This rhetoric reminds of the German military’s questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. “You say you’re against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?” Great intellectual company you’re keeping here.
What’s the point of comparing rhetoric that has nothing to do with each other?
The comment you replied to compared it giving Poland away to Hitler since it both connected by the act of giving in to the demands of a dictator to avoid war, which WW2 has proven doesn’t work.
Your comment instead is comparing the act of giving into Putin’s demand is equal to pacifists refusing mandatory military service, which sounds ridiculous.
This rhetoric reminds of the German military’s questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. “You say you’re against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?” Great intellectual company you’re keeping here.
How does mandatory military service relate to helping to fund another country from an invading force?
Should the other European nations not fight against the Nazis when they invaded other countries in order to not ‘prolong’ the war?
I’m comparing rhetorics. Read the post I was replying to and then mine again, please.
What’s the point of comparing rhetoric that has nothing to do with each other? The comment you replied to compared it giving Poland away to Hitler since it both connected by the act of giving in to the demands of a dictator to avoid war, which WW2 has proven doesn’t work. Your comment instead is comparing the act of giving into Putin’s demand is equal to pacifists refusing mandatory military service, which sounds ridiculous.
However it’s not rhetoric. It’s cold hard history. Allowing a fascist dictator to invade a sovereign country led to WW2.