying for litre what we may pay for gallon) that they would not want to disturb their economies reliance in this world recession that has been brewing.
You liberals make me sick. Canadians should be thankful that their country is beside the United States. You are protected in the penumbra of our might. The United States is the most powerful nation on earth, like it or not. Our Marine Corp. alone could invade and take over the your liberal, fascist country. Also, I think your jealousy stems from the power of the U.S. dollar. I sure wouldn't want to be carrying around that atrocious Canadian currency in my pocket.
Tim, I think you missed the point in the Hitler-Saddam comparisons.(Liberals only hear what they want to hear, without thinking analytically.) The comparison was not about military might, but that both dictators are cold and calculated killers who will murder their own citizens. Genocide is not tolerated by the U.S. If a dictator overthrew your country and started killing Canadian citizens, you would be begging for our help.
The sole purpose of the war is to liberate Iraq and find weapons of mass destruction. By liberating Iraq, we will create strategic points (places) for eradicating terrorists.
I like the way liberals try to "call the race card" when referring to "right wingers". That "call" is long outdated. Come up with something new and intelligent, because really, it just magnifies you stupidity. I wont even respond to that statement because it is aberrant.
Referring to Americans as "white evangelicals" is also an absurd comment that only idiots would use. Have you heard of Black America? Most are christians. You are probably a terrorist that should be shot with an M16-A2 service rifle, the weapon of choice for the "white evengelicals".
I understand. Canadians are in a cold climate, pay very high taxes, have a worthless currency(that is why the Blue Jays are about to fold), and really serve no purpose in our world economy. I wouldn't want to live there either. Don't try to give me the GNP numbers, I already know them and they dont even come close. Dont try to give me median incomes. Just face it, all of you would love to live in the U.S.
Those who brag, have nothing to brag about.
I have no interest in living in the U.S. Canada's just fine by me. But if you feel you must, then by all means continue to act superior.
Wally said:
"You say that 96% of all that we watch is american content. You say that we strive to be like them. I can't see where you're getting your information from."
http://friendscb.ca/articles/GlobeandMail/globe000204.htm
http://friendscb.ca/articles/NationalPost/np021118.htm http://www.freemedia.at/Boston%20Congress%20Report/boston25.htm
My comments about Canadians wallowing in American media (and the question this raises about where Canadian 'culture' is going) is well researched. They won't have to invade, The West Wing will do it for them.
Ep said:
"We are doing it for the wrong reasons? What are our reasons? Please back your opinions."
America's foreign policy is only about control for the benefit of Americans. Morality (in the sense of general humanitarian belief) plays no part in it. Considering America's soapbox stance on world morality, this seems dishonest. The list of American allies is pretty embarrassing:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Dictators_Home.html
http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dictators.html http://www.zum.de/whkmla/period/latecoldwar/uslatam2.html http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=2911 http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html
As far as the belief that America supports only its own interests (and not any nonsense about democracy of civil rights); it seems like a fairly substantiated fact.
Hancomb said:
"Tim, I think you missed the point in the Hitler-Saddam comparisons.(Liberals only hear what they want to hear, without thinking analytically.) The comparison was not about military might, but that both dictators are cold and calculated killers who will murder their own citizens. Genocide is not tolerated by the U.S. If a dictator overthrew your country and started killing Canadian citizens, you would be begging for our help."
Calling me a liberal is somewhat laughable - now about thinking analytically: the argument I heard was that Iraq, like Nazi Germany, is a rising power that is on the verge of becoming a dangerous world power and it should be stopped before it becomes more dangerous. Iraq is a somewhat pathetic, third world country that can't get its own shit together let alone take anyone elses. I stand by my analysis, the problem faced by Neville Chamberlain was completely different from the one faced by Bush and Blair. Germany was a world power capable of invading other countries, Iraq is not.
Your comments about these dictators are also somewhat confusing. Hitler was voted in, Saddam never was. Saddam makes a better historical comparison with Stalin (who is incidently his hero). Hitler was an idealist, Saddam (like Stalin) is a vicious realist. Both are capable of killing and I'm not sure what your distinction between killing citizens or non-citizens is about. If leaders killing people is a bad thing, then you've got to judge the people dropping bombs on Baghdad with the same ruler.
As for genocide, it is tolerated by the US if the regime doing it is doing it in support of US interests. While fighting in Viet Nam the US completely ignored the killing fields of Cambodia because it suited foreign policy. Isolationism in the US would have kept them out of WW2 if the Japanese hadn't been foolish enough to "awake a sleeping giant."
I believe that Americans find genocide abhorant. I believe that US foreign policy doesn't apply any kind of morality to it, but just maintains a single-minded focus on how to manipulate world events to the benefit of its citizens.
Your final line states that if a dictator overthrew Canada we'd be begging you to help us? I should damn well hope you would help us. This part of your argument is the most spurious of all. Are you suggesting that Iraq was overthrowing the United States and that is why you attacked them? - and that this is a parellel argument with why Canada should have supported the US now? If not, then I have no idea how this statement relates to anything else you said (though it appears that liberals aren't the only ones who can't think analytically).
War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.
These leftists usually carry the loudest megaphones. And left unchallenged, their voices are heard disproportionately, demoralizing our troops, and emboldening dictators around the world - dictators who dream of the day the "Great Satan" disappears from the face of the earth.
However, their self-righteous messages go silent quickly when the truth of history and reality is thrown back in their face, as I experienced myself. It's time to turn up the juice on OUR megaphones, as we will never keep our supreme values of liberty and justice without the will to fight for them.
I fully agree! Bravo! How come this guy doesn't get to write an article? Why is it always articles from wind bags like Tim?
That's not very nice. Ad hominem arguments reavel a weak mind.
Considering I've been flamed by righties and lefties over this, I don't think it's really fair to call me either.
Your new hero claims, "we will never keep our supreme values of liberty and justice without the will to fight for them."
I said, "If G.W. walked into the U.N. tomorrow with a revised U.S. foreign policy that promised no further support to dictatorships I'd be there in a flash. That's an ass kicking I'd like to see happen"
Sounds like your hero and I agree on war for the right reasons. The lack of consistancy in US foreign policy calls into question the moral quality of US actions abroad though.
Perhaps if he submitted something it would get run, but (as I'm sure you're aware) it's much easier to snipe at someone than it is to put yourself out there for criticism.
A nameless one said, regarding war sometimes being necessary, "Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this."
So, I have to ask: what about the anti-war protestors who aren't leftist? There are quite a lot of them, you know. Some very prominent hard-right politicos who strongly oppose it, and for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact that war is ugly and cruel.
The righties are against it for isolationist reasons? In either case (war or isolationism) the motivation is the same, a kind of super-patriotism that demands absolute adherance to and focus on nationalism.
War is a simple neccessity and it is based entirely on our nature. If we didn't have preference for violent resolution we wouldn't have politicized it into the concept of war.
There are a race of primates called bonoboes that are completely non violent. There are also a race of primates called baboons who are very territorial and violent. I'm guessing that we share much more in common with the baboons (who are primarily ground dwellers as well).
At best this is the triumph of hope over reason. At worse this is simply knee-jerk stupidity. Either way, violence has solved all sorts of things. Violence — judiciously applied by police or armed citizens — often solves the problem of madmen on killing sprees. Indeed, if violence never solved anything, police would never have guns in the first place. Violence used by "peacekeepers" must solve something, otherwise so many people who so often say "violence never solves anything" wouldn't love them so much.
The three greatest scourges of the 20th century — Nazism, Japanese militarism, and Soviet Communism — were defeated through war or continued military resistance. More were killed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao outside of combat than died in World Wars I and II. War, as Sherman said, is all hell, but as Heraclitus admitted it is also "the father of us all." Wickedness — whether chattel slavery, the gas chambers, or concentration camps — has rarely passed quietly into the night on its own. The present evil isn't going to either.
tso
Canada is pro-genocide not anti-war. Chretien has said he is against regime changing, yet regime changing is the only way to ensure human rights for all. Therefore he is pro-genocide in supporting sick dictators like Hussein.
This is the worst political drival I have ever read. Grow a fucking brain, you retard.
Sigh.
Another brilliant response from some fourteen year old who couldn't get his ridlin in time. Of course, if you're not a fourteen year old with severe mental problems, you sound like one, so maybe you should address that.
If you've got an issue with the article, address the issue. If you're some jackass with a 'ring of Gyges' complex because you post anonymous, innane drivel attacking people online without taking any responsibility for it, then I'll leave you to your pathetic little life, which I'm sure is dealing you what you deserve.
Another reason, not mentioned, as to why Chamberlain appeased Hitler was the Soviet Union. He feared that even the Allies defeated Nazi Germany, the post war situation would be "1945 only worse", with the Soviets occupying Poland and most of the rest of Eastern Europe, but with no US army (the US is still isolationist at this time) or atomic bomb with which to deter the Soviets from pushing all the way to the Atlantic!
PROXYPROXY