MacBeth..... Just because you teach history, does not mean that you are anymore in the know than anyone else. You are teaching.......YOUR PERSPECTIVE of all the data..... Why can't you aknowledge that someone else may have a different perspective based upon the same data? History is hardly factual as it is tainted with the victors perspective. Churchill was a far better leader then Bush....but, my point is, and always has been, that we will not know how Bush is recorded until much later, as the Iraq situation will ultimately decide his legacy. Better than a hummer with an intern.....right? DD
What? You mean MacBeth is being arrogant, yet again? Honestly, is this the first time? I mean Honestly????? DD
All opinions are not created equal. Opinions that are not backed/supported/formulated by facts are less valuable to me then ones that are.
He asked about my qualification...We would generally agree that, say, a doctor of medicine would be 'qualified' to offer expertise in the area of medicine? Yes? Or that a Doctor of Physics would be 'qualified' to offer expertise in the area of Physics, no? Why would someone with a doctorate in history not be qualified to suggest that they are in a position to know more than the average person on their area of study?!!? There was nothing " You disagree with ME?" about this...I was responding to a direct challenge about my expertise in my field of study and in my profession.
LMAO!! Clearly all this time, when I said that I detected criticism behind your continually negative comments towards me, I was imagining things...
Agreed, would you also agree there are BAD doctors of medicine that give bad advice...consider BLOOD LETTING for instance. Just as there are BAD history teachers out there giving crappy advice. Which one are you? DD
So, when discussing medicine, you would make the same assumption about a doctor of medicine? that based on the fact that there are bad doctors out there, that means that this doctor's opinion on medicine is no more substantiated than anyone else's in here? Right...sure you would.
Not necessarily, But after reading many long winded, self-aggrandizing posts, I have come to the conclusion that you enjoy reading your own thoughts and not acknowledging others. You consistently read more into one liners due to your insecurity about your own historical knowledge. You fail to see how others could read what you take as a lecture rather than a discussion, and you bristle if someone calls you out, and questions your knowledge regarding history. Well, guess what professor? You have an opinion, and quite often you are wrong ! DD
Uh-huh...So you start out by saying that you disagree with me on history, and demanding to know my qualifications in my field. In that doctorates in fields are generally accepted as qualification, and I just so happen to have one, I respond with that, to which you cite arrogance. Then when I point out that the response was an obvious one to the question, you answer that my qualifications are no longer the point, in that you personally disagree with me on history. Seems that we have come full circle, DD, no?
No, You have still failed to see my original point about how Bush and Churchill are both hard headed, and prone to act rather than debate about it. THAT IS THE POINT !!!! I do not think that Bush is equal to Churchill, and am NOT sure I am going to vote for him in '04. Additionally, in order for Bush to be appropriatly judged, regarding his legacy, it will take about 10 years or more to see how his experiment in the middle east pans out. DD
Just responding to this element...ok, DD...what have I said, historically speaking, that you disagreed with, or that you think I was wrong about? This should be pretty easy to clear up... I remember johnheath disagreeing with me when I said that most Americans opposed getting into WWII prior to Pearl Harbor, or that Germany declared war on the US, but other than that I can't actually recall anyone saying i was wrong about something historically...maybe you can refresh my memory. And I'm not even saying that I can't be wrong...of course I can...being 'qualified' and being omniscient are not the same thing, and I only claimed to be one, when it was demanded of me. But still, I am interested in all these examples of my error in the filed of history as cited by yourself...if only for my own continuing education. Clearly, if I have often been wrong, as you suggest, it should be easy to cite specifics, and to either prove or disprove my position...
man...i'm sorry i even started the thread...i should follow my friend Jeff's example and stay out of this forum altogether.
It sucks MadMax. But you had an excellent point with this thread. In foreign policy, reality is that we have to choose between several bad alternatives. And often each alternative is bad in a moral sense. Churchill did the least bad thing, and that was the right choice.
A good book on making foreign policy decisions like this is "Warrior Politics" by Ropert Kaplan. Excellent stuff.
here's a more nuanced version of the story. a tragic clash of personalities, fueled by pride, distrust, and misunderstanding. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/merselkebir.aspx i think what macbeth failed to mention also was the fact that many of the french ships that did make the trip to British ports were then forcefully boarded and seized by british forces, with even more loss of french lives. and there was also action at dakar, where the richelieu, arguable the most powerful european battleship, was attacked as well. it's quite possible that the total french losses could have exceeded 3000. three german surface raiders, scharnhorst, gneisenau, and graf spee, sank a good 150,000+ tons of freight and numerous warships in the early part of the war, and together with the U-boats, nearly won the war in the early phase of the battle of the atlantic. i think it is understandable why Churchill was taking no chances. each of the 6 french battleships were more powerful than these german ships. the richelieu was an equal to the bismarck itself. i think the general consensus among historians is that the decision was tragic but understandable, given darlan's guarantee of neutrality and the misunderstanding from the armistice wording. but in any case "betrayed" is certainly the word to describe what the french felt in the incident.
