Bush is the Churchill of our time; thank god Kerry wasn’t in charge?
Question by GREAT_AMERICAN : Bush is the Churchill of our time; thank god Kerry wasn’t in charge? Bush is the Churchill of our time; thank god Kerry wasn’t in charge
“Moral paralysis” is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.
It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.
Back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing — and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him.
Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today — “negotiations.”
No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain — wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own — when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant “peace in our time.”
We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.
Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, “There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action.” The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.
At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks “without the firing of a single shot,” Churchill said.
That point came in 1936 — three years before World War II began — when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.
At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.
As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat “with our tail between our legs,” because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.
Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler’s aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.
“Moral paralysis” came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.
Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: “France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core.”
It was morally paralyzed.
History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?
We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly — or not at all — toward doing anything to stop them.
It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the UN to do anything that would make any real difference.
Not only the history of the UN, but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.
The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don’t think we have the guts to stop them.
Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best anti-war statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear — and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them.
Iranian leaders today make only the most token and transparent claims that they are building “peaceful” nuclear facilities — in one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, which has no need for nuclear power to generate electricity.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally? Best answer:
Answer by Mr. Pickles
Can anyone help me turn Winston Churchill back over in his grave?
Give your answer to this question below!
Yes, he saved us from nucular attack from Iraq!
no much of a question.
by the way did Bush have “moral paralysis” as he sat in that classroom on 9/11with piss running down his leg while our country was under attack?
no no… you’ve got it all wrong. Bush is the new Hitler.
Your childish slander against Sir Winston is an affront to all freedom-loving people the world over.
Well written…he may very well be.
Oh PLEASE! Spare me the BS. George W. Bush isn’t worthy of changing Winston Churchill’s chamber pot if he had one. There is NO WAY that Bush is even in the same country as Winnie let alone in the ball park or on the diamond.
Thanks for wasting 1:30 of my life. I am now dumber for reading your question. You may know your history but you haven’t a clue about the present.
I assume by your analysis that you are referring to Bush 41.
PLEASE STOP GLORIFYING AL QAIDA. Comparing Al Qaida to WWII Germany is like comparing an acorn to an oak tree- they just aren’t that big. The worst they can do is commit a dramatic atrocity; but they aren’t capable of the overthrow of a nation, much less several. They’re only real weapon is fear, and by spreading it you are aiding and abetting the enemy you decry. This is the “Home of the Brave” so butch up Republicans.
Churchill was an inspired leader, and a gifted public speaker- don’t shame his memory by comparing him to President Bush.
I guess he was also a famous drunk- is that the basis of your comparison?
You are right.
You are wrong that the nations who appeased Hitler knew of all the atrocities he was committing. Yes they knew he was a tyrannical dictator, but they did not know about what he was doing to Jews. They did not find that out until the concentration camps were liberated by Allied forces.
Is the US really in a position right now to start another war, while its forces are stretched so far already?
You should be aware that Iran is a democracy, and voters there have been expressing their disapproval with their government lately. They just don’t like America either.
For the analogy to France in the 1930′s to work, the US would have to be giving into the demands of the Iranian government. Since that isn’t happening, your analogy is misleading, and is not supported by facts.
the only one paralyzed was bush during the viet nam war, just like he was in that classroom while the wtc was destroyed. you could not convince me that a draft dodger is a better man than a man who volunteered for the military like kerry and served in viet nam.
there is no comparison of any of those english politicians to bush. bush is a front man for the oil industry and the mic.
history will judge him. and find him lacking.
i feel for this country.
Bush has more in common with Hitler’s invasion of Poland — attacking a defenseless country that was not a threat to anyone. Anybody who seriously thinks that Hiltler’s Germany in 1939 and Iraq in 2003 or Iran today are comparable is a few cards short of a full deck.
And for those who think Great American’s comments are well written, this is yet another plagarized cut and paste job, like most everything this guy posts — just click on the link below. Written by Thomas Sowell, conversative columnist
Great Ammerican, here you go, again !!! Dangerous !!! (look up my profile, sometime, you perhaps will understand some of the ways I think)
Uncle Wil
I agree that some of us are morally paralyzed, however, it is Bush and his loyal followers who are the most affected. They cling to the belief that they actually know what they’re doing, despite all the evidence to the contrary that keeps pouring in. This administration is as delusional as Hitler, and their intentions are no better. Comparisons between Bush and Churchill miss the mark.
Hogwash!
Funny thing… I read an article recently that drew a similar comparison, but it was of Bush to Chamberlain, NOT Churchill:
– Chamberlain had almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders.
– Chamberlain was convinced that he alone could bring Hitler and Benito Mussolini to heel.
– Chamberlain surrounded himself with like-minded advisers, refusing to heed anyone who told him otherwise.
– Chamberlain and his men saw little need to build up a strong coalition of European allies
– Chamberlain laid claim to unprecedented authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister.
– Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization… including Churchill!
There’s more, but I think that’s enough to show the striking similarities to Bush.
BTW… you give me hope! My ‘verbosity is an atrocity’ ailment isn’t quite so bad after all
If Great American is wrong, we may be smiling about his mistake two years down the road.
If he’s right, we may well be schlepping our prayer rugs to the Mosque, and slapping the hell out of women who expose their ankles.
Pres. Bush blew it with the immigration bill! another agenda in play here which is really scary????
Are you kidding? I highly doubt that Bush is anywhere near the level of Churchill. You are suggesting that America needs to fight the world on its own. That it needs to step up and take the risk of killing many people. Sure the Middle East looks dangerous at the moment, but what about North Korea and what about the problems in Africa (genocide, corruption, poverty, etc)? Apparently you don’t care about those people and why don’t you? While it’s because those areas might not be as beneficial, you don’t see the dollar signs. So excuse me if I don’t feel is if I should reach your conclusion because I’m not seeing these people in the world is dollar signs to be won. I’m seeing them as people who need our help. Instead of suggesting that we blindly start more wars, think about other ways we can be of help. War isn’t always the answer, a lot of the time it’s the easy way out.
Why are you plagiarizing a known partisan hack like Thomas Sowell? You just copied the moron’s column from today’s paper.
Come on, at least make up some ORIGINAL lies and propaganda.
Listen, George…if your brain is half as big as your postings, you’d know that Bush wouldn’t be worthy to hold Churchill’s coat.
The reason why the UK and France chose an appeasement policy has nothing to do with the “weakness of the western democracies” – that is a term coined by Hitler – but by the need to rearm.UK and France were not ready for war in 1938.Chamberlain started a huge rearmament program in 38 which helped the UK to triple its airforce, without those extra planes, the Battle of Britain would have had a different outcome.The idea that the appeasement policy was weakness is a popular, but wrong, idea wich is not supportd by historical scholars.
Additionally, you fail to understand the principle of a casus belli.The UK and France had no reason to stop the annexation of Austria and Czech since their interests were not concerned (yet).In the thirties, the idea to fight for some other countries freedom was uncommon.The ultimate decision to attack germany in 1939 was not based on the idea to help Poland, but to stop Hitler from becoming too powerful and thus becoming a threat to the UK or France.
Same case with the Rhineland.Though France had a legitimate casus belli here, it would have been a major problem to occupy a foreign, sovereigns countries territory in order to stop it from remilitarizing it.France had been widely criticised for its behaviour in the Ruhrkampf episode and didn’t want to run that risk again.A french victory in the Rhineland cases would have stopped Hitler temporarily, but would also have caused an anti-french uproar in germany and strengthened the german feeling to be surrounded by hostiles and thus might even have strengthened Hitlers position in germany.