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: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (74907)	2/18/2003 2:29:45 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

No, in hindsight we should have, when Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles, organized a U.S.-led alliance of the French, British, Soviets, Poles, and Czechs, and done "regime-change" in Germany. About 40 million lives would have been saved. But public opinion in all those countries in the 1920s and 1930s, was pacifist, still horrified by the useless slaughter of WWI. So, everyone temporized. The attitude today in France and Germany, is a lot like what it was in the 1930s in France, the U.S., and England. Horror of war led them to the wishful thinking that all conflicts could be settled by negotiation. FDR saw what needed to be done, but he also knew he couldn't get too far out in front of public opinion. So he maneuvered us into conflict with Japan. In order to secure their "East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere", the Japanese would have to make war on the U.S., and they also had to grab the undefended European colonies, like Dutch Indonesia's oil fields. FDR knew this; he knew that once we were at war, it wouldn't stay limited to just Japan for long. You keep on responding to my posts, as if I'm a pacifist in favor of unilateral disarmament and surrender. In fact, the program I favor is more aggressive, more militant, than what the Bush Administration is currently doing.