Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[Henri McPhee]

Well why didn't America and France have a military conflict over the Italian occupation of Ethiopia then, and Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland in 1936? It's unfair to blame it all on so-called Chamberlain appeasement.

 

[fagin]

You think the US and France should have fought each other?

 

[Pacal]

Well why didn't America and France have a military conflict over the Italian occupation of Ethiopia then, and Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland in 1936? It's unfair to blame it all on so-called Chamberlain appeasement.

If you were replying to me you missed the point. I never said or blamed Chamberlain for all of appeasement. That is a straw man of your creation. That policy was well developed and in place before Chamberlain. Chamberlain continued it past the point of any sense whatsoever.

Germany could easily have been stopped in 1936; Hitler gave instructions that the forces he sent into the Rhineland would withdraw if the French sent in forces in response. The French actually considered doing so but didn't because the Brits would not support such a move.

And Hitler was encouraged to do so by Britain and France's feckless response to the invasion of Ethiopia in late 1935. Hitler expected the Brits, supported by the French, to close the Suez canal and block oil imports into Italy. The result being the invasion would collapse and the Italian regime fatally weakened. Hitler initially thought Mussolini's move was incredibly stupid. Then Hitler saw the British and French response and drew his own conclusions.

So why did they do so little? Well because politicians in Britain and France, joined by a large number of the public just didn't care about a bunch of Africans in the case of Ethiopia. There suffering and oppression just didn't matter very much. c. 10 years earlier when Mussolini was crushing Libyan resistance to his regime his troops and officials engaged in massive genocidal acts of terror also. But again it was happening to "other" people so who cares!? Of course the fact that Ethiopia was a sovereign state recognized by the international community and a member of the League of Nations made little difference in the end. The result was 5 years of horror for the Ethiopians, during which the Italians committed many, many genocidal acts. But then, like the Libyans, it's happening to "other" people who live in a far away place most people didn't know much about so who cares?!

This type of attitude of course played a role in the Munich crisis. A great many people just didn't care about sacrificing the Czech and Slovak people to a genocidal dictatorship, which in the following years murdered hundreds of thousands of them.

Of course it was easy to find out German intentions from Nazi publications but that of course didn't matter because in Britain and France a very common attitude was that these people simply didn't matter. A German plan for the Czechs was to murder 1/3, deport another 1/3 and "Germanize the remaining 1/3. Other German plans were even more brutal.

You see a lot of people consider "other" people has simply not worth caring about and thus can consign them to hells made by tyrannies.

A lot of Chamberlain's appeasement and support for it was rooted in a contempt for "other" people along with fear of war. And the bottom line is that Munich benefited Germany much more than it did Britain and France.

 

[Henri McPhee]

A lot of Chamberlain's appeasement and support for it was rooted in a contempt for "other" people along with fear of war. And the bottom line is that Munich benefited Germany much more than it did Britain and France.

I just think it's a bit more complicated than that. There were over 200 members of the Right Club for a start which were pro-Nazi and contained wealthy aristocrats like the Duke of Westminster. Wallis Simpson is now suspected of being Nazi along with her husband Edward VIII. It's true that it is now being said that Churchill had his phone tapped after Munich, but I still think Churchill and Eden suffered from lack of judgment.

There is a bit of waffle about all this at this website which I admit may not be the pure unadulterated historical truth. Sir Joseph Ball was an important figure at the time in the intelligence community and a Chamberlain supporter and his influence extends to this day with Lonrho and Rio Tinto Zinc. Little seems to be known about his activities now and he seems to have destroyed most of his papers before he died:

http://historicalpassages.blogspot.com/2011/03/cabinet-conspiracy-ii.html

Besides press control and manipulation, the government was alive to the importance of other media. In March 1935, Isidore Ostrer of Gaumont British agreed to help the National Publicity Bureau organise itself for propaganda. At British Movietone, Sir Gordon Craig and Sir Malcolm Campbell were ardent Tories. Editor Gerald Sanger advised the Tory Party on film propaganda.

"I have cultivated some close personal contacts with the leaders of the British film industry," Ball reported confidentially to Chamberlain in June 1938, "and I am satisfied that I can count upon most of them for their full support to any reasonable degree." Stressing the importance of exploiting the screens of the ordinary cinemas, seen by 20 million people each week, Ball said: "I have already prepared the way for this with all the big circuits among exhibitors ... with Korda among the producers, and with the chairmen of the five big newsreel companies."

 

[Garrison]

There is a bit of waffle about all this

Is the summation of everything you've posted in this thread, when are you going to do some real research instead of just googling for pages that mention appeasement?

 

[Hans]

Is the summation of everything you've posted in this thread, when are you going to do some real research instead of just googling for pages that mention appeasement?

He won't - his objective is to keep posting off-topic-poorly-researched stuff so he won't have to admit he was wrong - this may continue for some decades.

 

[ponderingturtle]

https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/germans-fought-hitler-nazis-nein-paddy-ashdown-third-reich/

Has some interesting bits on how Chamberlain rushed to appease hitler so that a military coup against him wouldn't happen because the conspirators felt they needed British support and the threat of immediate war to get legitimacy after taking out hitler.

 

[Drewbot]

Even if you are familiar with the situation, it is difficult to put a judgement on Chamberlain's policy. I like both arguments, that he was appeasing because he liked being the one-man diplomatic leader, therefore he led the world to war. And that he was trying to prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best, and was a powerful, insightful leader.

A book that gives a lot of both sides of the historical argument is:
Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War
By Frank McDonough

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is an interesting youtube about Chamberlain and appeasement in which Professor Charmley sticks up for Chamberlain saying Britain went to war with radar and Spitfires thanks to Chamberlain. It lasts for about an hour, but if you can stomach the first ten minutes Charnley makes his points in a brief and succinct manner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is an interesting article by Charmley on the internet which makes sense to me:

www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/churchill_gathering_storm_01.shtml

It is not just that Churchill was inconsistent in his criticisms of Hitler (whom he once hoped to see 'a kinder figure in a gentler age'); his whole reading of events leading up to World War Two was badly flawed, and looks good only with the advantage of hindsight. Because the war was won by a 'Grand Alliance' of Britain, America and the Soviet Union, it is easy to argue that Churchill's advocacy of such an alignment in 1938 should have been listened to at the time. As the pressure on Czechoslovakia from Hitler mounted in early 1938, Churchill did indeed call for a 'Grand Alliance'; but far from this being an example of his far-sightedness, it actually showed the myopia and want of judgement that kept sensible men away from him during the 1930s. As Neville Chamberlain commented at the time, 'there is everything to be said for Winston's plan, until you examine it.' If Churchill was crying in the wilderness, it was the wildness of his own ideas that had taken him there.

Contrary to the view promoted by Churchill, Prime Minister Chamberlain did not reject his plans without taking official advice, but as far as the Foreign Office was concerned, Churchill's ideas were the equivalent of amateur night at the karaoke bar, and the arguments against them were very strong. First, America, the first part of the 'Grand Alliance', was still an isolationist power. It had no army capable of intervening in Europe and no politician arguing for such a policy. Next, the second part of the alliance, the Soviet Union, which (as Stalin had not forgotten) Churchill had tried to strangle at birth, was actually part of the problem, not of the solution; only a mentality as Anglocentric as Churchill's could have imagined otherwise.It is not just that Churchill was inconsistent in his criticisms of Hitler (whom he once hoped to see 'a kinder figure in a gentler age'); his whole reading of events leading up to World War Two was badly flawed, and looks good only with the advantage of hindsight. Because the war was won by a 'Grand Alliance' of Britain, America and the Soviet Union, it is easy to argue that Churchill's advocacy of such an alignment in 1938 should have been listened to at the time. As the pressure on Czechoslovakia from Hitler mounted in early 1938, Churchill did indeed call for a 'Grand Alliance'; but far from this being an example of his far-sightedness, it actually showed the myopia and want of judgement that kept sensible men away from him during the 1930s. As Neville Chamberlain commented at the time, 'there is everything to be said for Winston's plan, until you examine it.' If Churchill was crying in the wilderness, it was the wildness of his own ideas that had taken him there.

 

[fagin]

He also wrote a book on it. From one of the Amazon reviews:

"....I have since re-read this, especially after reading Robert's biography on Halifax. With the exception of the preface and the last chapter, it is good but utterly wrong: and what is astounding still (and even more so on the second read) is almost the personal anger Charmley has for Churchill, a visceral hatred that mars his judgement completely."

Sound familiar Henri?

 

[Pacal]

He also wrote a book on it. From one of the Amazon reviews:

"....I have since re-read this, especially after reading Robert's biography on Halifax. With the exception of the preface and the last chapter, it is good but utterly wrong: and what is astounding still (and even more so on the second read) is almost the personal anger Charmley has for Churchill, a visceral hatred that mars his judgement completely."

Sound familiar Henri?

I should also point out that Charmley at one time said that Britain should have made peace with Hitler in 1940. Charmley to a large extent blamed Hitler for the end of the British empire and said that a peace deal with Hitler would have allowed the empire to survive up to the modern day and blamed Churchill for it being destroyed.

Charmley also dismissed the idea that Hitler would almost certainly in his dreams of global power attacked the British again. Also Charmley ignores that making peace with Hitler in 1940 would almost certainly been considered a British defeat likely leading to the British empire unravelling. Oh and he finds a way to blame Churchill for the Holocaust. ( I.e., by continuing the war Churchill made Hitler commit the Holocaust.)

Charmley is not to be taken seriously has an evaluator of historical events.

 

[Pacal]

There is an interesting article by Charmley on the internet which makes sense to me:

www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/churchill_gathering_storm_01.shtml

Charmley is amusing but as an historian he is very similar to Taylor who loved saying shocking things purely for the sake of shock. Like Taylor has an historian Charmley is in love with throwing temper tantrums and making a scene purely to attract attention.

His opinions of Churchill has outlined in your quote are mendacious, twisted crap born out of bad faith and has such worthless.

You see Charmley deeply, deeply regrets the disappearance of the British empire and believes that Churchill was one of the main, if not the main, architect of it's destruction. And since Charmley regards the British empire has absolutely the best thing ever all sorts of stuff is allowed to ensure it's survival.

THus Charmley has little problem with supressing restive native populations. Thus Charmley has little problem sacrificing the continent to Hitler. After all those people aren't has important has the British, and thus Hitler imposing a brutal tyranny is of little importance because it is happening to the non British. Thus the British empire existing on Hitler's sufferance is no problem so long has it ensures the survival of the British empire.

No wonder Charmley likes Chamberlain and the other appeasers, for liker them he is totally willing to sacrifice others in order to keep oneself comfortable. Why? Because in Charmley's eyes they don't count.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I don't know if I entirely agree with Charmley's logic but you must remember Chamberlain declared war on Germany. Public opinion can be important in these decisions which Chamberlain appreciated. Eden, if not Churchill, who opposed appeasement was later responsible for the Suez fiasco which introduced petrol rationing.

I don't know if Charmley thinks Germany and Russia should have been left to slug it out. In effect that's what happened. All I know is that General Alan Brooke was seriously expecting a German invasion of Britain in September 1940 which would not have made any appeasement or agreement relevant then. There would have been a Churchill government in exile in Canada.

America is now allowing a Nazi government to take over in Ukraine and causing the end of European survival in Africa, and thinking Rwanda and South Sudan and Zimbabwe are far off countries of which few people have heard which really is appeasement.

There is a sensible website about all this which may not be the pure unadulterated historical truth at:

www.richardjevans.com/lectures/chamberlain-appeasement-differing-views-historians/

Why did Britain go to war in 1939?

Change of mind after German occupation of Prague: Hitler now conquering non-German states. UK guarantee to Poland. General feeling in UK that Hitler’s demands were limitless and aimed at total domination of Europe.

More accurate intelligence convinced UK and French leaders that German arms not so superior, while their own rearmament since Munich was bearing fruit: thus a general war was winnable. Ability to counter air raids through radar.

Realization that if Germany conquered France, Belgium and Holland, Denmark and Norway, as happened in 1940, control over the Channel and North Sea would enable invasion of UK, while rule over the richest parts of Europe would make Germany a formidable power and potential challenger to the British Empire.

 

[fagin]

Some Henri words...

America is now allowing a Nazi government to take over in Ukraine and causing the end of European survival in Africa, and thinking Rwanda and South Sudan and Zimbabwe are far off countries of which few people have heard which really is appeasement.

Some Henri link...

And wut?

 

[catsmate]

Charmley is amusing but as an historian he is very similar to Taylor who loved saying shocking things purely for the sake of shock. Like Taylor has an historian Charmley is in love with throwing temper tantrums and making a scene purely to attract attention.

His opinions of Churchill has outlined in your quote are mendacious, twisted crap born out of bad faith and has such worthless.

You see Charmley deeply, deeply regrets the disappearance of the British empire and believes that Churchill was one of the main, if not the main, architect of it's destruction. And since Charmley regards the British empire has absolutely the best thing ever all sorts of stuff is allowed to ensure it's survival.

THus Charmley has little problem with supressing restive native populations. Thus Charmley has little problem sacrificing the continent to Hitler. After all those people aren't has important has the British, and thus Hitler imposing a brutal tyranny is of little importance because it is happening to the non British. Thus the British empire existing on Hitler's sufferance is no problem so long has it ensures the survival of the British empire.

No wonder Charmley likes Chamberlain and the other appeasers, for liker them he is totally willing to sacrifice others in order to keep oneself comfortable. Why? Because in Charmley's eyes they don't count.

He's also noted for his unjustified assumptions and generally poor scholarship.

 

[dudalb]

Henri goes for a fringe reset, looses the ball, hits himself in the head with his left ankle and knocks himself out of bounds.

Fail

Displaying his total ignorance of World war 2 in the process.
That the Luftwaffe was simply not degisnged to wage a long term strategic campaign to begin with escapes his notice.

 

[SpitfireIX]

There is an interesting youtube about Chamberlain and appeasement in which Professor Charmley sticks up for Chamberlain saying Britain went to war with radar and Spitfires thanks to Chamberlain. It lasts for about an hour, but if you can stomach the first ten minutes Charnley makes his points in a brief and succinct manner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8

We've been over this many times. London was covered by radar at the time of Munich, and more sets were being added. And the RAF didn't need Spitfires yet, because there were no Luftwaffe fighters capable of reaching Britain from Germany, nor would there be for over a year, and the RAF's Hurricanes and Gladiators were perfectly capable of dealing with the few Luftwaffe bombers with the range to hit targets in England. As noted, Charmley is a crank in the same vein as Taylor. Fail

 

[Andy_Ross]

Don't forget there could be no invasion of the UK in 1938 as the Germans had no ports Channel Ports and no navy to protect any invasion force.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I don't know if I entirely agree with Charmley's logic but you must remember Chamberlain declared war on Germany. Public opinion can be important in these decisions which Chamberlain appreciated.

No. As we've discussed, and you've continually ignored or attempted to handwave away, public opinion in Britain and the Commonwealth would have generally supported a war to stop Hitler in 1938, even if that support might have been reluctant in some quarters.

Eden, if not Churchill, who opposed appeasement was later responsible for the Suez fiasco which introduced petrol rationing.

Irrelevant. Further, Eden was seriously ill during the Suez crisis, which may well have clouded his judgement.

All I know is that General Alan Brooke was seriously expecting a German invasion of Britain in September 1940 which would not have made any appeasement or agreement relevant then.

Non sequitur. The only reason Brooke was expecting a German invasion was because Germany had occupied France and possessed bases along the English Channel, which could not possibly have happened in 1938 or 1939, and almost certainly couldn't have happened in 1940 if Chamberlain hadn't allowed Germany to occupy Czechoslovakia virtually without firing a shot.

There would have been a Churchill government in exile in Canada.

No. Again as we've discussed, and you've again continually ignored or attempted to handwave away, there was no realistic possibility of a successful German invasion of Britain during 1940, or at any other time.

<snip of irrelevant rant about the current international political situation>

There is a sensible website about all this which may not be the pure unadulterated historical truth at:

www.richardjevans.com/lectures/chamberlain-appeasement-differing-views-historians/

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."