<< Don't forget the assistance your continent received from this side of the pond. Don't forget the siege at Utah Beach that broke the German stranglehold on your continent. >>
i didn't, i just said at that point, hitler's army was weakened enough to be able to be beaten. I think it's unlikely an invasion would have succeeded without the war on the eastern front.
<< Hitler did not want war right then in the 30's. Hitler wanted to prevent war for as long as possible. Hitler continued to take and take from the Europe for as long as possible. Nonetheless, by waiting, the Allies faced a much stronger Hitler than they would have if they had decided to go to war with him them. Not only that, but Italy would have been completely unprepared for conflict. Britain and France were still unprepared to stop Hitler after this diplomatic solution was attempted. >>
those negotiations weren't real negotiations, hitler wasn't stopped, because france/britain didn't have the will to stop him, they were in huge economical/political problems, and then a war is something a politician doesn't want. Also, how exactly were france/england to stop hitler, their armies were still wrecked from WW1 and most of their cash went to paying back loans from WW1. Also, how could they have reached chechoslovachia? they'd have to go either through germany, austria, or italy, and an invasion would have given hitler/mussolini even more support. nations dislike wars in places they can't bring supplies to.
<< Hitler would not have had the chance to continue to logistically organize his juggernaut had the European allies take the initiative to at least make an attempt to stop him. Tell me how diplomacy did not fail.
Diplomacy gave Hitler the green light. It showed that Europe would not react. >>
as i said, the nations were still to occupied recovering from WW1, recovering from the economical crisis, and trying to balance between commie revolt and extremist right revolutions. In france, there was a huge communist party at that time, had france started invading another country, and opened the scars of WW1 again, there would have been a revolt most likely.
<< Exactly - there are no equal parties. It is impossible in a competitive world based on a real system of economics. How do you propose to even the playing field? It can't be done. What is your point? You seem to be proving mine. >>
i agree, diplomacy will always lead to the strongest person winning, but it's not because an agreement can be somewhat unbalanced, that it can't be "enough" for the losing party. Still, what's the alternative?
<< Your argument fails to appreciate that many of the parties negotiating peace are religious zealots that can never be made happy with anything less than getting everything that they ever wanted. It is an all or nothing proposition for these people. To repeat, you can't negotiate with a zealot. Why can't you people understand that? >>
that's where i disagree, religious zealotry is a problem caused by something else, sure there might be a small group of loonies, but those loonies will never exist in big enough numbers. If a population is unhappy, they will start fighting against the cause of that unhappyness.
<< Force will ultimately be how it must be resolved. One side wins, the other side loses. This is how life in the real world works. Name one long-standing conflict - ever - in the history of the world that was actually resolved (finally) through diplomacy where both sides were happy. One side always wins... one way or the other. One side must be subjugated. This is reality. >>
ofcourse one side will win, but if the losing side is kept unhappy, it will not accept it, and revolt again. Let me give you a couple of examples, Japan after WW2, was rebuilt, and people were given a future. Europe after WW2, was rebuilt, and people were given a future. Afghanistan after the communists left, was left in anarchy, without a government able to control the warlords of the land. Israel, palestines live in camps, they want to rise up and change that situation, the uprise gets stopped violently, they rise up again, they get stopped, etc, it won't end unless the underlying core issue is resolved, being the horrid conditions those people live in.
<< We will have to neutralize those who pose a threat to the United States. Plain and simple. >>
something made those people angry up to the point they did wicked stuff, if you don't remove that reason for their angriness, it will happen again, some others will step up, and it will happen again.
<< There is not way to "give a little" to a zealot - they want the whole damn thing. Military action is the only solution. Others may rise up the place of the martyred dead, but they too must fall. They must fall until their kind is eradicated.
But you stated that diplomacy can't work because both sides are unequal. Which is it? At the end wouldn't we be ramming something down somebody's throat? You have blatently contradicted yourself. >>
Lets take a look at history again, germany in WW1 decided to invade it's neighbours, they were defeated, and punished heavily by huge debts. You'd think the misery would teach em, but somebody stepped up, and germany became 'great' again, and did it again. Then, after they were defeated, they were rebuilt, and then they didn't do it again.
What i meant with diplomacy, was an agreement brought forward, that is acceptable for nearly all parties. Some people can always dislike it, but even if they resort to violence, it won't be too big. Lets say the Rote armee fraction in western germany. Unlike the current intifada in israel.
<< After the zealots are eliminated, through war, then negotiations with rational leaders can begin. Vigilance is the price of liberty. The war on terrorism will be a war that will be fought for years to come.
We must prevail, and those who seek the gain through terror, now and forever, must be stopped. >>
zealots are fighting against something, when the reason of their fight is gone, they stop fighting. Was the entire japanese population murdered and cleansed of zealots? No, it wasn't, but when those zealots saw an opportunity, they grabbed it.
instead of continueing long tiring posts, let me sumarize my ideas.
in a situation of conflict, a plan which is acceptable to all parties should be made (i say acceptable, not accepting every silly demand), then, that plan should be executed. People will prefer peace over war if they have a chance.
What i think you're saying, is that every fighter should be killed, then peace automatically comes.
Ofcourse, an international peacekeeping force is needed, which enforces the peace very strictly, because there are usually alot of armsdealers trying to break up the peace, kind of like in northern ireland.
Facebook
Twitter