the point is AJP Taylor is a favorite of reactionaries on the right because of his views on Hitler and the where he places the responsibility for the causes of the second world war
And your ilk rejects him because you want to misattribute the causes of the war.
First casulty of war is truth, and lies are often written by the victors.
Trump knows this is only possible with the US military getting involved.
The euros and the American left are either too stupid to realize this, simply don't care if we end up in WW3, or think Russia would never do anything to start WW3 much like Chamberlain and the idiots on this forum.
The root cause of your ignorance is that you are using history and logic to guess Trump’s strategies, while in reality he is living in an alternate universe which facts and logic don’t matter. If you cannot accept that, you will never understand Trump. Instead of being reflective, you just dug a hole and jump into defending it. The more you are digging, the deeper you will be buried under.
Trump is much more in tune with reality on Ukraine than you are.
getting the lesson of Chamberlain exactly backwards
swing and a miss
You still don't understand the lesson you're preening about...
You're forgetting that France's declaring a security guarantee they didn't have the power to enforce directly caused their country to cease to exist...
i will repeat this again, and this is one last attempt since you claim hes a favorite of yours:
What in his analysis would be particularly interesting to those that have a tendency towards denial of the holocaust?
i dont know how clearer i can put but god help you if you misunderstand that at this point
You're the Taylor expert.
Let's hear it.
Keep in mind it's completely irrelevant because I was referencing Keegan.
You of course already know this but its his interpretation of Hitler generally and his lay of responsibility for the war at the feet of the Allies specifically
Keep in mind it's completely irrelevant because I was referencing Keegan.
You of course already know this but its his interpretation of Hitler generally and his lay of responsibility for the war at the feet of the Allies specifically
but you knew all that already, of course
The allies dictated the terms of the treaty which was the primary cause of the war.
In your Daily Mail article about how Zelensky was willing to sign the deal, posted two pages ago:
The US opposes the deal it proposed a week ago. The Ukrainians want to sign it. Even without the security guarantees.
I'm sure Trump is still open to doing a deal without "security guarantees," but Zelensky made it clear on Friday that he is not, so no deal as of right now. Zelensky would have to prove somehow that he is not going to be expecting security guarantees in the future for the deal to be back on the table.
I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. Why would Trump oppose a deal that he himself came up with?
I have quoted multiple sources, including the one provided by you, that state that this is the case. Zelensky wants to sign the deal, Trump does not. Both your Daily Mail article and my BBC article agree on that point.
As far as why Trump is acting that way, I’ve told you my opinion. The deal is a smokescreen. Trump wants to cut off weapons to Ukraine. He thought Zelensky would not agree to this deal, which would provide an excuse to do that. He was wrong, and is now scrambling to find another excuse.
The first paragraph is facts, the second my opinion.
I'm sure Trump is still open to doing a deal without "security guarantees," but Zelensky made it clear on Friday that he is not, so no deal as of right now. Zelensky would have to prove somehow that he is not going to be expecting security guarantees in the future for the deal to be back on the table.
I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. Why would Trump oppose a deal that he himself came up with?
I have quoted multiple sources, including the one provided by you, that state that this is the case. Zelensky wants to sign the deal, Trump does not. Both your Daily Mail article and my BBC article agree on that point.
As far as why Trump is acting that way, I’ve told you my opinion. The deal is a smokescreen. Trump wants to cut off weapons to Ukraine. He thought Zelensky would not agree to this deal, which would provide an excuse to do that. He was wrong, and is now scrambling to find another excuse.
The first paragraph is facts, the second my opinion.
Trump doesn't want to fund a european war for nothing in return.
The mineral deal gives the US something in return while simultaneously giving the US a footprint in the country which will dissuade Russia from further aggression.
Zelensky didn't agree to the deal. Zelensky demanded security guarantees.
The allies dictated the terms of the treaty which was the primary cause of the war.
My shoes know more than you about everything...
True.
I found my paper. In it, I cited E.D. Morel (the copy I have was a draft and I had not yet included a bibliography - the source is probably in some old notebook - i save everything!).
He says about ToV, "Treaty it was not, for a treaty postulates two parties in negotiation, contradictory discussion, debate."
I found my paper. In it, I cited E.D. Morel (the copy I have was a draft and I had not yet included a bibliography - the source is probably in some old notebook - i save everything!).
He says about ToV, "Treaty it was not, for a treaty postulates two parties in negotiation, contradictory discussion, debate."
Haven't read this article (at least not in 30 years), but it probably was this one.
My college library had lots of Current History back issues.
I have quoted multiple sources, including the one provided by you, that state that this is the case. Zelensky wants to sign the deal, Trump does not. Both your Daily Mail article and my BBC article agree on that point.
As far as why Trump is acting that way, I’ve told you my opinion. The deal is a smokescreen. Trump wants to cut off weapons to Ukraine. He thought Zelensky would not agree to this deal, which would provide an excuse to do that. He was wrong, and is now scrambling to find another excuse.
The first paragraph is facts, the second my opinion.
Trump doesn't want to fund a european war for nothing in return.
The mineral deal gives the US something in return while simultaneously giving the US a footprint in the country which will dissuade Russia from further aggression.
Zelensky didn't agree to the deal. Zelensky demanded security guarantees.
Again. This isn’t true. I’ve provided sources. Here’s one more.
Trump doesn't want to fund a european war for nothing in return.
The mineral deal gives the US something in return while simultaneously giving the US a footprint in the country which will dissuade Russia from further aggression.
Zelensky didn't agree to the deal. Zelensky demanded security guarantees.
Again. This isn’t true. I’ve provided sources. Here’s one more.
I found my paper. In it, I cited E.D. Morel (the copy I have was a draft and I had not yet included a bibliography - the source is probably in some old notebook - i save everything!).
He says about ToV, "Treaty it was not, for a treaty postulates two parties in negotiation, contradictory discussion, debate."
Haven't read this article (at least not in 30 years), but it probably was this one.
My college library had lots of Current History back issues.
