Posted on 06/20/2008 8:12:50 AM PDT by kellynla
Since the invasion of Poland was basically a “Joint Venture” with both Germany and the Soviet Union participating after agreeing on which would control what territory beforehand, why did the British and French let the Reds slide while declaring War on Germany?
I meant to write “stubborn Poles,” as Pat calls them, not the “stubborn Jews.”
You can only speculate yourself whether what I said would have happened, the same as I have done. You came at it from the perspective of Lee “betraying his state”. I see that as specious but I know that most southerners look at it that way. I would tend to look at it this way: he had more (misguided) regard for his state than for his country.
My point is this: if he was as great a general as nearly everybody seems to agree that he was, wouldn’t his casting his lot with the Union rather than his state have given the North even a greater advantage than it already had, thereby shortening the war? And had he remained true to the union instead of his state, most certainly Montgomery Meigs would have found another place to bury the war dead than on Lee’s property, no matter the length of the war.
Since none of that happened, things played out the way they did and we now have Arlington National Cemetery to appreciate. I’ve been there many times. If you haven’t, I hope you enjoy it should you ever have the opportunity.
Within a month the Brits were in France. That’s how they lived up to their pact to support Poland? LoL!
That’s an ignorant statement Those Democrats (like FDR) came to the defense of the USSR, recognized it, armed it, refused to fight it, suppported it, worked for its success.
Sorry.
I guess you haven’t read the book. PJB notes that Chamberlain ignored Kristalnacht, Mein Kampf, etc when he said ‘peace in our times’. He notes that Munich gave time to arm and prepare to deal w/ Hitler. Rather, the British and Poles followed a fantasy foreign policy that led to a disasterous war, not least for the Jews and Poles
Read the book; it’s intersting.
Yes, — but Pat doesn’t deny either.
It’s commonly accepted that the Final Solution was decided at Wannsee in 1942.
Okay, Pat is to Hitler what Jane Fonda was to Ho, then.
Read the book It clearly underscores the violence and other affronts to the Jews However, that’s different from Genocide
If genocide were determined b/4 Wannsee (1942), why wasn’t it instituted in Germany starting in 1933?
Read the book; he goes over history back to the 19th c.
He’s considereed an anti-semite b/c some Jews don’t like him.
You overlooked Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare against our ships. But Pat probably didn’t mind that they were killing Americans on ships and sink our cargo. After all, the Kaiser had to defend himself. And President Wilson, Pat would reason, was a Democrat, and in Pat’s mind possibly a Jew.
WOW! You are a mind-reader? What a talent. You are so smart.
Churchill was a gentleman? Tell it to the Irish.
And the Polish pilots originally were to be mechanics (read Zamoyski’s book), but the Brits didn’t have their own pilots, and certainly not experienced pilots
Pat’s book in part is to bring to life the real Churchill.
Dude: He says that Hitler is responsible for the Holocaust. He does not defend Hitler.
It’s that sort of willful ignorance that is concerning on the Right.
That's like saying we captured Osama, and then the guy turns out to be his goat herder.
Oh, did he put that in a foot note?
He dedicates the book to 4 uncles who were in the fight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.