Trump suggests giving Vladimir Putin whatever he wants
newrepublic.com
Donald Trump continues to suck up to the Russian president.
If Ukraine were to suddenly surrender to Russia, everything would be “much better,” at least according to Donald Trump.
During an afternoon press conference Wednesday, the Republican presidential nominee urged the Eastern European nation to submit to the foreign power, claiming that any deal, no matter how dismal for Ukraine’s freedom, would have been better than the current state of affairs.
“Ukraine is gone. It’s not Ukraine anymore. You can never replace those cities and towns, and you can never replace the dead people, so many dead people,” Trump said. “Any deal, even the worst deal, would have been better than what we have right now.
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
You are viewing a single comment
No need to imagine when we have history to reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
To his credit, Chamberlain wasn't as bad as he's made out. When he implemented his policy of appeasement, Britain was not actually capable of meaningfully resisting nazi Germany. He basically brought time to bring Britain back to a war footing. When it became obvious to the public that war was coming, he fell on his sword. This cleared the way for Churchill to take charge, without significant infighting. He also inherited Britain on a far better war footing, and even then it was a close thing.
Basically, Chamberlain knew his plan wouldn't work long term. He took one "for king and country", likely knowing how it would be perceived. I can at least respect him for that.
I'm not arguing it was or wasn't right for Britain position at the time. Just making the point we know, from direct history, a policy of appeasement does nothing to stop further advancement.
It did though. Hitler could have gone after Britain and france earlier. However, he thought Britain was staying out of things, and so played more safe and slow. This brought Britain the time it needed. Hitler honestly didn't expect Britain to declare war on him, and that slowed his assault on that front. If WW2 had gone serious even 6 months earlier, Britain would have been in serious trouble. The RAF would have collapsed under the luftwaffa, and WW2 would have been very different. Appeasement traded lives for time.
Don't get me wrong, it was a dick move, and threw others under the tanks tracks to save Britain. It's also worth noting that this is not what Trump is trying to do. He's just being a boot licker to the most powerful person who will talk to him. Appeasement at least had a positive goal.
I think the person's point is that the situations are not entirely analogous. For one, the US at the moment is certainly not "not on war footing," nor do we need to buy time to build up forces.
The only reason it "worked" for Britain in WW2 was due to the specific situation that you described; that they needed to buy time.
I would not call that a useful strategy in any other circumstance.
Hitler didn't have a strong military in 1930's either. It gave Hitler time to build.
"The Rhineland coup is often seen as the moment when Hitler could have been stopped with very little effort; the German forces involved in the move were small, compared to the much larger, and at the time more powerful, French military."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland#:~:text=On%207%20March%201936%2C%20using,decided%20against%20enforcing%20the%20treaties.
No they didn't, people tend to think it was all tanks zipping all over the place, but a good proportion of their army was still horse driven. I was stationed in (British Army) barrack in Germany in the 1980's. Barracks that had been built during the German build up prior to WW2. There was more space for horses than troops.
"how do you remove your hand from a lion's mouth?"
"very carefully."
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.