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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (35785)	8/2/2002 5:29:20 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Hitler was appeased by the West largely when they allowed him to take over the Sudetenland. Are you saying that the history books are wrong, and Saddam is now ruling in Kuwait? Wonderful Analogy Carl!!! Desert Storm was an example of what happens when confrontation wins out over appeasement. There were certainly appeasers after his invasion, who felt it wasn't worth the price to liberate Kuwait and confront Saddam. But had we permitted Saddam to continue to occupy Kuwait and control that source of oil, it could have created the same economic and political chaos that occurred in 1939. But it becomes a "what if" scenario if we theorize how Britain and France would have dealt with Hitler had they openly confronted him and kicked him out of the Rhineland or Sudetenland. I believe the Rhineland scenario is probably more appropriate for that reason. It would have required years of "containment", and quite possibly Hitler would have been able to dedicate more time and effort to his wonder weapons and nuclear program. After all, let's not forget that it was primarily exiled German nuclear scientists who provided the expertise for the Manhatten Project. Would they have felt so compelled to help the US develop such a weapon (or would we have been so motivated to spend such an enormous sum at that time)? And would France and Britain have had the stomach to continue to spend treasure in confronting him? How long would he have remained in power until he had regained his political and economic leverage? Some say that the massive military buildup that Hitler launched his nation upon made it inevitable that there would be war. After all, it put Germany in a tremendous amount of debt that needed to be paid off to its bankers (through the conquest and sacking of occupied nations). Would Hitler have turned to subverting France and Britain politically or through revolutionary violence from Nazi fifth columns? I certainly don't believe Hitler would have just sat still and permitted himself to be politically and economically "caged". And neither do I believe is willing to do that either. He's just biding his time until he see an opportunity and has the techology to exploit it. All very interesting questions though... Again.. great analogy. Hawk