Obama=Chamberlain II?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: AE Geopolitical Institute
Forum Discription: Implications of Strategic Policies.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25153
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 11:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Obama=Chamberlain II?
Posted By: Kevin
Subject: Obama=Chamberlain II?
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 03:33
|
In concerns to US Democratic Presidential Candidate, Senator Barack
Obama's foreign policy and his very strong views favouring more of a
diplomatic, compromising and reconciling approach towards aggressive
and less friendly regimes from Moscow to Beijing to Tehran, if he were
elected would represent something of a throwback to the 1930's with
Obama's foreign policies representing in many ways the same appeasement
that was Britain's foreign policy under Chamberlain? I think this especially holds true in regards to Russia as Obama has done little to change his stance towards Moscow even after their aggressive military action against Georgia and pretty much still rewards Moscow in the end for it's aggression. Thoughts on this anyone? |
Replies:
Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 03:41
|
Chamberlain was an appeaser he didn't mind hitler taking the Sudentanland, it wasn't just diplomacy. As far as I know Obama hasn't advocated any of the sort. How has he appeased any enemies at all? You're confusing diplomacy and appeasment. And how is his position different on Moscow than the white house? I'd say Bush appeased russia by not intervening to help Georgia. I thought all Bush did was say "bad bad russia!" and pretty much did nothing. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 03:45
|
When Obama signals he is willing to sign over whole swathes of otherwise defensible territory (which is what Chamberlain did) to US rivals, then we may have something to worry about. Willingness to engage in potentially constructive dialogue, as well as to realise the geopolitical fruitlessness in investing finite military resources in dubious and expendable partners such as Georgia, is if anything sensible from the geopolitical perspective of the USA.
------------- |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 03:49
Chamberlain's appeasement of Germany was based on a clear strategy of turning Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union. ...This idea of bringing Germany into a collision with Russia was not to be found, so far as the evidence shows, among any members of the inner circle of the Milner Group. Rather it was to be found among the personal associates of Neville Chamberlain... http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html - http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html Does Obama have this sort of strategy? He may have if he listens to his foreign affairs adviser, the notorious Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is anti-Russian. Brzezinski and others pursued the strategy of pushing Soviet Union into Afghanistan.
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire... http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html - http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html Obama adviser compares Putin to Hitlerhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/12/georgia - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Ukraine/ukraine.html - http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zei A geostrategy for Eurasia by Zbigniew Brzezinski ...In these circumstances, Russia's first priority should be to modernize itself rather than to engage in a futile effort to regain its status as a global power. Given the country's size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia's vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia -- composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic -- would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow's heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization. Russia is more likely to make a break with its imperial past if the newly independent post-Soviet states are vital and stable. Their vitality will temper any residual Russian imperial temptations. Political and economic support for the new states must be an integral part of a broader strategy for integrating Russia into a cooperative transcontinental system. A sovereign Ukraine is a critically important component of such a policy, as is support for such strategically pivotal states as Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan... http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html - http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 04:47
|
I really wish people would understand context not to mention history before the made comparisons. ------------- |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 04:55
I agree. The history should be properly cleared up first. |
Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 05:53
|
I was not meaning to disrespect history in matter of fact the complete opposite. I was also merely suggesting that Obama's approach to foreign policy seemed awfully like Chamberlain's and other Western Democratic leaders such as Daladier by the attitude Obama seems to be taking towards anti-American and anti-Western Regimes. |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 06:07
But Hitler wasn't anti-american or anti-western. He was pro-british and anti-bolshevik. |
Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 06:14
I was just applying some of the approaches to foreign policy of the time to more recent ones it has nothing to do with Hitler's geopolitical favouritism. |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 06:25
|
What about McCain? He favoured Georgia and appeased their aggression. He did not criticise Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia. McCain is a better comparision to Chamberlain. Both McCain and Chamberlain were anti-Russian. Both appeased aggression. McCain appeases Georgia over South Ossetia. Chamberlain appeased Germany over Czechoslovakia. Both South Ossetia and Czechoslovakia were allies of Russia. So, from the above factors, it is clear that McCain, not Obama, that is the better fit for Chamberlain. That is clear enough. |
Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 06:53
Because- 1, the Russian reaction was overzealous and extreme in terms of the use of force. 2, In addition to the extreme reaction on the part of the Russians, the supposed Georgian provocation was minor and highly dubious. 3, There is much evidence to suggest that Russia planned to move month's ahead of time into Georgia as soon as it found an excuse to do so. 4, Georgia was also a target of Moscow because of it's strong desire to seek NATO Membership and make overtures about possible EU Membership also, which put it's political leadership right in the cross hairs of Moscow, In regards to this why else is the Russians demanding that the Georgian President resign? 5, In addition Russia is attempting to black mail the West by making hints at bombing oil pipelines that cross through Georgia and possibly turning off ones that cross through Russian territory and travel to the West via the Ukraine. 6, Putin is now hinting at undermining possibly the Ukrainian and Estonian governments as a long term geopolitical goal in order to restore Russian influence in Eastern Europe as a means to put further pressure on the West. |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 06:56
What evidence? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 06:57
|
1) If they had used an H-Bomb to flatten Tiblisi; THAT would have been an overreaction. This is not.
2) Sending 4 brigades of troops (20000 men) with 120 tanks, and 200 plus APC's, supported by heavy artillery and airpower is not "minor".
3) No doubt the Russians had contingency plans for such an operation, every military in the world has plans for possible operations which are put into effect in wartime. I doubt the Russians were expecting it; Putin would not have gone to the Olympics opening ceremony if they had. ------------- |
Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 07:00
Gentleman I will respond with and explenation in the morning but I have to get to bed now as it's quite late over here. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 07:01
|
I made an addition to my post as well.
------------- |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 20:18
|
The problem with American politics is that every act of supposed diplomatic compromise with a supposed enemy is lauded as appeasement. This fear of compromise is dangerous and is not the way international politics should work. It creates more problems than it causes.
------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 20:44
|
Hello Kevin
well, about appeasment, there is a small problem concerning russia, it has the world's largest nuke arsenal and an unlimited esource of grey matter, brains that is. The only way to deal with Russia is to appease her, or more specifically, know your limits. Expanding at the door step of Russia particularly the restive region of the Caucasus is and was wrong. Russia will accept only economic influence that is why it never had a problem with the pipelines from azerbaijan and turkmenistan. But to change regimes and threaten peace this is what Russia won't accept. Strategically Russia did the right thing in this war and I actually applaud the decisiveness of the Russian response, although I still think it was wrong.
Calling Obama "appeaser", and Chamberlaine 2.0 is a great injustice to both guys. For the west, There is simply no threat comparable to the Nazi threat in 1938 pure and simple. Iran barely survived the Iraq war in the 80s and will certainly lose any war with the US. It is all propaganda nothing more and the goal, like the WMDs, is to set a foothold in the gulf region because in 10 years time, oil production will start a downward trend in all gulf countries and this will mean a vicious war for oil and first come is first to win.
As for Chamberlaine, well the guy didn't go to war because he didn't have divisions on the ground, as he appeased Germany he also prepared for war. What happened in Munich is the fault of the Czechs who refused to wage war to defend their country, the French who refused the concept altogether as much as his fault.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 21:54
|
The Czechs did all they could Al-Jassas. They were screwed over by Chamberlain at Munich - the Czechs weren't even there! They lost their most elaborate defensible region and could stand no chance against the Germans. In the end, Munich divided the country so much that there wasn't even a Czechoslovakia to stand against the Germans when the time came.
------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2008 at 15:57
|
Hello to you all
Sorry about beig late in response but here it is.
About the sell of sudetenland I must remind you that the Czechs had one of the largest and most advaced armies in Europe in 1938. they had more tanks than the Germans as well as planes. Their troops were in an excellent shape and I think that they had some half a million soldiers. Germany had nothing. The german military machine only began to rival that of the rest of Europe, France and Britain, in 1940 however in 1938 the german army was fragile. Halder was planning a coup with the support of the army, the SS was just a little kitten with no teeth. The sudetenland was a natural defense against the germans and all the historians I read agree that had the Czechs chose to fight France and Britain would have been forced to go to war because the German capability to wage was in March 38 was no where near that of Spet. 39.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: WolfHound
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 03:03
| Um not really Russia is only advocating the return of South Ossetia which ethnically Russian and wants to be a part of Russia. Until Russia invades the Ukraine or Poland and says these are our rightful territories than the comparison can be made. But only if Obama actually gets elected and decides to appease Russia. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 13:12
|
South Ossetia (and North for that matter) has the right to self-determination just as much as Kosovo does. To oppose independence for Ossetia and support it for Kosovo, or oppose it for Kosovo and support it for Ossetia are both just playing silly and dangeroous power games.
The only principled stands are either supporting self-determination for both or supporting self-determination for neither.
Personally I'm with the west on Kosovo and with Russia on Ossetia.
------------- |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 13:24
|
Romanian president: Kosovo issue foreshadows similar direction in South Ossetia BUCHAREST, Aug. 20 (Xinhua) -- What happened with Kosovo foreshadows a similar direction in South Ossetia, the visiting Romanian President Traian Basescu said on Wednesday in Chisinau. "At present, sovereign and independent countries are dismantled in the name of collective rights of the minorities," Basescu said when talking with his Moldovan counterpart Vladimir Voronin. "This is what happened with Kosovo and Serbia lost a part of its territory, and the things foreshadow a similar direction in South Ossetia and, should I dare say it, in Abkhazia," the Romanian president stressed. "You know that Romania is among the countries that did not recognize Kosovo, considering that the decision of setting up a state on the soil of another sovereign and independent state runs counter to the laws of an international right, runs counter to the principle of territorial integrity and inviolability of state borders," said Basescu. "No kind of right can prevail upon the one of the national integrity, sovereignty and inviolability of state borders of an independent state," Basescu said, stressing that Romania is an unreserved supporter of the integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova. In the context of the frozen conflicts in the area of the BlackSera, the two heads of state examined the situation of the conflict in Moldova's Transdniestr, concluding that "this conflict perfectly matches to what happened in Kosovo, to what happened in South Ossetia." Basescu emphasized that the situation in South Ossetia is a proof of the fact that these frozen conflicts do not have a correct tension defusing mechanism. "As regards the Transdniestr, we reached to the conclusion that the involvement of the European Union is fundamental and essential in finding a solution in line with the international legislation and that will fully observe the territorial sovereignty and integrity of the Republic of Moldova," Basescu underscored. Moldovan President Voronin reiterated that his country will decide the Transdniestr issue only at the table of negotiations, only in a peaceful way. Romanian President Basescu is on a
tour on Wednesday and Friday to Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. The meeting with Voronin took place in
the same day in which the head of the Romanian state met in Kiev with
his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yushchenko. Correspondence between German Politicians Reveals the Hidden Agenda behind Kosovo's "Independence" http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8304 - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8304 |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 15:47
|
Regardless of who wins the election, Obama or McCain will have to negotiate with Russia for the simple fact that the U.S. lacks the manpower to do anything, even if its leaders wanted to do something about it.
Many American war hawks actually demonstrate their ignorance on matters of war an American when they go around merrily advising that we should use force to solve every problem. First, it shows how they can't count: diplomatic relations are a lot cheaper than wars, and you got to keep your war bucks safe for a rainy day. Second, they don't seem to understand that armies have limits of resources and men. With the U.S. armed forces having a backdoor draft just to keep the Afghan and Iraq operations going, the U.S. has no way of fighting a third front. For that matter, not even at the height of the Cold War was it ever designed for fighting 3 wars/fronts at a time. Many neocon war hawks are just drunk with the idea of power and violent displays of it, regardless of human cost and treasure. ------------- |
Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 02:47
Of course it's obvious that we can't use force against them unless they attack another NATO member but I was suggesting that I feel Obama will just not be tough in dealing with them. |
Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 02:48
|
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 04:20
|
I think you underestimate Obama, Kevin. In fact this is a typical unfair criticism of democratic presidential candidates made by Republicans. Often they say that Democrats are weak and don't want to fight, these comments are made with absolutely no basis in fact. Obama has not claimed that he would never use force. He has claimed, however, to only use it when it is needed. That is that he would not have gone into Iraq but he would go into Afghanistan.
Keep in mind that Obama also hasn't said that he would give up any land of the US or any other country in order to avert a war as Chamberlain did. |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 04:36
|
On 26 November 1937, one week
after Halifax’s conversation with Hitler, Chamberlain wrote to his
sister: "I don’t see why we shouldn’t say to Germany, ‘Give us satisfactory assurances that you won’t use force to deal with the Austrians and Czechoslovakians, and we will give you similar assurances that we won’t use force to prevent the changes you want if you can get them by peaceful means." http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=YmleaUJLsqYC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=I+don%E2%80%99t+see+why+we+shouldn%E2%80%99t+say+to+Germany,+%E2%80%98Give+us+satisfactory+assurances+that+you+won%E2%80%99t+use+force+to+deal+with+the+Austrians+and+Czechoslovakians&source=web&ots=AHV83KG6or&sig=hJpGqQb6QL9rP-OkowiTW4bRF_Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result - http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=YmleaUJLsqYC&pg=PA1 |
Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 05:05
Even though he has said he would fight a war when needed, do you think he will actually follow through if needed at the end of the day? Also keep in mind the Clinton Administration's record on foreign policy and defence issues and how poorly they were handled then. However to be fair the Bush Administration hasn't exactly gotten things right ether in matter of fact far from it, for example I thought Bush appeased the DPRK to some extent on the nuclear weapons issue and Bush was foolish to think Putin was completely trustworthy and not to mention the handling of Post-Saddam Iraq. |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 05:24
USA appeased DPRK in what way? |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 05:24
|
Posted By: Ninurta
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 07:16
|
"do you think he will actually follow through if needed at the end of the day?" This seems like a weak statement, one that may be based on a "vibe". |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 14:32
I really don't understand the support that Bush receives from so many conservative Americans. My understanding was that Clinton won a war, Kossovo. My understanding is that the economy was in good shape (yes, the stock market was reliving the roaring twenties before the crash but it still...). My understanding is that we had more partners to do our dirty deeds with. Ever since freedom fries and various countries dumping BW chronies left and right, we are stuck with little world support and most all of the work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's go team!
What was the sales pitch in this thread again? Oh yeah, that Democrats are soft on terror, war, blah blah blah... Hmmm, would Obama follow through at the end of the day? As president he better be. It's not like this scenario presents itself on a regular basis though. Anyone would have reacted with strength after 911. Not just Republicans. However, most anyone would have kept better rapport with allies and not lost their support.
The propoganda machine is alive and well in certain American circles. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 14:44
|
Kevin,
Historically, the greatest war time presidents that this country has had had been Democrats: Wilson and FDR and Truman are on top of the pack here, followed probably by George Herbert Walker Bush and then Nixon. Clinton is not with the great, but even he invaded countries and bombed them when he felt it was necessary to do so. Recent history should make it clear that a Democratic president will handle foreign affairs with military solutions and more often than not, succeed. Also, I want to bring to your attention two big 60s icons: Kennedy and Nixon. Kennedy also was painted as a dove. He overcompensated by backing up a crazy invasion of Cuba which almost destroyed the world when most of the active members of this board were young, babies, or not even born yet. It was dumb luck, the luck of having the loud mouth Khrushchev who apparently was willing to lose face to save the world and remove strategic nuclear missiles from Turkey that saved the world. Had the current leader of the USSR had been a hothead, we may not be having this discussion right now. On the other hand, Nixon, perceived as a war hawk, had as his greatest legacy establishing relations with a hostile China. The point here is that people who are perceived as being too much as doves may end up overcompensating to prove the public otherwise. I don't know how Obama will react, but we should keep in mind that he may do this as well. As for McCain, he has been so over the top hawkish that any diplomatic measures that he would take would be an improvement. (Sigh! I miss the old McCain of 2000.  )------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 15:57
|
Hello to you all
About Seko's question, well, as an outsider who has been exposed to conservative propaganda for some years, mainly Limbaugh but also others, I think the reason why people chose Bush is cultural. Just look at the message the conservatives give and the one liberal do. People hate intellectual talk even if they themselves were highly educated because intellectuals are elitists by nature, they only look down on other people and portray themselves as teachers in a kindergarten and they rest of the people as only children. Their message is always based on big words like the audacity of hope and tenacity of reform. come on, most of the people who do cast votes in America are hard working people who like straightforward talk. GWB won with his town hall rolled up sleeve gatherings not his lectures to the humane society or the Sierra club, if he actually ever went there.
The dems can win elections no one can dispute it, they controlled politics across all levels except presendtial one for the last 60 years. They just have to use another strategy. There are more intellectuals amongst republican and conservative ranks than in the Liberal and democratic ranks, the difference is the conservatives don't brag about it, they keep their talk simple and straight while the dems go on endless intellectual debates that will reach them nothing.
As for this election, well the fate of Obama was sealed when he began his european triumphal march and was met by european masses, one thing I noticed with my dealings with Americans is they hate any guy who identifies himself with a foreign country. They ditched "French" John Kerry and will ditch Obama.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 16:02
And if you'll remember, the Republicans opposed intervention in the Balkans; ah what a difference a couple of election cycles and control of the presidency makes. It is, unfortunately likely that whoever is in office will continue our trend of meddling more in the world than we should, simply because that is what we have become accustomed to. Obama's diplomatic naivete may actually be balanced by his less hawkish stance, at least when it comes to redressing our historical willingness to meddle in matters that do not concern us. I would really like to see one or both of the candidates come up with a comprehensive solution for the situation in Darfur, but I wouldn't want to interrupt their mudslinging fest with my petty practical concerns.
As for Bush, I think that the reason he continues to receive support on some of his failed policies -- and they are not all failures, but there is certainly enough to criticize -- from American who should know better is that so much of the early criticism of this administration was wildly unfair and over the top. This isn't to excuse people for making irrational choices, or supporting unjust wars; it is to say that those who violently protested the injustices of this administration should take a lesson, step down off their high-horse, realize that no one is obligated to listen to them, and couch their criticism in a more mature fashion. I do not excuse this government for its aggressive actions. I do assert that the war in Iraq would have lost public support long before it did had the most visible, vocal minority in the broader activist community concentrated on what they were protesting rather than the power-trip/drama of the protest itself. Then again, if people just acted like adults we might actually solve our problems, and then what would people talk about on Crossfire, Hannity and Colmes, etc.?
 -Akolouthos
|