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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (127084)	7/23/2005 9:26:52 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793820

No doubt about it. Hitler would have had to scuttle out of the Rhineland, if he had gone in at all in the face of what would have been Churchill's very vocal opposition. But that would not have been a preemptive situation. He would have been responding to Hitler's threat. What would Churchill's British opponents have called such a move? Dangerous brinksmanship? Pre-emptive war? Remember, Hitler didn't fire a shot when marched into the Rhineland.

To: LindyBill who wrote (127084)	7/24/2005 2:31:54 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793820

But that would not have been a preemptive situation. He would have been responding to Hitler's threat Isn't a preemptive situation acting on a threat before it comes to fruition? If Britain would have backed France and sent troops into the Rhineland, Hitler would've been stared down before he could act. The years leading up to WWII are a good example of the kind of collapse in complex embargo and inspection regimes that we see with Iraq. Post-WWI Germany had an arms inspection regime that was probably more extensive than Iraq's. Germany's didn't work either, and the political will to enforce it withered away. Like Churchill said, the easiest war to stop. Derek