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: michael97123 who wrote (242177)	9/18/2007 12:42:06 PM
From: c.hinton	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

re Munich there is the concideration ,oft overlooked ,that the future allies were in no position to challenge hitler........if one looks at defence spending one will note that it is only in 1936 that money was being seriously increaced on defence.see charts for eh.net the allies would have had to mount an attack against a fortified frontier (siegfreid line)and had not the ability to do so.....hitler knew this and hoped they would anyway, defence almost always has a 3 to 1 advantage the us was at the make or break point over the new deal(1937)...roosevelts position was not strong the american public was bent on isolationism. russia resented allied intervention in the 20s the uk had just had its king abdicate,not for divorse but rather for too close ties to hitler. parliment could have voted a dispencation but the duke of windsor was a political liability. the fighters that won the battle for brittan were years away from production in sufficiant numbers.1st dilevery 1938 some say hilter wanted badly a war then... the time was right. he was denied his provocation....the allies gained vital time.....roosevelt slowly warmed the US public to the thought of war and arms supplies to berlligerants(see neutrality act) So bottom line ...Munich is a cliché. Buying time to fully prepare is the lesson. jmho