user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Probaby because they were still demanding HUGE daily payments of "war reparations" that were, ironically, crippling Germanys ability to be productive and pay said payments.
Voted : I know why it failed and I'll explain below
The main problem is that they assumed that Germany was only being provocative because it felt threatened, because it was just being purely defensive, and that if it were made to feel secure, then it would supposedly stop being provocative.
The problem with this is that sometimes nation-states are not always acting out of defensive agendas, and to blindly assume so is incredibly naive at times. Sometimes nation-states have assertive and aggressive intentions.
Cathexis
LCD
I forgot to include the most obvious answer: I will avoid this ballot like the plague because I am frightened of the implications.
Voted : I know why it failed and I'll explain below
The allied nations chose to not act when they were superior militarily. Instead they chose negotiation and appeasement. They tried working with Hitler who bluffed and deceived them as to his true intentions. It worked great didn't it. Sound familiar?
Voted : I know why it failed and I'll explain below
They were not bargaining from a position of strength...(or so the Germans thought...(in my opinion)
Apparently it was a very complicated situation; but if I was forced to pick one reason, it would be because Britain (and the rest of the world) did not fully realize the dangers of Hitler and Nazism.
Or perhaps they had looked to what happened just 20 years before when Europe chose aggression instead of diplomacy and were engulfed in the most barbaric conflict the world had yet seen. Its swings and round abouts.
Did anyone know that Woodrow Wilson was a fervent supporter of the Klu Klux clan? Found that out a few days ago, thought you might be interested.
I hardly think you can compare any of the members of the "axis of evil" to Nazi Germany. Iraq was hardly likely to march its way to domination of Europe was it? Nor are North Korea and Iran for that matter.
^ they are not the same situation, and no one is saying that nazi germany and IRan are the same place.
That wasn't the question.
However, they are being dealt with the in same way, although people expect different results this time around. Isn't that one sign of madness? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
lil_ape - No one is comparing them to Nazi Germany. What is being addressed is a certain policy and why it failed, and would possibly outline why it would probably fail again.
IMO, because too many of the principles did want War, overtly or covertly.
Diplomacy is not some magic panacea that is always guaranteed to work, under every circumstance. For example, if you have a major military power who believes it has the physical might to occupy an entire region, that may not be a situation where diplomacy will be effective.
BTW, you appear to have a profound ignorance about what constitutes diplomacy. It is not the same as appeasement, despite your misconceptions. It is not necessary to remove all threats of military action in negotiations. Threat of force can be a legitimate diplomatic tool. However, the threat is stronger than the execution.
But yes ... not using imflammatory rhetoric is widely considered Diplomatic.
Also, by engaging in *real* diplomacy, a nation establishes a baseline credibility and integrity -- which can be leveraged to form real alliances ... not just ones on paper, with tiny, bribed, or coerced countries that will bail at the first opportunity.
"because too many of the principles did want War, overtly or covertly."
- Who did? Germany or Britain or both? I would say Germany wanted war, and Britain did not.
"BTW, you appear to have a profound ignorance about what constitutes diplomacy. It is not the same as appeasement, despite your misconceptions."
- Of course not all diplomacy is appeasement. But a diplomacy built on the rhetoric of "What do you want? Tell us what you want and we will give it to you. That way you will feel 'secure' and won't feel the need to be provocative again.", that is one of appeasement.
cathexis ^
Herzog and Socrates
That wasnt the question per se, but it was clearly being inferred. The "appeasement2 of Germany was clearly being related to the UN's supposed "appeasement" of North Korea and Iran today.
To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous to say the least.
"However, they are being dealt with the in same way, although people expect different results this time around. Isn't that one sign of madness? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
But it ISNT doing the same thing over and over again. If, as you now claim, you were NOT in fact comparing Nazi Germany and the "axis of evil" countries, then you will appreciate that these negotiations concern different countries, with different political outlooks and in a different world era. So its an entirely new situation.
lil_ape - I refuse to discuss either Iran or North Korea on this ballot. I'm very cut and dry. It is not proper, is not to do with the ballot question.
Just answer the question of why you think the policy of appeasement with Germany failed in the 1930's. If you want, you can discuss in detail what factors made this circumstance supposedly so unique. Thanks.
"is not to do with the ballot question."
I think we both know thats not the truth, dont we? And even if it wasnt related to the ballot originially (which I believe it was), the fact that the ballot maker later said this;
"However, they are being dealt with the in same way, although people expect different results this time around. Isn't that one sign of madness? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Sort of opens up the subject for debate, wouldnt you say?
Anyway, if you want to be disingenuous, thats fine. I believe there were number of reasons for the failure, one of which was the German nations poor experience of democracy and free markets after the first world war (hyper inflation, 50% unemployment etc), which were not helped of course by the fact that the Allies were demanding daily war reperations, the total amount of which would equal roughly $400 billion in todays money. These factors helped coerce the people into the grip of Nazism, presented to them behind the rather convincing oratory, and insidiously persuasive voice of one A. Hitler.
ok?
'IMO, because too many of the principles did want War, overtly or covertly.'
Too many? It was only germany.
So what you're saying is that if one side is intent on having a war then diplomacy won't work? I agree.
'
Diplomacy is not some magic panacea that is always guaranteed to work, under every circumstance.'
And yet you've been pushing it as just that for a long time now. Diplomacy was all that was needed to stop Iran, and North Korea, and saddam and the taliban and why the hell not, global warming and aids as well. But it is nice of you to admit that diplomacy isn't always the best solution. I think this should be declared a national holiday.
'For example, if you have a major military power who believes it has the physical might to occupy an entire region, that may not be a situation where diplomacy will be effective.'
Or perhaps a delusional government that believes they can push the world around and win regional victories?
' BTW, you appear to have a profound ignorance about what constitutes diplomacy.'
No, I know exactly what it is. As you have been selling it as a solution to every problem (except your miraculous reformation on this ballot) I'd say you have a profound ignorance on what diplomacy is and what it can do.
'It is not the same as appeasement, despite your misconceptions. '
Let's see, you lauded giving NOrth Korea two free nuclear reactors after they threatened us with nuclear proliferation. How is that not appeasement? One side makes a threat, the other offers them something.
But I see you are now opposed to giving out concessions in exchange for threats, this is a big day for you.
'It is not necessary to remove all threats of military action in negotiations. Threat of force can be a legitimate diplomatic tool. However, the threat is stronger than the execution. '
And yet you have criticized Bush for using threats of violence as not really engaging in diplomacy. You're all over the place.
' But yes ... not using imflammatory rhetoric is widely considered Diplomatic. '
And apparently has no effect whatsoever on the outcome. Sending Mr. Hitler a dozen roses on his birthday may have been very nice and diplomatic as well, but it wouldn't have prevented the war, and not doing it wouldn't have caused one. Hitler was not provoked in any way, and he still went to war. Obviously when dealing with a dictatorship out for war rhetoric has no impact.
Today you've come out of the closet so to speak, and now oppose offering concessions, support the threat of violence and admit that diplomacy is not a cure-all. So, who are you?
Too many.
Not just Germany. Germany was just the most above- board with it.
The talks were between britain and germany. Obviously germany wanted war, but you said more than just them.
So you're claiming neville chamberlain went to hitler and provoked a war intentionally? Because at the point britain was desperate to get in a crippling war with their newly rearmed enemy? Come on cath, that's bullshit, even for the new you that's ridiculous.
Cathexis- Britain and France were pushing for war? As if?
Well he's obviously run off but clearly cathexis was implying that the british were aggressive and this led to wwII. Anything to defend appeasement and ineffectual diplomacy I suppose.
What hes saying is that secretly there was an agenda for war and that some within the british hierarchy wanted war as much as Germany.
I know, makes no sense at all, but thats what I think he's saying. Talk about being jaded man. Dude, thats bull
|
|
