We celebrated the 80th anniversary of D-Day. It was a failure. It was the 'unnecessary war, ’ described by Winston Churchill. We had a dozen chances to stop Hitler. It’s not about NATO. It’s not about American weapons in Ukraine. It’s about a megalomaniac wanting to create the Russian Empire by force of arms.
Bad choice of words, but this reads to me like we should have acted earlier with Hitler. And we should now with Putin as well.
Even though he says it’s not about NATO, he’s trying to lay groundwork for anti NATO posturing. Anything that makes it more cozy for pro Putin sentiment his guy is championing.
How? I read it as “What’s happening in Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO expansion but is about a megalomaniac trying to recreate the Russian Empire”… Basically, it would have happened even if NATO expansion hadn’t.
Removed by mod
I could see an argument suggesting we should have intervened long before it got to the point of the D-day beach invasion. Considering waiting that long to be a “failure”.
But also dude is a spineless moron so who knows what he intended to say.
Right. Like, by what he appears to be suggesting, we should have actively joined the war in Europe earlier, instead of just supplying aid and intel to the Allies for so long before committing troops. Like somehow squash Hitler before he got very far.
So it seems like he’s advocating for us going to war with Russia immediately.
But in reality, he’s a Putin bitch boy, so that’s obviously not what he’s suggesting.
Edit - Re-reading, I can’t come to any other conclusion than he thinks we shouldn’t have joined the fight at all. But we joined only when forced by Pearl Harbor, which was a result of our aid to the Allies. And IIRC, the US wasn’t really ready to mobilize our military for a campaign in Europe for we did anyway, which is why we were sending aid in the meantime.
So the only logical conclusion I can draw is that he thinks the US should have stayed neutral. That it was out participation that was unnecessary. Particularly when he says we shouldn’t be sending Ukraine aid.
I don’t know how you can read it this way honestly…
Well, I explained my reasoning in great detail. Do you disagree with any specific point?
It’s clear that what he’s saying is that reaching the point where D-Day was necessary is a failure on our part because Hitler should have been stopped much sooner and that what’s happening now in Russia has nothing to do with NATO’s expansion and is all because of Putin that would have pushed to expand Russia’s territory no matter what because he dreams of recreating the Russian Empire.
What he’s implying is that the lessons from WW2 should apply here and we shouldn’t wait for a second D-day to be necessary before acting on that front.
I’m not a WW2 buff, but I painted my understanding of the USA’s pre-D day readiness and why we didn’t jump in directly until forced.
If that’s inaccurate, I’m interested in hearing a counter argument.
So if your interpretation of his words are correct, it seems like it’s counter to what historians believe WRT to US’s readiness to mobilize our forces at the time. At least as I understand it.
So either I understand this history here in correctly (very possible), or Lindsay is talking out his ass in a surprisingly specific way (also very possible), or he’s dog whistling for Nazis in that the US should have stayed out of it.
Given the rewriting of Nazi history that the GOP has been practicing for years, I’m going with dog whistling.
Edit - Just wanted to address the NATO point. I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing with that. No one but Russian propagandists even claim that Russia attacked because of the NATO application.
Soviet soldiers joked opening canned meats the US sent, saying they were opening the second front.
Yeah that what I’m reading from it as well, I don’t know how much I believe the chode, but if he’s suggesting we put our foot up putins ass, then I’m all for it.
The Neville Chamberlain of our time is Angela Merkel. Her softballing of any and all reactions to the 2014 invasion (more or less the Anschluss of our time) was categorically inexcusable and deeply wrongheaded.
The Neville Chamberlain of our time is Angela Merkel.
I thought the modern view of Chamberlain had evolved. Chamberlain knew that the UK wasn’t prepared for war. If the UK had instead went head to head with the Axis powers in Europe the UK armed forces would have been quickly been overwhelmed. Instead, with the “appeasement” doctrine, it bought time for the UK to prepare to be on the front lines of war, as well as turn up the war machine of USA industry.
I didn’t think the old thought that Chamberlain didn’t think think Hitler was a threat was still the common idea.
Wait, what?
As far as I am aware, Chamberlain was central to the UK (and their allies at the time) following an appeasement policy instead of intervening in Czechoslovakia (which, crucially at the time, had arguably the most advanced defense industry in the world, which Nazi Germany co-opted to substantially augment their own defense industry), Austria, or Poland. Add that to the fact that his defense policy was much more along the lines of bluster and bravado, instead of actually trying to gear the UK up for an obviously imminent (so long as one didn’t subscribe to the “appeasement” point of view) major conflict. This materially negatively affected the BEF’s combat ability during the UK’s attempt to help the French push back the Germans (TL;DR Dunkirk), and overall, gave the Third Reich the breathing room they needed to significantly strengthen their military industry, and as a direct consequence, their military.
All that said, if you have some sources regarding the “modern reinterpretation” of Chamberlain’s policies and actions vis a vis WW2, I would be quite interested to check them out.
“Therefore, British military intervention on the continent might be necessary “at any time within the next, say, three to ªve years.” Under these circumstances, the report concluded, the British military was woe- fully underfunded and unprepared, which necessitated a signiªcant rearma- ment campaign. 43”
“The rearmament campaign would be a slow one, particularly given the eco- nomic constraints imposed by the world economic crisis and British war debts to the United States. Consequently, the government needed to buy time and became obsessed with “the importance of not giving Germany any excuse to re-arm without further parley.” 44 Thus was born the policy of accommodating German demands in the face of increasing German perªdy, in an attempt to slow the pace of German challenges.”
“Their idea was that if Hitler were to begin open, full-scale rearma- ment in violation of part 5 of the Versailles treaty, Britain would be powerless to oppose the fait accompli; therefore, they were better off acknowledging Ger- many’s covert rearmament and permitting it, in exchange for freely agreed- upon limits on German armed forces.”
“This hardly refects a belief that appeasement would bring lasting peace. Instead, the documents reveal a wide- spread pessimism and feeling of powerlessness to stop the German challenges until Britain fully rearmed. 53”
You can also read the notes from Chamberlain on his meeting with Hitler, as well as UK General Ismay to the British Cabinet.
"(b) So far as air power is concerned, Germany may be able to maintain her lead over the Franco-British Air Forces in air striking power. On the other hand, it is open to us, provided that we make the necessary effort, to catch her up, or at least greatly reduce her lead, in the matter of defence (both active and passive) against air attack. By so doing we shall have heavily insured ourselves against the greatest danger to which we are present exposed: indeed by substantially reducing Germany’s only chance of a rapid decision, we shall have provided a strong deterrent against her making the attempt.
© It follows, therefore, that, from the military point of view, time is in our favour, and that, if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months’ time, than to accept the present challenge.
Fascinating.
While I agree that the UK had few options at the time - and none of them great - the fact remains that Germany was subject to largely the same economic constraints: global economic recession, and (more onerous even than the UK’s war debts) war reparations that further crippled their economy. It’s just that Hitler and the Nazi Party simply built their military industry and armed forces up anyways.
One of the approaches Chamberlain could have taken would have been to open talks with the US government to discuss extensions on their repayment schedule, due to the disturbingly escalating tensions in mainland Europe (and don’t forget that the Soviets were also a significant threat at the time, ultimately culminating with their invasions of Finland and Poland). All that said… there were significant fascistic elements in the US at the time, many of which pushed for outright alliance with Germany, so unfortunately, that may have ended up as a non-starter.
TL;DR: while I appreciate the data and context, I still don’t think I agree with the characterization that Chamberlain did all that was possible at the time. Though, to be fair, fascism itself was a new and novel political system at the time, and not many people outside of fascist political leaders themselves really fully understood the full implications of a fascist world power (Italy; Germany). Also to be fair, Stanley Baldwin (Chamberlain’s predecessor) and Ramsay MacDonald (Baldwin’s predecessor) absolutely set the stage for the difficulties that Chamberlain faced. And, to again be fair, almost every single world power at that point was kinda also preoccupied with the Great Depression.
Edit: all of which is creepily similar in a lot of ways to the situation the world finds itself in now.
And the continued softballing. Even economically.
For sure. Her ceaseless push for rapprochement with Russia in the face of their incredibly obvious territorial ambitions - not to mention, the fact that she outright ignored and disparaged pretty much all of Eastern Europe’s concerns about Russia (which, by the way, largely turned out to be spot on) was so deeply imbecilic that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. The history, the signs, and the evidence were all there; she just refused to see it.
Wait, he’s saying D-Day was a failure of appeasement?
The way I understand it is that reaching the point where D-Day was necessary shows our failure because it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.
But I might be too optimistic
I mean, the guy is just falling over himself to demonstrate his ignorance of the war. British high command had loads of very easy opportunities to kill Hitler but chose not to incase someone who wasn’t a speedball addicted, half crazed walking liability took over instead.
British high command always viewed commies and sympathizers as the bigger threat, wrt both the Soviet Union and Germany. Hitler was doing their work for them
Yeah, you’re thinking of America for the first part.
I mean, it would make sense, if The UK hadn’t been at war with Germany and Italy for years before the Axis powers invaded the soviet Union. The day they invaded the soviet union, Britain started buying up all the wool in the world they could lay their hands on, to get at the nazis in every way possible. Despite being nearly starved into surrender and on rations nationally, the UK still sent huge amounts of aid, weapons and materials to the soviet Union, with the Arctic convoys.
Nazi Germany also gave the UK the chance to sit it out and keep their empire, as they wanted to go east and would rather use their resources on that, instead of fighting the royal navy.
The UK chose to fight the Nazis. They were drawn in by an alliance but who could have done anything about the UK changing their mind? No one could have done a thing.
So no, the reason was that Hitler was a cracked out junkie and he was preferable to one of Germany’s many capable field marshals being in charge instead.
And the head of the republican party.
deleted by creator
The US didn’t enter the war until well after the battles at Stalingrad. The reason is, the US was hoping that the Nazis would destroy the USSR. Once it was clear that the USSR was actually winning, the USA and GB swooped in to clean up the Western Front so that the USSR couldn’t take credit, despite losing 20 million people to the Nazi invasion.
Removed by mod
Well… A lot of US corporations and businessmen DID help Hitler and the Nazis. It’s just that now-a-days those corporations control the government too… So supporting fascists is official gov policy
Including George W. Bush’s grandad:
Bush was a founder and one of seven directors (including W. Averell Harriman) of the Union Banking Corporation (holding a single share out of 4,000 as a director), an investment bank that operated as a clearing house for many assets and enterprises held by German steel magnate Fritz Thyssen, an early supporter and financier of the Nazi Party. In July 1942, the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders. A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations but confirmed the Thyssens’ control, and in October 1942 the United States seized the bank under the Trading with the Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of World War II.
Sure. For the most part, the US gov didn’t sign onto that… except for that time the US and the UK decided to pressure France and Mexico into stopping all logistical aid to the Spanish anarchists - making a fascist victory in Spain essentially a foregone conclusion.
deleted by creator
Imagine saying this 15 or 20 years ago when we still had lots of WWII vets alive. He’d be done.
“All wars are fought twice, the first time on the battlefield, the second time in memory”
I don’t think so. My father was in the RAF during the war. Bombed by the Germans and shot at by the Japanese. He is also the reason I’m a pacifist.
His brother-in-law was part of the BEF, that was rescued at Dunkirk.
Neither of them were particularly chatty about the war.
I think that for those that faced the horror of the war, almost all of them would have preferred not to have to endure that brutality. If an earlier intervention with Hitler could have prevented D-Day, I think most veterans of that conflict would be all for it.
Total opposite experience in my family. Especially the Jewish side.
If there had been an earlier interdiction, I’m reasonably certain the Nazi’s Final Solution would not have come to fruition. Or been stopped far earlier than D-Day. I’m pretty sure Senator Graham’s argument is exactly that.
well, it was a failure for his ideological side
Not even sure what he was trying to say?
D-day was a failure of appeasement?
D-day was why appeasement failed?
Too many lives were lost on d day to call it “a victory”?
That we should totally go all in on supporting Ukraine? Even with troops?
That Putin’s invasion isn’t about nato? Or that we should leave nato because it’s leading to war?
The fact that D-day had to happen is a failure on our part because the whole thing could have been stopped much sooner.
Ukraine isn’t about NATO expansion or American weapons in Ukraine, it’s about a megalomaniac trying to recreate the Russian Empire (implying that we shouldn’t wait for another failure and for another D-day to be necessary).
I canceled my cable subscription a while ago and now I listen to most of my news. Good gracious, he does not even look the same. He looks like he has gained a lot of weight. He doesn’t look well at all.
Whats he whining about now? He shoulda been sent back to his grandmas house long ago
God, what a shitty article. The title quote is literally just from some random internet person.
Lindsey Graham supports Ukraine. If you look at anything else he’s said on the subject, including the rest of the interview, his stance on it is abundantly clear. Newsweek, for example, covers the remarks while doing the most basic level of journalistic integrity by presenting the context rather than covering a bunch of random social media dunks from randos who don’t know what they’re talking about.
Graham firmly responded, “No, it represents him and him alone. If you spend 15 minutes studying Putin and what he wants, he wants to recreate the Russian Empire. He’s not going to stop in Ukraine. It’s not about NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization], it’s not about American weapons in Ukraine, it’s about a megalomaniac wanting to create the Russian Empire by force of arms.”
“If we help Ukraine now, they could become the best business partner we ever dreamed of They’re sitting on a goal mine. To give Putin 10-12 trillion that he will share with China is ridiculous.”
“There’s $300 billion sitting in Europe from Russian sovereign wealth, assets that we should seize and give to Ukraine. We have Russian money in America we should seize. We should make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law. When I suggested that to President Zelensky, he lit up like a Christmas tree. Making Russia a state sponsor of U.S.- state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law would be a very big blow to Russia.”
You’re eating your own, libs.
Lindsey Graham supports Ukraine
Lindsey Graham doesn’t hold a single real position on any issue, other than “what currently benefits me the most?”
As with most politicians. But do you have any actual evidence to support the idea that Graham’s support of Ukraine is not genuine?
Nope I just completely made it up off the top of my head to be a silly guy. Lindsey actually has an impeccable track record of never flip flopping his words or voting against his own stated stances on issues. It’s why he’s known as one of the greatest and most reputable congresspersons of our generation. He’s more than earned the benefit of the doubt wouldn’t you say?
Got it, so you don’t have any evidence.
“A loan on friendly terms allows America, who is deeply in debt, a chance to get our money back and changes the paradigm of how we help others,” Graham said. “President Trump is right to insist that we think outside the box.”
Graham, usually a national security hawk who previously had supported aid to Ukraine, voted against it.
Graham is a flip-flopping spineless coward. You can tell that because they put a ‘R’ behind his name.
Interesting, thank you. It appears there is evidence that he’s not fully supportive of Ukraine.
General rule of thumb, Repubs don’t like supporting Ukraine because Uncle Vlad indirectly (or directly sometimes) lines their pockets. His spending on the war there is impacting their ability to live a cush life here.
Nope I completely made it up! Certainly Lindsey Graham will never change his stance on Ukraine, that would be a silly thing to think given his historic track record of staying on the same side of issues. I should continue reading and believing things that Lindsey Graham says
I understand that this whole thread is just about repeating unsubstaniated bullshit about a shitty person because he’s a shitty person, you don’t have to keep telling me that.
I guess the difference is that I care about whether the things I’m saying are actually true, even when I’m talking about someone I personally dislike.
Oh but you and I agree. We both love defending Lindsey Graham and giving him the benefit of the doubt because he’s earned it. Keep on fighting the good fight brother
The things you’re saying are not true.
Yes. His name is Lindsey Graham. A staunch anti-Trumper until it was detrimental to him too continue to be so.
Sorry, I was asking you for evidence about his position on Ukraine. Since you presented unrelated evidence, I’m afraid you’re going to lose two bars of health.
Go away, bot.
“We celebrated the 80th anniversary of D-Day. It was a failure. It was the 'unnecessary war, ’ described by Winston Churchill. We had a dozen chances to stop Hitler. It’s not about NATO. It’s not about American weapons in Ukraine. It’s about a megalomaniac wanting to create the Russian Empire by force of arms.”
He did say what was in the title quote.
If I was being really generous, I’d say this is a nuanced statement saying that Hitler could have been stopped in a hundred different ways before it ever got to that point. I’m not inclined to be generous to Lindsay Graham, however. Part of that is because people who were Graham’s political ancestors in Germany–people like von Hindenburg, or Georg Neithardt, the judge in the Beer Hall Putsch trial–are the one’s at the top of the list of people who could have stopped it much sooner.
In context it’s clear that he is saying we should have acted sooner and it was a failure for not having done so. The title makes it sound like he is claiming dday itself was a failure, rather than it being the result of a failure. It’s garbage and reporting and should be treated as such.
I’m not inclined to be generous to Lindsay Graham, however
You’re outright admitting that you aren’t being objective.
You’re outright admitting that you aren’t being objective.
Yes, because Graham is a fuck head. I don’t feel the need to worship objectivity.
Plenty of actual solid reasons to hold the opinion that he is a fuck head. Giving the middle finger to the facts in order to do so is completely unnecessary, and likely counterproductive because it just makes it easy to dismiss your claims as coming from someone unreasonable. You are also justifying believing whatever you want reality to be, kind of like a Trump supporter. It’s shocking that people would be proud of denying reality.
In context it’s clear that he is saying we should have acted sooner and it was a failure for not having done so
In even larger context, Graham is one of the one’s not acting sooner by giving Trump a pass. The generous interpretation is still hypocritical, but why even grant him the generous interpretation?
I’m not generously interpreting his statement, it’s clear what he’s saying. If we’re being objective, of course. Is he a hypocrite? Yes. Does this change that it’s clear what he said? No.
Remember, just because you don’t like someone doesn’t mean you have to interpret everything about them as negatively as possible. You can still remain objective.
He did say what was in the title quote.
Who was it who said “He’s truly lost his mind,” the quote that appears at the start of the title, which some might describe as, “the title quote?” Was it, perhaps, an Internet user identified in the article only as “SnarkyPanda,” who some might describe as, “a random internet person?”
If I was being really generous
That’s not “being really generous,” it’s the obvious interpretation and the only coherent one. How do you interpret it, exactly? That he thinks fighting Hitler was bad because he thinks Hitler was good? How on earth does that make any sense whatsoever with the overall point he was making?
It’s clickbait soundbite outrage porn for people who either can’t read or have no interest in reading. It’s no different from what you’d find in a celebrity tabloid, just for a different audience.
