Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Obama=Chamberlain II? |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Kevin 
General 
AE Editor Joined: 27-Apr-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 767 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Obama=Chamberlain II?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? |
||
 |
||
|
Super Goat (^_^)
Pretorian 
Joined: 22-Oct-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 180 |
Quote Reply
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. Edited by Super Goat (^_^) - 14-Aug-2008 at 03:43 |
||
|
||
|
Constantine XI
Suspended 
Suspended Joined: 01-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5711 |
Quote Reply
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.
|
||
|
||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel 
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
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 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 Obama adviser compares Putin to Hitlerhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/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 Edited by Bankotsu - 14-Aug-2008 at 04:56 |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 04:47 |
|
|
I really wish people would understand context not to mention history before the made comparisons. Edited by Sparten - 14-Aug-2008 at 04:49 |
||
|
||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 04:55 |
|
I agree. The history should be properly cleared up first. |
||
|
||
|
Kevin
General
AE Editor Joined: 27-Apr-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 767 |
Quote Reply
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. |
||
|
||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 06:07 |
|
But Hitler wasn't anti-american or anti-western. He was pro-british and anti-bolshevik. |
||
|
||
|
Kevin
General
AE Editor Joined: 27-Apr-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 767 |
Quote Reply
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. |
||
|
||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
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. Edited by Bankotsu - 14-Aug-2008 at 10:31 |
||
|
||
|
Kevin
General
AE Editor Joined: 27-Apr-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 767 |
Quote Reply
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. Edited by Kevin - 14-Aug-2008 at 06:57 |
||
|
||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 06:56 |
|
What evidence? |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
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. Edited by Sparten - 14-Aug-2008 at 07:00 |
||
|
||
|
Kevin
General
AE Editor Joined: 27-Apr-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 767 |
Quote Reply
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. |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 07:01 |
|
|
I made an addition to my post as well.
|
||
|
||
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 04-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1409 |
Quote Reply
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.
|
||
|
||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke 
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
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
|
||
|
||
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 04-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1409 |
Quote Reply
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.
|
||
|
||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
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
|
||
|
||
|
WolfHound
Knight 
Joined: 30-Jun-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 80 |
Quote Reply
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.
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.
