The Ronald Reagan On Everything Thread

[j2k4]

But, my point, Rat?

What if the U.K. were condemned to eternally suffer the slings and arrows of a cynical and rancorous memory of Chamberlain's misguided diplomacy?

EDIT: A purer distillation of the same thought: What if history looked thus upon Chamberlain (and Britain) as the cause of WWII, and not Hitler?

He wasn't alone in thinking he was doing the right thing at the time; Sir Winston was apparently the only dissenter in the entire British Isles.

Chamberlain is remembered (here, anyway) as a pacifist too eager to appease, and taken advantage of by a rapidly-growing danger.

He is not, however, relentlessly pilloried as being too stupid too live.

[lynx]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 June 2004 - 14:40
Chamberlain is remembered (here, anyway) as a pacifist too eager to appease, and taken advantage of by a rapidly-growing danger.

And a close personal friend of FDR I understand.

I believe Chamberlain made the Munich agreement just a few months after FDR signed the US Neutrality Act. :-"

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx+12 June 2004 - 08:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx &#064; 12 June 2004 - 08:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@12 June 2004 - 14:40
Chamberlain is remembered (here, anyway) as a pacifist too eager to appease, and taken advantage of by a rapidly-growing danger.

And a close personal friend of FDR I understand.

I believe Chamberlain made the Munich agreement just a few months after FDR signed the US Neutrality Act. :-"[/b][/quote]
Yup.

Hitler wasn&#39;t the threat to us he was to Europe, at least at that time.

In any case, though we arrived late to the scene, we did arrive, didn&#39;t we?

Actually, one might argue (facetiously) that our obesiance to the Neutrality Act lasted longer than Britain&#39;s (and Hitler&#39;s) to the Munich agreement, such could indicate we "followed through", but, as I said: facetious.

When the house is burning, you don&#39;t wait to act.

BTW: I really like these: :-"

Can&#39;t wait to for an occasion to use one.

[lynx]

My point was that while Germany had secretly rearmed, Britain had still been running down its armed forces. The only place to get enough arms in a hurry in order to oppose Hitler at Munich would have been to get supplies from US manufacturers. But the US Neutrality Act would have specifically blocked any such sales.

It was therefore necessary for Chamberlain to agree to Hitler&#39;s demands in order to have time to build up a supply of arms for a conflict which was becoming more and more inevitable.

So you could argue that it was the Neutrality Act which caused WWII by preventing Hitler from being stopped in 1937.

To use your burning house analogy, it is equally no use trying to put it out with a water pistol, you try to keep it under control until you have the tools to fight the fire.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by lynx@12 June 2004 - 12:02
My point was that while Germany had secretly rearmed, Britain had still been running down its armed forces. The only place to get enough arms in a hurry in order to oppose Hitler at Munich would have been to get supplies from US manufacturers. But the US Neutrality Act would have specifically blocked any such sales.

It was therefore necessary for Chamberlain to agree to Hitler&#39;s demands in order to have time to build up a supply of arms for a conflict which was becoming more and more inevitable.

So you could argue that it was the Neutrality Act which caused WWII by preventing Hitler from being stopped in 1937.

To use your burning house analogy, it is equally no use trying to put it out with a water pistol, you try to keep it under control until you have the tools to fight the fire.

Hmmm minding our business caused a war?

I wonder where that "minding our business is now.

[Biggles]

Aside from Churchill, who was in his political wilderness years - (he had no compunction about changing parties if he dis-agreed a point of principle and had gathered many enemies along the way) few identified Hitler as a serious threat to mainland Europe.

It is easy to see, post the event, the causes of WW2. However, it should be recalled that German re-arming was only technically secret. Whilst ostensibly trawlers, the Bismark, Tirpitz and Graf Spee were easy to convert into make shift naval vessals.

The newspaper editorials of the 1930s were heavy with the threat from Stalin and communism - Hitler and Mussolini were seen as slightly bizarre but useful bulwarks against the spread of communism. Jews were not a popular cause, either in Europe, the US or the USSR. The main concern was not so much that Hitler was deporting them, but that they might come here (wherever here may be).

Chamberlain and FDR rightly identified that there was a threat to Europe - they just mis-judged where that threat was from.

As Lynx points out, Britain under Chamberlain did re-arm from 37 onwards. If it were not for the Spitfires and Hurricanes and the victory in the air in 1940/41 there would have been no platform from which to launch a D-Day.

So one could argue that Chamberlain bought time and saved the World.

[j2k4]

Which brings us back to the point I was trying to make:

History, no matter how closely studied, recorded or remembered, has a good deal of flexibility, and there is no way to get to the bottom of certain matters, as regards basic motivation(s); we are left to speculate, and that speculation is diluted further by the false surety of hindsight and retrospect which make us so bloody sure of ourselves now that the crises are past, yes?

How would it be if none of us even remembered the Munich agreement or the Neutrality Act?

We would be much further from the truth, surely.

Biggles-

As always you point out a salient but little remembered fact: The threat of Stalin, even more historically real than Hitler, given the cost in lives to Russia due to his pogroms and "food shortages".

A truer monster never lived, including Hitler.

[Busyman]

1. AIDS was first reported to the CDC in 1981. Reagan significantly hindered research and education efforts to fight it.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, his surgeon, wrote "political meddlers in the White House" had complicated his work on the disease, and "at least a dozen times I pleaded with my critics in the White House to let me have a meeting with President Reagan" on AIDS in the mid 1980&#39;s.

Mr. Reagan did not make extensive public comments on AIDS until 1987.

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by Busyman@12 June 2004 - 20:15
1. AIDS was first reported to the CDC in 1981. Reagan significantly hindered research and education efforts to fight it.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, his surgeon, wrote "political meddlers in the White House" had complicated his work on the disease, and "at least a dozen times I pleaded with my critics in the White House to let me have a meeting with President Reagan" on AIDS in the mid 1980&#39;s.

Mr. Reagan did not make extensive public comments on AIDS until 1987.

A study found that the government spent almost six billion dollars on AIDS during President Reagan&#39;s tenure.Six Billion&#33;I mean dude.Where do you think that Money came from?

It came from other divisioins like malaria that kill millions every Year.It was used for HIV research, surveillance, and prevention.

Just because a Man does not talk about it do you think he was not doing anything?He was concernced as the rest of us was.But this was the early 80s.Nobody and I mean nobody knew what was going on when this hit.

*I said I would not Post back in this Thread when it came to JunkYard and what he called Reagen.This is different.*

[{SHELL%SHOCKED}]

I wish I was Ronald Reagan, not many on this board accomplish and achieve what he did good or bad.