Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (133773)	10/28/2001 7:14:00 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>> So you're saying Chamberlain's only fault was in not staying true to appeasement << what i am saying is you shouldn't make agreements when you're not in a position to back them up after they are broken. that is not appeasement. after hitler double crossed chamberlain he was not in a position to do anything about it. that sent a message to hitler that aggression would not be challenged. of course hitler's double cross impugned the honor of chamberlain and forced his hand to try to regain that honor by giving poland a war guarantee. if chamberlain hadn't intervened and signed the agreement in munich, he could have reserved the right to go to war on his terms when he was properly prepared. in order to not look like a weak appeaser, he made a war guarantee to poland. of course hitler obliged and waltzed right in, to be followed shortly thereafter by stalin. now obviously britain and france definitely had to do something, because they were being made a total fool of. so they declared war. obviously hitler couldn't very well attack the soviets to the east without protecting his rear, so he turned on france and britain first. this gave stalin almost two years to prepare for hitler. if chamberlain had been a good little "isolationist" and not signed agreements with hitler in the first place he would have had no reason to declare war on germany when he wasn't prepared. he could have spent another couple of years preparing for war while hitler was busy tangling with stalin. >> That brings me back to my earlier question, just how far would you have taken that policy? << i don't advocate chamberlain's strategies so your question isn't valid. >> How close would the Nazis have had to come to our shores before you would finally admit they were enough of a threat to do anything about? << hitler couldn't even cross the english channel and invade britain!! yet you and others are trying to tell me that hitler was going to cross thousands of miles of ocean with no aircraft carriers or no long range bombers to attack the united states. all while america sat there and watched helplessly?? there is no point in even debating with you and victor because you don't have a clue as to the facts of the second world war. do some more homework and then get back to me. otherwise this is a waste of time.