Deja vu again
The following blurb triggered a recollection of an earlier time when Europeans thought making a profit from a monster was just fine. One man disagreed - Churchill. We will see if this is deja vu all over again (thanks Yogi.)
Despite US Pressures Shell, Repsol to Invest 4.3 Billion Dollars Iran
(http://www.irib.ir/worldservice/englishRADIO/default.htm)
In spite of US pressures, the European oil companies, Shell and Repsol, are to invest 4.3 billion dollars in Iran.... Other European oil companies voicing opposition to the US pressures and cooperating with Iran include France’s Total, Italy’s Eni and Russia’s Gasprom.
They stated they would continue their commercial transactions with Iran and that US pressures will have no impact on them.
The Essential Man: Winston S. Churchill, by Michael E. Berumen
Taken from an address to the LA Breakfast Panel in 2003.
...In my view, one man made all of the difference in preventing these horrible scenarios: Winston Churchill. Throughout the thirties, in fact, from as early as 1933, he warned his countrymen about Hitler. In this period, he was scorned and mocked by his own party; he was called a warmonger, an anachronism from another age; indeed, it was not uncommon for detractors to question his sanity. He was systematically excluded from holding office under Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, relegated to the backbenches of Parliament. He relied on a network of civil servants and military contacts for his information about the Nazi's military build up and Britain's shabby military preparedness. With this information he constantly warned Parliament and the British people of the need for action or of the impending doom.
Today, we see these speeches as possessing unequaled eloquence and courage; at the time, however, they were considered by most to be the grandiloquent rantings of a washed-up man.
Chamberlain was the head of the Conservative party, which had nearly two-thirds of the seats in Parliament. He represented the prevailing view of his party and, by virtue of its commanding majority, it might be said, even the nation. This view is one of moderation, men seeking reasonable, practical solutions to international problems, and finding common ground through discussion, assuaging the aggrieved through compromise.
There was nothing controversial about this doctrine, nor, at the time, about the word that encapsulated it: appeasement. The pejorative meaning came later. It was the sensible doctrine of sensible people, both in Britain and in the U.S., especially by those who thought the financial reparations imposed on Germany after WWI too onerous.
Indeed, appeasement was the apotheosis of rational behavior, and the antithesis of belligerence and intransigence, the views with which Churchill was associated.
----------------------------
Despite US Pressures Shell, Repsol to Invest 4.3 Billion Dollars Iran
(http://www.irib.ir/worldservice/englishRADIO/default.htm)
In spite of US pressures, the European oil companies, Shell and Repsol, are to invest 4.3 billion dollars in Iran.... Other European oil companies voicing opposition to the US pressures and cooperating with Iran include France’s Total, Italy’s Eni and Russia’s Gasprom.
They stated they would continue their commercial transactions with Iran and that US pressures will have no impact on them.
The Essential Man: Winston S. Churchill, by Michael E. Berumen
Taken from an address to the LA Breakfast Panel in 2003.
...In my view, one man made all of the difference in preventing these horrible scenarios: Winston Churchill. Throughout the thirties, in fact, from as early as 1933, he warned his countrymen about Hitler. In this period, he was scorned and mocked by his own party; he was called a warmonger, an anachronism from another age; indeed, it was not uncommon for detractors to question his sanity. He was systematically excluded from holding office under Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, relegated to the backbenches of Parliament. He relied on a network of civil servants and military contacts for his information about the Nazi's military build up and Britain's shabby military preparedness. With this information he constantly warned Parliament and the British people of the need for action or of the impending doom.
Today, we see these speeches as possessing unequaled eloquence and courage; at the time, however, they were considered by most to be the grandiloquent rantings of a washed-up man.
Chamberlain was the head of the Conservative party, which had nearly two-thirds of the seats in Parliament. He represented the prevailing view of his party and, by virtue of its commanding majority, it might be said, even the nation. This view is one of moderation, men seeking reasonable, practical solutions to international problems, and finding common ground through discussion, assuaging the aggrieved through compromise.
There was nothing controversial about this doctrine, nor, at the time, about the word that encapsulated it: appeasement. The pejorative meaning came later. It was the sensible doctrine of sensible people, both in Britain and in the U.S., especially by those who thought the financial reparations imposed on Germany after WWI too onerous.
Indeed, appeasement was the apotheosis of rational behavior, and the antithesis of belligerence and intransigence, the views with which Churchill was associated.
----------------------------
posted by Gene | 8:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home