Appeasement was somewhat defensible in the short run- I wrote two college papers on that theme. And Filipino women are ... interesting. The rest I do not dispute.

If there are nicknames in Reds Chatter, Heidi would be the perfect moniker for Milton.

Do you have them available? I'd love to read the viewpoint - I've yet to have that argument really hold water with me at least. Buying time can be nice, but I just can't see the price paid in Munich for that time to have been a good idea.

I'm still laughing.

There is no silk purse that can be made out of this sow's ear, fellas.

I put the over/under of Ortiz/Milton HR Allowed at: 69.5

I'll take the under, as I think one could get hurt or if Ortiz is really awful, he could get taken out of the rotation.

Okay, as a Blazers fan... what the hell were they supposed to do? They couldn't draft Jordan, they already had Clyde Drexler, who, last time I checked, was a pretty darned good player. They needed a big man, Olajuwon was already gone, so they got the next best thing in Bowie, and if his career hadn't been derailed by injuries the Blazers might not have looked so stupid.

Sorry, the "Are you the biggest idiot ever?" stuff that gets thrown at the Blazers for Sam Bowie is one of my pet peeves. I'd say drafting LaRue Martin was easily the more numbskulled decision. And I have wonderful pleasant dreams at night thinking about what those Blazer teams would have been like with Olajuwon at the five instead of... * shudder * Kevin Duckworth.

We want ZiPS!!! :)

And I have wonderful pleasant dreams at night thinking about what those Blazer teams would have been like with Olajuwon at the five instead of... * shudder * Kevin Duckworth.

... or if Sabonis had come over in '88. That Portland finals team, but with Sabonis, on two healthy knees? Holy cow.

I can't wait for the Quantity=Quality media guys to tell us that the Reds had a great offseason, because they re-signed Paul Wilson and landed Eric Milton. Keep in mind, the Yankees reportedly had an interest in him.

I'ld love to see your paper on the benefits of appeasment....I, for one, am glad we beat the living stuffing out of Hitler...That guy was a royal a-hole and one of the few historical figures that I wouldn't mind taking out with my bare hands.

They needed a big man, Olajuwon was already gone, so they got the next best thing in Bowie, and if his career hadn't been derailed by injuries the Blazers might not have looked so stupid.

I loved Sam Bowie, so don't get me wrong, but he wasn't the same player after his leg injuries (plural) at Kentucky.

I want to know how giving up those Czech factories made appeasement work.

They couldn't draft Jordan, they already had Clyde Drexler

This argument holds no water. Take the best player, then work with what you have. That's what trades are for.

Regarding Appeasement, the basic argument is as follows:

Due to the lingering world wide effects of the Great Depression and the lack of public support for military spending in the Western democracies, neither Britain nor France felt prepared to take on Hitler in 1938.

Even if they had been militarily prepared, there was little public support in Britain and France for war with Germany, particularly not over Eastern Europe. It is easy to mock this now, but the bloody legacy of World War I (which was almost universially seen a mistake by the 1930s) was a powerful check against any calls for a grand crusade against Hitler.

Finally, the United States had made it quite clear that it would not join, support, or encourage Britain or France in a war against Germany in 1938. In response to the deal struck at Munich in 1938, FDR sent Chamberlin a two work telegram: "Good Man."

In light of these three factors, it is not hard to see why French and British leaders sought to buy time through appeasement, both to build up their armies and to lobby the U.S. and their own reluctant publics to build political and diplomatic support for war.

This is not to argue that appeasement was the correct policy. It was an understandable and even defensible one, however, given the options facing European leaders in 1938.

ni kidding. how hard would be it to play one of them at 2 and the other at 3? sheesh.

As a Utah native and a Utah Jazz fan, at least the Blazers (and the Reds) did spend (waste!!) any money on Greg f#@&ing; Ostertag......

I like the strategy the Reds are working on here... we have to outscore the opponents, so lets get them all worn out by allowing 13 runs by the fifth inning, then we'll put the decent bullpen guys in and start hitting line drives and bloopers into the outrfield - we can make a comeback!

But would the United States have supported an invasion of Portland if they had chosen to appease Drexler?

Sure, SDSP, it's defensible, just as defensible as our turning a blind eye on the recent African genocides and after each one saying "never again" as if the statement grants some kind of effing absolution.

Sorry, but a great leader should lead - should work to convince people that the man is a madman and a murderer and must be stopped.

I acknowledge that there were (are) many people in the world who were (are) quite happy that Hitler was busy removing a certain "problem" from society. But that doesn't mean we should kowtow to them and cling to a bad war as a reason not to act.

Amoral and indefensible. But easy decisions often are.

Okay. How about Barkley at 4, Perkins at 5, or Stockton at 11? Don't worry too much about Jordan, there were another 2 all-time greats yet to be drafted, and one long-term good player. I may have Barkley and Perkins reversed, but they were all in the same draft.

If I recall correctly, the Chicago GM has been quoted as saying he would have taken Bowie over Jordan if he had that choice. Sometimes players just don't pan out, and sometimes it happens to you.

But ... Olajuwon, Barkley, Perkins, Jordan, Stockton. That's one hell of a starting five.

Will Milton break the HR allowed record by pitching half in the GAB?

I expect Milton to a HACKING MASS favorite in 2005.

I never do this, but Primey for #16. I laughed, and this off-season (Milton signings aside) I've not laughed nearly as much as I wished I had...

Okay, as a Blazers fan... what the hell were they supposed to do?

I remember an interview with Bobby Knight a few years back. He said he was talking to one of his friends on a team with a high pick (I guess either Houston or Portland) and told them to draft Jordan, the guy responded by saying the needed a center, Knight told him to play Jordan at center then just draft him.

Do you have them available? I'd love to read the viewpoint - I've yet to have that argument really hold water with me at least. Buying time can be nice, but I just can't see the price paid in Munich for that time to have been a good idea.

Dan, when I get my desktop up and running again- I'll send them to you.

I'm glad that I'm young enough to not remember when the NBA was good. It would probably make me alot sadder knowing that its so bad now.

I>
to the lingering world wide effects of the Great Depression and the lack of public support for military spending in the Western democracies, neither Britain nor France felt prepared to take on Hitler in 1938.

Even if they had been militarily prepared, there was little public support in Britain and France for war with Germany, particularly not over Eastern Europe. It is easy to mock this now, but the bloody legacy of World War I (which was almost universially seen a mistake by the 1930s) was a powerful check against any calls for a grand crusade against Hitler.

Finally, the United States had made it quite clear that it would not join, support, or encourage Britain or France in a war against Germany in 1938. In response to the deal struck at Munich in 1938, FDR sent Chamberlin a two work telegram: "Good Man."

In light of these three factors, it is not hard to see why French and British leaders sought to buy time through appeasement, both to build up their armies and to lobby the U.S. and their own reluctant publics to build political and diplomatic support for war.

This is not to argue that appeasement was the correct policy. It was an understandable and even defensible one, however, given the options facing European leaders in 1938
</I>
Bingo. To go further, the French and British militaries at those times did not have the capacity- In 1938, at the time of the Sudentanland, the British Airforce did not exist for all practical purpsoes - and approximately 6 divisions were all that existed. Appeasement bought them time- plane product was ramped up in 1938. The crisis bought them time- Germany's Keynsian policies had essentialy brought them a large loan that was going to come due sooner or later- the longer the war lasted, the worse for them. Eubanks wrote a paper that I used as my primary source.

Ned,

It's certainly true that there were elements in British and French society who were sympathetic to the anti-Semetic (and anti-Communist idealogy) of the NADSP. Hell, Britain even had an active fascist party in Oswald Mosely's Black Shirts. But the primary reason for public opposition to war with Hitler in 1938 was not anti-Semitism but absolute terror at what the next war would bring.

The fact is that World War I was not seen as simply a "bad war." It was widely reviled by most Europeans and Americans as a tremendous and pointless human catastrophy that had cost millions of lives while stirring up the fires of radicalism in Russia and elsewhere. Think Vietnam only with a much higher body count. Combined with advances in military technology (particularly strategic bombing), it was (correctly) believed that the next war would bring mass death to civilians as well as soldiers.

In retrospect (and with full knowledge of the Holocaust), it is easy to say that WWII was worth fighting at any time and any price. That was a much tougher call to make in 1938 for the generation that had survived Flanders fields.

There were leaders (such as Churchill) who took the position you suggest and argued bravely against appeasement, but in 1938 that was a distinct minority position in both Western Europe and the United States. There was, after all, a reason that Chamberlin and not Churchill was Prime Minister at the time of Munich. Even as late as December 1941, Franklin Roosevelt, almost certainly the greatest American politician of the 20th century, had been unable to muster a consensus for war against Hitler. That is lamentable, but to pin the blame on a handful of leader is to too simplistic.

HhahahahahHAHAHAHAOHOhhohohohhehehehehehehhahahahHAHAHAhahahahhahahHAHAHAHAHAH ahhhhahhahAHAHHAHAHAHahhahahaoihohaohoahhohaohahhahahahheheheheheeeheheeehe
ahahhaerheioiehhHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

Oh, that was good one!

Well, I don't think Chamberlain's decisions were wrong because he was trying to buy peace - I think he underestimated the military value of the things Hitler wanted.

They certainly knew enough to want to buy more time and knew they weren't buying peace - the Brits and French wouldn't have abandoned Abyssinnia if they really thought Hitler was just a neo-Bismarck goof.

But how secure is time from Hitler at that point when it involves conceding a great deal of military resources and a more easily defended eastern border? The fact that what Hitler wanted was precisely that which would make him more likely to break the deal should have been a red flag.

The British and French, at least the decision-makers, knew what Hitler wanted in the grand scheme of things, but step-by-step, I don't think they as correctly evaluated the consequences of Hitler getting things he wanted.

I posted this in the other Milton thread, but I don't Milton to allow many more home runs than he did in 2004. His home park last year (CBP in Philly) played as a pretty strong HR park, possibly one of the two or three strongest in baseball (I don't have the numbers).

Oh, and even if apeasement was defensible, it wasn't aprticularly correct AND I believe it wasn't carried out that well.

Chamberlain also saw correctly that WWII would mean the end of the British Empire, something he was being paid to preserve. Churchill was too short-sighted to see this. Since Hitler had no partiucular quarrel with Britain, and Britain had never had interests in E. Europe, I see no reason why Britain should unilaterally have entered a crusade against Hitler while the US sat on its fat ass.

"I see no reason why Britain should unilaterally have entered a crusade against Hitler while the US sat on its fat ####."

Because England was far more interested in maintaining the balance of power on the continent. They were very happy with their position in the world and they fought for the same reason most great European powers go to war, to maintain the status quo.

My own $.02 on the problem of appeasement is similar to that offered by Dan: British and French leaders (and their respective publics) incorrectly calculated the risks/benefits of war in 1938 versus war in 1939.

While Britain and France were in sorry shape in 1938, the German economy and military were by all accounts not ready for war either. As I recall, German military commaders were terrified that Hitler was going to drag them into a war in 1938 that they were not yet ready to fight. Appeasement also bought time for the Germans to build and train their forces and, as Dan mentions, secure additional resources and defenses by taking the Sudatenland. Thus morally as well as militarily, I think war in 1938 was a better option.

Still, for all the reasons mentioned above, I can understand why war looked like a very bad gamble at the time. Hindsight and all that.

Oh and for my money the biggest blunder of the West was not appeasement but the failure to strike a deal with the U.S.S.R. prior to 1939. As distasteful as it might have been to deal with Stalin, pre-empting the Nazi-Soviet pact would have effectively hemmed in Hitler and bought far more time (at a far cheaper price) than the dual game of appeasement and anti-Communism played Britain and France in the latter half of the 1930s.

Who's this Chamberlain? Is that the Reds GM?

Unfortunately, for the government of either Britain or the U.S. to negotiate a treaty with the Soviets would possibly have been political suicide for those involved; in the U.S., particularly, it almost surely would have been for FDR, who was under fire from the right anyway. When you consider the economic state of Britain by the late '30s, and the freshness of WWI in everyone's memories, it is hard to say how conceivable Chamberlain's not pursuing appeasement was. I've always thought that things proceeded in essentially the only way they "could" have, given the socio-ecomonic forces that were driving them.

Agreed that it was not possible for the U.S. to have been party to a deal with Stalin. It would have been difficult for France and Britain in 1938, but not as difficult as going to war. Virtually any step that could be portrayed as keeping the peace would have garnered substansial support at the time, hence the positive response in the West to Munich. If the Reds had thrown in a pledge to rein in Comintern activity in Western Europe along with a guarantee to respect existing borders, I think Chamerblin could have sold the deal.

I think you're right that Chamberlain could have sold a Soviet pact if he played his cards right. I'm just not quite clear on how much influence Mosely had, or would have had in light of such a thing. I've read accounts that imply he had a great deal of support, which the sitting government could have been afraid of arousing by dealing with the Soviets, but I've talked to people who were there who were surprised I even knew about him.

Had Chamberlain not appeased Hitler, he never would have had the time to sleep with 20,000 women.

It I'm not mistaken, the French did try to make their own pact with the USSR in the mid-30s at some point but Poland freaked out.

A policy of appeasement only works, however, if you actually get the appeasement. Knowing you have to fight Hitler, I'd rather fight him before he gets what he wants rather than after. Giving Hitler the initiative made WWII a very close thing.

On appeasement, the bigger problem was Britain and France ignoring the re-militarization of the Rhineland...France could have sent a division into the Rhineland and forced the Germans to retreat, since they moved in before they were really equipped to defend the area. And if France had stepped up then and forced Germany out of the Rhineland, Hitler wouldn't have stayed in power much longer.

And as for Eric Milton, as a Ranger fan, I'm glad he's off the board, since I was afraid John Hart might try to bring him to Texas...

I'll feel the same way when someone other than the Tigers signs Derek Lowe. Pleeeeease?

Regarding centers on the Bulls championship teams: Will Perdue backed up Bill Cartwright on the first three titles, then was traded to San Antonio for Dennis Rodman, triggering the second three titles. Longley was indeed the starter.

And Milton is not a member of the White Sox.

That's all I got.

But what about appeasement, Vince? :)

Oh, I'm so so so so so so so so happy Milton didn't take the Yankees money. Thank god

The British and the French would have been much better prepared if they had listened to Winston Churchill. He started calling for a military buildup in 1930 or so, and he also called for cutting Hitler at the knees before he got too powerful in the early 1930's. IOW, Churchill rocked big time.

Neither Milton nor Ortiz is a member of the White Sox. YAY!

I guess I had a little more.

Bingo. To go further, the French and British militaries at those times did not have the capacity- In 1938, at the time of the Sudentanland, the British Airforce did not exist for all practical purpsoes - and approximately 6 divisions were all that existed.

The French and British militaries were probably the equal of the Germans' in 1938. The British, French and Czechoslovak militaries combined were almost certainly superior. Czechoslovak tanks were definitely better than anything the Germans had. Throw in the fabulous defensive positions the Czechoslovaks had in Bohemia, and Germany would have been in a world of trouble.

Oh and for my money the biggest blunder of the West was not appeasement but the failure to strike a deal with the U.S.S.R. prior to 1939.

It wasn't for lack of trying. When it comes right down to it, it was a crappy fit. France and Britain didn't have anything to offer the Soviets that they wanted. As Dan pointed out, the Poles, for completely understandable reasons, absolutely would not go along with a Soviet alliance. It might have been possible to make a British/French/Czech/Soviet alliance in 1937 or 1938, but even this would have been difficult, and if the French and the British had wanted to stand up to the Germans, the Soviets wouldn't really have been necessary, particularly since Stalin was in the middle of purging the officer corps at that point.

Haha, this is one of the very best baseball sites too. I'm glad Primer exists.

Even as late as December 1941, Franklin Roosevelt, almost certainly the greatest American politician of the 20th century, had been unable to muster a consensus for war against Hitler.

Heck, he had trouble getting a concensus on December 8th to declare war on Hitler. Japan - oh sure - no problem there. But Congress stalled when it came time to declare war on Germany. Then Hitler declared war on us on December 11.

Well, I don't think Chamberlain's decisions were wrong because he was trying to buy peace - I think he underestimated the military value of the things Hitler wanted.

He also (greatly) underestimated just how much Hitler wanted - and how intent he was on getting it. Oh, they knew he wanted more, but they thought that a signed peace of paper would make him stop. Chamberlain was serious when he said that they had ensured "peace in our time." Of course Hitler couldn't care less about some scrap of paper.

The British and French, at least the decision-makers, knew what Hitler wanted in the grand scheme of things, but step-by-step, I don't think they as correctly evaluated the consequences of Hitler getting things he wanted.

IIRC, it was really more the British. The French didn't have the manpower to take on Germany alone and so got stuck going along with it because that's what England was doing. I once had a chance to read the Time magazine account of when the French head during Munich fell from power, and it mentioned that he was the one guy there who didn't seem to be at all happy with the proceedings.

When you consider the economic state of Britain by the late '30s, and the freshness of WWI in everyone's memories, it is hard to say how conceivable Chamberlain's not pursuing appeasement was. I've always thought that things proceeded in essentially the only way they "could" have

Yea, but Chamberlain wasn't just being driven by socio-economic forces. He believed in what he was doing and believed in it with a passion. That's partially why he's remembered, but the French guy ain't.

Unfortunately, for the government of either Britain or the U.S. to negotiate a treaty with the Soviets would possibly have been political suicide for those involved; in the U.S., particularly, it almost surely would have been for FDR

Heck, he couldn't even negotiate a US-UK military treaty prior to WWII. Can't imagine him getting an agreement with the USSR in the works. And as long as we're talking about how unready the British military was in 1938 - no nation took a backseat to military unpreparedness to the US back then.

"The French didn't have the manpower to take on Germany alone and so got stuck going along with it because that's what England was doing."

I don't know that France didn't have the manpower. France was still considered to have the largest army at the time. When Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936 he would have withdrawn immediately if the French had stood up to him. The French army was still a feared force. It was their unbelievabley poor defensive tactics that led to their almost immediate defeat, not their limited forces.

As mentioned before, France as a nation still remembered the horrors of World War I and that was the main driving force behind their appeasement strategy.

Stalin tried to accomplish two things at once with the The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. One was that he deluded himself into thinking that the pact would deliver Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Bessarabia as well as a substantial part of Poland to the Soviets. And the other was that since Stalin knew that Hitler would, in the end, invade the USSR he saw an alliance with Hitler as being the only way to gain a crucial 18-24 mos. to prepare for war with Germany.

I don't know that France didn't have the manpower. France was still considered to have the largest army at the time. When Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936 he would have withdrawn immediately if the French had stood up to him.

I maybe wrong on the size of the French army at the time, but the German army in '38 was much larger than it had been in '36.

One was that he deluded himself into thinking that the pact would deliver Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Bessarabia as well as a substantial part of Poland to the Soviets.

How's that a delusion?

And I meant Haha in the sense that this has been a pretty interesting thread.

Too bad, the Bowie segment got toss to the side for appeasement sake.

"but the German army in '38 was much larger than it had been in '36."

Absolutely, but a better led French army (still one of the largest if not the largest) would have posed quite a problem for the German army.

"Stalin tried to accomplish two things at once with the The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact."

Fun fact about that pact, it was signed August 23rd 1939. Britain guaranteed Polands' independence on August 25th 1939. Both were important dates to remember in our history class that I just finished. And on the final, the teacher asked us to identify the importance of 8/23/39. I, of course, picked the wrong ####### date so I will never ever forget the difference between the two dates ever again.

"Too bad, the Bowie segment got toss to the side for appeasement sake."

WWII is far more relevant nowadays then the NBA.

"Too bad, the Bowie segment got toss to the side for appeasement sake."

WWII is far more relevant nowadays then the NBA.

If Bangkok9 were here, this thread would be about Filipina hookers for sure, although he may have more important things on his mind right now.

Well how about this:

Reds get: Fully normalized political and trade relations with Western Europe; Mutual defense pact with Fr. and Gb.

Gb. and Fr. get: Pledge to end Comintern activitiy in Western Europe; Mutual defense pact with U.S.S.R.

Poland, Czech. get: Border guarntees from Gb., Fr., and U.S.S.R.

In short, the U.S.S.R. gives up any designs on Poland in exchange for a defense pledge from the West. Poland and Czech. get reassurances from East and West (and the threat of being cut loose by both sides if they balk). Gb. and Fr. get a bulwark against Nazi expansion in the West.

A bridge too far, perhaps. I'll fully admit this is outside my area of expertise (U.S. diplomatic).

P. S. Eric Milton sucks.

"In short, the U.S.S.R. gives up any designs on Poland in exchange for a defense pledge from the West."

This is not something Stalin would have given up based on what I've read about him (which is more then I cared to, you ever read the book Hitler and Stalin, holy #### its long).

If Bangkok9 were here, this thread would be about Filipina hookers for sure, although he may have more important things on his mind right now.

Filipina hookers appeasing Sam Bowie?

Filipina hookers appeasing Sam Bowie?

It's the untold story of why Bowie's career went south. The injuries were just the cover story.

Re: the French Army in 1938....

It is not SIZE that matters.....The French lacked the will-power and resolve to act...They are the millitary equivelant of the 1991-1992 Detroit Tigers...All the power bats in the world couldn't acheive more than a 4th place finish....

If Bangkok9 were here, this thread would be about Filipina hookers for sure, although he may have more important things on his mind right now.

What could be more important than Filipina hookers?

Why would the Soviets want "normalized" relations with the West? They were the antithesis of each other, even moreso than monarchy vs democracy. Why would Stalin enter an agreement with Britain and pledge to not touch Poland, when he could sign one with Germany (the stronger military) and get Poland?

There is just no way that could happen. There was as much chance of Stalin trusting British promises as there was of finding a French commander to invade Germany in 1936 over its violations of a treaty (j1F-#56). None.

It is not SIZE that matters.....The French lacked the will-power and resolve to act...They are the millitary equivelant of the 1991-1992 Detroit Tigers...All the power bats in the world couldn't acheive more than a 4th place finish....

Are you knocking the Maginot Line? How dare you.

From what I understand, Stalin's obsession with Poland had more to do with security (i.e. he didn't want it used as a doormat for the Wehrmacht) than with any Czarist ideal of a greater Russia. If he could have been persuaded of the sincerity of a Anglo-French security guarantee, that would have probably have done the trick. Of course, that's a very big if.

Is that that Allen Bullock dual biography of Stalin and Hitler or that new one by Richard Overy? Anybody read the Overy book? Good?

"Are you knocking the Maginot Line?"

The one defense that was more overrated in its time then Jeter's.

"Is that that Allen Bullock dual biography of Stalin and Hitler or that new one by Richard Overy?"

The Allen Bullock dual biography. Good stuff, but so unbelievabley long. Haven't heard about the Overy (hehe, ovary) book.

Even Steve Jeltzwas a better French Defender than the Maginot Line.

As to why Stalin would want relations with the West, again, the answer is that he was more concerned with security and realpolitik than idealogy. As proved during 1941-1945, Stalin was more than willing to deal with the West when it met his security needs.


The Overy book was reviewed in this Sunday's NYT. 849 pages. Ouch.

I might just have to reevaluate my disbelief in God.

The British and the French would have been much better prepared if they had listened to Winston Churchill.

Churchill was just a fearmonker when he warned of the Nazis and, later, the Soviets.

From what I understand, Stalin's obsession with Poland had more to do with security (i.e. he didn't want it used as a doormat for the Wehrmacht) than with any Czarist ideal of a greater Russia. If he could have been persuaded of the sincerity of a Anglo-French security guarantee, that would have probably have done the trick.

After every post like this, I think it would be a good idead to point out that Eric Milton still blows.

Carry on.

I think it's hilarious that there is so little basis for defense of the Milton deal that this thread has been devoted almost entirely to defenses of Szymborski's examples of the most ridiculous things he can think of. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

I'm with you, SDSP. I'm putting it in bold terms because I only get a couple lines, not 849 pages here. The short version is that Germany could offer Stalin more than Britain. You're right, "big IF" the West had been able to convince him they could be allies. But he'd seen them invade his own country to stop the Soviet revolution, he'd seen them backpedaling from Hitler, he'd seen them reneg on their paper agreement to support the Czechs...could he be certain they wouldn't do the same to him?

I'll tie the two threads together: sometimes you have to make a decision, and none of your choices are all that terrific. Stalin had to sign an alliance. O'Brien had to sign a #2 pitcher. Neither guy liked his options, but he had to make the move.

But giving either Lowe or Millwood this same contract would've been a better idea. Of course, in a way, that ties in, for if it had been an available option to him and his psyche would've allowed it, signing an alliance with Britain would've been a better idea for Stalin.

Agreed that given the choices Stalin faced in 1939, Hitler was the only logical alternative. The counterfactual here is if Britain and France had altered their policies to put containment of Hitler over containment of Communism, ideally starting with with Spanish Civil War in 1936, but by 1937-1938 at the latest.

And with Perez still out there, I really don't see how Milton is the only logical alternative. . . .

Jordan was so far superior to Bowie, it wasn't even funny. That pick was worse than Larue Martin, which along with Al Henry and Alfrederick Hughes were the most unbelievably brutal picks of all time.

There were lots and lots of dreadful picks back in the 1980s, most of them seven-foot or so stiffs who had no chance in the NBA. Teams have had a Moneyball-like epiphany as seven footers who would've been top-10 or even top-5 picks twenty years ago moved down to the middle of the first round to the end of the first round and then into the crap that is the NBA second round (and sometimes out of the draft altogether).

The NBA in the 70s was awful.

I can't join the foreign policy debate until we get post WWII, but I've enjoyed reading this.

The NBA seems to be slowly improving. There are a number of young, exciting stars (James, Anthony, Wade, among others) who actually are enjoyable to watch beyond the highlight reel, scoring is up. It still sucks, but its better than it was 3-4 years ago.

I don't think this contract is as bad as the one the D-Backs gave Ortiz. To the guys here who follow AZ, man, no one can ever claim you aren't true fans to stick with that club the way its being run right now.

There's at least a chance Ortiz will be a better-than-average pitcher during his contract, rhough he'll be overpaid by a lot. There's really far less chance that Milton will be. I'd have offered Ortiz 2 years/$10 million, but Milton I wouldn't even talk to.

I bet they both finish their contracts with ERA+ of roughly 95. Ortiz will have been paid 8.5 million more for another year of lousy #4/okay #5 starter performance. Milton is two years younger as well, not that that means alot here.

I get back just when the basketball discussion is starting to hit its stride. Love that timing. Anyway,

They couldn't draft Jordan, they already had Clyde Drexler

This argument holds no water. Take the best player, then work with what you have. That's what trades are for.

Sounds a lot like the Blazers circa 1998-present. And look how well that's working out for us now.

... or if Sabonis had come over in '88. That Portland finals team, but with Sabonis, on two healthy knees? Holy cow.

I say the same thing about Sabonis, but it's bad for my health to combine the Olajuwon and Sabonis fantasies. A frontline of Olajuwon scoring, Sabonis dishing to him and Buck Williams there to clean up the boards, the already great Drexler/Porter backcourt, AND Jerome Kersey coming off the bench? This kind of fantasizing is bad for the heart and breeds bitter resentful contempt.

I actually had this conversation today before ever seeing it on Primer, and I'll repeat my stance here now. I will defend the Bowie drafting over the Jermaine O'Neal trade any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Although the appeasement discussion is probably over, I'll add a few comments.

(A) There is a tendency on the part of American thinkers to overlook the role of the white Dominions in Chamberlain's decision-making. Canada and Australia in particular had made significant contributions to Britain's war effort during the last conflict. Neither was particularly enthusiastic about another European war, although for different reasons.

(B) The British government knew very well just how expenseve another war would be. Britain was, in fact, in no financial shape to sustain a major European war, as evidenced by the fact that in the spring or summer of 1940 someone (I can't remember who) presented the bare facts to the Cabinet. By January 1941, at the present rate of expenditure, Britain would have exhausted ALL of her financial reserves. Basically, even after the Battle of Britain, all Hitler had to do was wait and Britain would be forced to sue for peace unless the United States somehow got involved in the conflict - which, through Lend-Lease, was what happened.

(c) Today's so-called cheese-eating surrender monkeys in France had been clamouring for military intervention against Hitler almost from the beginning in 1933. The British, however, possibly influenced by Keynes and his Economic Consequences of the Peace book, believed the Versailles Treaty had done an injustice to Germany, and refused to enforce its provisions. (And broke them in 1935 by agreeing to allow the Germans to build submarines.) France refused to do anything without British support.

So to blame Chamberlain is wrong, the whole British foreign policy establishment was at fault. As as side note, some of the same logic in (a) had brought about the abdication of Edward VIII, which Churchill opposed. It's just the way business was done in the British empire.

(d) I'm a little more sketchy about Soviet foreign policy, but I believe that from 1933 to 1938, the Soviets kept making enthusiastic noises about some kind of alliance against Hitler. Indeed, prior to 1933, Stalin believed that international forces had been steadily shifting to favour the USSR. It was the appointment of Hitler as German chancellor that changed all that. However, the French were reluctant to do anything because their 'Little Entente" allies in Eastern Europe were terrified of Soviet long-term aims, and may very well have come to some kind of accommodation with Hitler if the French had embarked on an accommodation with the Soviet Union. After Munich, Stalin gave up waiting for France and Britain to see his point of view (indeed, thought they never would, and would let Poland go the same route as the Czechs), and signed his pact with the Devil instead.

The lesson drawn from the appeasement policy is usually the wrong one: 'Let's stand up to [insert tinpot dictator's name of your choice] now or he'll turn into Hitler. The correct lesson is that successive governments should consider themselves rigidly bound by treaties signed by their predecessors, rather than change their mind because of a change in conventional wisdom. If Britain had backed France over the Rhineland in 1936 (a crisis which occurred, I believe, around the same time as the Abdication Crisis was bubbling away), Hitler would probably have been ousted from power by the German Army. The Second World War would almost certainly have never happened.

I got the Overy book for Chanukah, but haven't started it yet. I can strongly recommend his previous book, Why the Allies Won, though, which is a well-written book that argues against the "inevitability" of Allied victory, especially given Axis successes before 1942. (The thesis is that American ability to quickly adapt our technological resources, combined with Russian ability to produce mass quantities of a few useful items, overwhelmed German bureaucracy; leadership and luck also played a significant role.) I'm looking forward to reading the new one.

I'm still laughing over this signing.

I may never stop... The HRA record is in jeopardy next year.

For 7 years of 99 ERA+, the pure personification of mediocrity, Eric Milton has earned $22 million. Now as a reward he has a brand new, shiny, $25.5 million guaranteed contract for the next three years. $47.5 million for 10 taterific years. His BB-Reference comparables are the highly combustible Brett Tomko, Sterling Hitchcock, Jeff Weaver, Sidney Ponson and Pete Schourek. Only in America. I'm just grateful the Cardinals didn't sign him. I'm surprised the Mets missed him.

Well how about this:

Reds get: Fully normalized political and trade relations with Western Europe; Mutual defense pact with Fr. and Gb.

Am I the only one who read that and though the post was going to be a hilarious three-way trade proposal involving Eric Milton and late 1930's European nations?

I mean, don't get me wrong, it was a fine post. But if anybody wanted to post that hilarious three-way trade, I wouldn't complain...

In the other Milton, thread, after noting that CBP played about neutral for "high homer" players on both sides for Philadelphia (like Milton for pitcher and Thome for hitters), I wondered, without evidence outside of one year of Phillies stats:

One wonders whether -- overall -- "home run parks" increase their totals more by causing "home run pitchers" to give up even more homers (and home run hitters to hit more), or whether they increase their totals more by increasing the home run total of "non homer" pitchers and hitters (even the most extreme groundball pitchers give up 20-30% fly balls).

If the latter, then Milton may be the most perfect fit in a "high homer" park, since he'd be giving them up anyway, and the park only drags other pitchers down to his level.

Well how about this:

Reds get: Fully normalized political and trade relations with Western Europe; Mutual defense pact with Fr. and Gb.

Gb. and Fr. get: Pledge to end Comintern activitiy in Western Europe; Mutual defense pact with U.S.S.R.

Poland, Czech. get: Border guarntees from Gb., Fr., and U.S.S.R.

France doesn't get enough. Throw in a prospect, maybe Dioner Navarro, and maybe cash to cover the Mutual Defense Pact and it evens out. Doesn't the British Parliament have to waive its "no-border guarantee" clause for this to work?

And I love talking 80s NBA. And reports of its current demise are greatly exaggerated, much like the late 90s demise of MLB.

"France doesn't get enough."

At the time, Poland was sort of France's AAA affiliate, France was the champion of Polish independence, so Poland's border security would essentially be a prospect that they could bank on in the future. Of course, Poland as a French satelllite turned out to be a bust.

The French army was still a feared force. It was their unbelievabley poor defensive tactics that led to their almost immediate defeat, not their limited forces.

French defensive tactics were fine. Very good, in fact. In the encounter battles along the Dyle, the French proved at least the equal of the Germans. Their problem was one of military intelligence and very poor second line units, which combined to produce disaster at Sedan. The tactics weren't the problem; it was the 71st and 55th Infantry Divisions not having practiced them and not having enough equipment.

As for the Maginot Line, it was a great success, and did exactly what it was supposed to do: allow the French to hold their frontier with Germany with minimal troops, allowing for the maximum forces to participate at the decisive point. For a country with a much smaller potential army, the Maginot Line was a very good solution to France's problems. The defeat came about because the French (and, to a lesser extent, the British) did such a terrible job of identifying the decisive axis of the German attack, and then reacted very slowly to it.

"French defensive tactics were fine."

Well, they never adjusted to the speed of war at the time. Their leaders thought they were still fighting WWI, and the German blitzkreig was the perfect strategy to take advantage of France's military weaknesses, thats what I meant by poor tactics. Perhaps management would have been a better word.

"For a country with a much smaller potential army, the Maginot Line was a very good solution to France's problems."

Except that the Germans just went around it, so it turned out to be a tremendous waste of resources and left the French out of position to defend against the invasion.

"The defeat came about because the French (and, to a lesser extent, the British) did such a terrible job of identifying the decisive axis of the German attack, and then reacted very slowly to it."

I agree with that.

Re: Stalin's foregin policy.

I read Henry Kissinger's "Diplomcacy" several years ago & Kissinger thought that Stalin's foreign policy manueverings prior to/early on in WWII was masterful. He called Stalin a 20th century Richleau.

I bet they both finish their contracts with ERA+ of roughly 95. Ortiz will have been paid 8.5 million more for another year of lousy #4/okay #5 starter performance.

That's getting ridiculous. Most teams don't have a real #5 - just a revolving door. Many barely have a #4. If he's a solid innings eater (and he'd been at least that much in recent years) then he's a good number 3. Still overpriced, but he's a heckuva lot better than an OK #5.

Reds get: Fully normalized political and trade relations with Western Europe; Mutual defense pact with Fr. and Gb.[/]i

Are we talking the Cincinnati Reds or the Soviet Reds?