this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
259 points (92.7% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3464 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) said Sunday that the United States needs to accept that Ukraine will likely need to “cede some territory” to Russia to end the fighting. Vance told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” that he is opposed to sending more aid to Ukraine because he does not believe the country will ever be able to overpower Russia. He questioned why sending billions in aid to Ukraine is going to help the country at this point in its war against Russia, considering previous aid has yet to end the war. “What’s in America’s best interest is to accept Ukraine is going to have to cede some territory to the Russians, and we need to bring this war to a close,” Vance said. “But when I think about the great human tragedy here, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans innocent have been killed in this conflict. The thing that’s in our interest and in theirs is to stop the killing.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Neville Chamberlain has been reappraised by historians, based on later released evidence, who argue he made that decision in part based on expert military advise and political considerations.

They knew that war was almost inevitable, but appeasement gave them time to build domestic political and public support, and prepare for a while longer. For example, this arguably allowed them to gain air supremacy:

... the Royal Air Force had two major weapons systems in the works: better interceptors (Hurricanes and Spitfires) and especially radar. They promised to counter the German bombing offensive but were not yet ready and so appeasement was necessary to cause a delay. Specifically, regarding the fighters, the RAF warned the government in October 1938 that the German Luftwaffe bombers would probably get through: "the situation... will be definitely unsatisfactory throughout the next twelve months".

So this guy's worse than Chamberlain. He wants to engage in appeasement, reward a dictator for agression, help a Chinese and Iranian ally, without any real strategic benefit to the US.

[–] Slappula@lemmy.zip 4 points 11 months ago

Good info! I realize that blaming Neville is an oversimplification. It's just funny to me that all the conservative 'historians' I know would be quick to throw Neville under the bus, but the current-day Republicans get a pass.

[–] Rubanski@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

Interesting and it actually makes sense to delay the inevitable bombing, well, military wise