tRump & Putin vs. Duke of Windsor & Hitler

[cynatnite]

Today was to test the waters, so to speak. To see what kind of reactions there would be. Just like it was a test when they threw out the possibility of handing McFaul and Browder over to the Russians, then backtracked.

I expect tRump to make the case for Putin's visit. Things like, he's a good guy who is earnest in making nice with the US and tRump will try to talk a good game to make a visit more palatable for his base and the complicit repukes.

tRump is going to push Putin onto the US as our friend. He's going to compromise our intelligence and our military ability to protect our allies. tRump wants to get out of NATO and metaphorically blow it up on the way out. This is Steve Bannon's dream as well, to tear down the institutions that helped people and helped to keep the peace.

tRump will be similar to that idiot King Edward VIII who renounced his throne and went on a sight-seeing tour to Germany to see Hitler. The close ties with Hitler and the Nazi sympathizing by Edward and his wife were widely known. There was even a fear of Edward being installed as King during the war should Germany be successful, if I remember my history right. Fortunately, Edward wasn't in a position to compromise British intelligence and the war effort, but if he had been the outcome could have been frighteningly different.

The difference here is that tRump is in the WH and it's Putin he wants to be best buds with.

I can't look at this and see the political advantages come the midterms.

Putin is a real and existential threat to the US and world peace. He's proven it time and time again. I'm hoping this notion gets enough of a backlash that tRump will be forced to call it off no matter the reasons. Putin should not be allowed to set foot in this country.

[Sophia4]

1. Chamberlain!

[cynatnite]

3. I considered Chamberlain...

but Edward seemed a better fit because of his Nazi sympathizing. He also called up Hitler to protect his homes in France when he went to the Bahamas or someplace like that, IIRR. I also think he would have given Hitler compromising information if given the chance.

Plus, Edward was selfish. He put himself and his own wants before country. He did that while king and afterwards.

It's a better fit, IMO. I could be wrong, though.

[Sophia4]

5. Interesting. Thanks.

Maybe a bit of both in Trump. But actually, Chamberlain was not as egotistical as Trump. Edward may have been.

[thucythucy]

4. Chamberlin was naive but well-intentioned.

He had lived through the horror of World War I, knew that that war was largely the result of failed diplomacy and the inability of ruling elites to compromise to avert the catastrophe. He didn't want to make the same mistake. Also, prior to Hitler marching into Prague, every German aggression had been guised in the cloak of "self-determination"--the Rhineland was a part of Germany, Austria was a German speaking nation, the Sudetenland was majority German speaking. Chamberlin honestly believed that the settlement at Munich would avert another world war. Hitler, of course, had a whole different agenda, and simply lied through his teeth whenever the mood struck him. It took the Nazis marching into Prague to open Chamberlin's eyes.

Trump is all about himself. He's selling out the country and undermining democracy all over the world to cover his own ass and advance his own self-interest. Also, he admires Putin as a fellow white supremacist and "alpha male."

If we're going to make historical analogies, I vote for Trump as Quisling. A man willing to betray his country out of self interest, narcissism, and white supremacy.

[pansypoo53219]

2. we have no wallace to save USA.

[Sophia4]

6. Maybe we do. We just don't know yet.

[struggle4progress]

7. Don't press the historical analogies too hard: the present offers its own complexities

and needs its own analysis