Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[Henri McPhee]

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.

There is no hard documentary evidence that the Commonwealth would have generally supported a war to stop Hitler in 1938, and certainly no evidence that America or Russia would have been useful allies at the time. As Chamberlain once said war is a fearful thing. A war without allies is even more fearful, and the French were not much help.

As I have said before the Czechs were a faraway country of which we know nothing and the argument was between peoples of which we know nothing. It's a bit like Brexit now. The British public were only interested in beer, cigarettes and football, and perhaps in cricket and snooker. Like now they didn't want to march on Moscow or Tehran.

Schoolchildren are now being told in history lessons that Hitler was appeased because the British were more opposed to communism in Russia than Hitler which I think is a misreading of the facts. As I have said before Chamberlain was making a military rather than an emotional judgment and he had right judgment. With what?

There is some background to all this at:

www.adespicabletruce.org.uk/page59.html

Robert Boothby, Boothby: Recollections of a Rebel (1978)
Reflecting the mood of the country, the Conservative Party was rotten at the core. The only thing they cared about was their property and their cash. The only thing they feared was that one day those nasty Communists would come and take it. The Labour and Liberal Parties were no better. With the exception of Hugh Dalton (and even he, speaking from the Front Opposition bench, announced that they would give no support of any kind to resistance to Hitler's military occupation of the Rhineland), they made violent, pacifist speeches; and voted steadily against the miserable Defence Estimates for the years 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938.

 

[Tolls]

Uh, yes, there is documentary evidence that Russia would have helped as Russia had signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia a couple of years earlier that specificed that it would, if France did.

Stalin was all for it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Schoolchildren are now being told in history lessons that Hitler was appeased because the British were more opposed to communism in Russia than Hitler

Where are schoolchildren being told this?

 

[Henri McPhee]

Where are schoolchildren being told this?

I seem to remember it was somewhere on this youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZNtakTs_DY&t=78s

 

[Tolls]

Maybe if you actually found a History syllabus stating it, rather than some random You Tube video.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I seem to remember it was somewhere on this youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZNtakTs_DY&t=78s

YouTube is not part of the national curriculum.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is a website for history teachers which looks at appeasement from an Australian perspective at:

https://michaelmolkentin.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Appeasement-Handout-Stage-6-Day.pdf

This debate centres on the questions of when Britain and its allies adopted a policy of appeasement, who was responsible for it and why (for what reasons) they appeased Hitler.

Traditionally, historians have seen appeasement as a product of Britain’s weak leaders in the 1930s and an aberration of British foreign policy. More recent scholarship, however, explains appeasement by referring to the economic, military and political difficulties that Britain’s leaders faced in the inter-war period and, in any case, note that appeasement had been a long standing feature of British foreign policy before the 1930s.

- British and French approaches to appeasement in the 1930s

When considering this debate students can compare how historians have explained the contribution that France and Britain made to the policy of appeasement respectively. French historians have often blamed the British for being too soft on Germany while, conversely, British historians have sometimes been quick to point out France’s weakness between the wars and the way in which this constrained British action.

- international reactions to appeasement in the 1930s

Studies written in English have traditionally been Eurocentric in their analysis of appeasement: British, Germany, France and Italy have taken centre stage. In recent decades historians have taken a broader view of appeasement, considering it in a more global context and indicating the significance of the way in which other nations, especially the United States and the British Dominions reacted to appeasement.

- appeasement and the origins of the Second World War

Since the 1960s the causes of the Second World War have been a contentious issue among scholars. Up for debate is the relative significance of such factors as the Treaty of Versailles, the failure of the League of Nations, the Great Depression, Hitler’s foreign policy goals and, of course, appeasement, in causing the war. Some see appeasement as a response to these other issues and not significant in itself of causing the war. Others perceive it as a principal cause of the war – one which, if replaced with a different approach, might have averted war altogether.

- the extent of the successes and/or failures of appeasement.

A major concern in most commentary on appeasement is an evaluation of its results: was it a success in that it delayed war while Britain prepared to fight? Or was it a failed attempt at avoiding war altogether. And even within these two interpretations there is a diversity of views as to in what ways and to what extent it was a success or failure. At the heart of this debate lies a question about the goal of appeasement: was it to delay war or prevent it altogether?

 

[Garrison]

There is a website for history teachers which looks at appeasement from an Australian perspective at:

https://michaelmolkentin.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Appeasement-Handout-Stage-6-Day.pdf

And how does that support this claim

Schoolchildren are now being told in history lessons that Hitler was appeased because the British were more opposed to communism in Russia than Hitler which I think is a misreading of the facts.

What you've quoted is nothing but a restatement of the very same questions that have been discussed at length in this thread, and it doesn't include one word about the USSR. Appeasement is a failure whichever way you look at it. If it was intended to preserves peace it failed and if it was an attempt to buy time it failed because Hitler's Germany gained far more from the extra time than the Allies did.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Uh, yes, there is documentary evidence that Russia would have helped as Russia had signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia a couple of years earlier that specificed that it would, if France did.

Stalin was all for it.

That's the Russian historical propaganda now, but the fact is that the Red Army was a laughing stock in 1938, like the American army and French army at the time. Stalin regarded Britain and France as his enemy rather than Germany. Stalin had bumped off most of his best generals and officers by then. Zhukov did warn Stalin of the grave peril from a German invasion but Stalin ignored and rejected that criticism. Stalin was seduced by the possibility of acquiring the Baltic sates and eastern Poland with a pact and appeasement with Germany.

I agree that it's all very upsetting that the Czechs were abandoned, but you have to face facts in these situations. There is some waffle about all this at this website which I concede again may not be the pure unadulterated historical truth, but which makes sense to me:

www.intriguing-history.com/appeasement-pragmatic-policy/

But Chamberlain’s view was in some ways more pragmatic and realistic at this particular point in time. Britain simply was not ready even if it was willing to go to war and certainly there was no public or popular support to take such drastic action in the critical period of 1938-1939.

When Chamberlain falls dreadfully short seems to be when he is caught unaware of the likely outcome of Appeasement, once his last gambit for peace had been played. Did he really ever believe Appeasement would actually work or was it just a phase of tactically delaying Hitler and playing for time? Time was critically needed to mobilise and make ready for war. Britain was caught out in that lack of preparation but that was not down to Chamberlain alone.

Churchill in spite of his rhetoric could not have transformed Britain’s readiness for war overnight anymore than Chamberlain could have. Hitler was on the move and Britain as well as Europe was not ready to effectively resist it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's the Russian historical propaganda now, but the fact is that the Red Army was a laughing stock in 1938, like the American army and French army at the time.

The Japanese dead at Nomonhan were not laughing.

Dave

 

[Henri McPhee]

The Japanese dead at Nomonhan were not laughing.

Dave

I agree that Zhukov was a good Russian general and that the Siberian troops were crack troops who were extremely tough and used to winter warfare. The performance of the Red Army in the short war with Finland was pathetic and this fact was noticed by Hitler.

My father always used to say when he was alive that the best news of the war was when Germany invaded Soviet Russia.

 

[Garrette]

The Japanese dead at Nomonhan were not laughing.

Dave

Precisely. I've long said that Khalkin Gol was the turning point of WWII. Somewhat hyperbolic, yes, but the gist is right.

 

[Garrette]

That's the Russian historical propaganda now, but the fact is that the Red Army was a laughing stock in 1938, like the American army and French army at the time. Stalin regarded Britain and France as his enemy rather than Germany. Stalin had bumped off most of his best generals and officers by then. Zhukov did warn Stalin of the grave peril from a German invasion but Stalin ignored and rejected that criticism. Stalin was seduced by the possibility of acquiring the Baltic sates and eastern Poland with a pact and appeasement with Germany.

I agree that it's all very upsetting that the Czechs were abandoned, but you have to face facts in these situations. There is some waffle about all this at this website which I concede again may not be the pure unadulterated historical truth, but which makes sense to me:

www.intriguing-history.com/appeasement-pragmatic-policy/

Not sure why I'm bothering as your performance to date indicates it is a futile attempt, but the bit I highlighted is laughable given how you have repeatedly and insistently ignored the facts presented to you and given that even you say your latest link may not be factual.

I agree that Zhukov was a good Russian general and that the Siberian troops were crack troops who were extremely tough and used to winter warfare. The performance of the Red Army in the short war with Finland was pathetic and this fact was noticed by Hitler.

My father always used to say when he was alive that the best news of the war was when Germany invaded Soviet Russia.

Crack troops but a laughing stock. And yet facts matter.

The Winter War performance was a matter of poor leadership. As was shown repeatedly, the Soviets performed quite well when led well, particularly after gaining some experience, which, by the way, is true of nearly all militaries. The German army in 1938 was not quite a laughing stock, but it was more of a shell than was the Soviet army, and in the invasion of France its success was due more to a bunch of "in spite ofs" than it was to a bunch of "because ofs."

And it is apparent that you completely misunderstand your father's meaning.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My father always used to say when he was alive that the best news of the war was when Germany invaded Soviet Russia.

Had the Red Army truly been a laughing stock, it would have been extremely bad news, of course; a Third Reich with the oil and resources of European Russia and no credible enemy in the East would have been a terrifying prospect.

Dave

 

[Henri McPhee]

If it was intended to preserves peace it failed and if it was an attempt to buy time it failed because Hitler's Germany gained far more from the extra time than the Allies did.

Chamberlain provided another year to get organised.

 

[Garrette]

Chamberlain provided another year to get organised.

The facts you ignore, still.

Chamberlain provided another year for Germany to "get organised," and that time served Germany better. Everything else is distraction.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The German army in 1938 was not quite a laughing stock, but it was more of a shell than was the Soviet army, and in the invasion of France its success was due more to a bunch of "in spite ofs" than it was to a bunch of "because ofs."

I don't think that is quite correct. In the book The Russian Outlook published by Lieutenant -General Sir Giffard Martel in 1947 he writes:

The German army which faced the Russians was probably the finest military machine that has ever been produced. Nothing had been spared to make it as perfect and as efficient as possible. This army had been training at full strength for many years before the war and it had now won two great campaigns against Poland and France respectively. No wonder that the German forces and their commanders were full of confidence.....

There is a bit of waffle about all this on another forum which I admit might not be listening to experts:


https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/37kpej/relative_strength_of_the_world_powers_1939/

This won't all be sourced, as most of it is cobbled together from my past research on the subject. Unfortunately, I can't find many figures for these things either, so I can only talk in broad terms. But hopefully it will help answer your question somewhat.

Army/Air Force

France: In 1939 the French Army was widely considered the best in the world. Notably, France outnumbered Germany in tanks, planes, and just about everything else. Its equipment was top-of-the-line and was in most cases equal to or better than what the Germans had. However, the French military suffered from poor leadership, poor morale and outdated doctrine.

Germany: Contrary to popular belief, the Wehrmacht in 1939 was materially quite poorly off. Its equipment was decent enough, though the French had better, but it was otherwise fairly unremarkable, and it was quite lacking in tanks, planes and so forth. It did, however, have excellent leadership, high morale and better doctrine than anyone realized at the time, even the Germans themselves.

Soviet Union: The Red Army was the largest in the world in 1939 and even in 1941 the USSR had more planes, tanks, men, et al. than Germany. However, it was poorly equipped compared to France and Germany, and terribly lead, mostly thanks to Stalin killing almost every military leader with half a brain. Its abysmal performance against Finland was a testament to this.

Japan: Very large army, as the Imperial Japanese Army was currently invading and occupying much of China. However, it was poorly equipped, having almost no tanks and fairly low-quality guns, and was decisively defeated by the Red Army in border conflicts in 1939.

United Kingdom: The British Army was well-equipped, superbly trained, and pathetically small. The UK had recently begun rearming itself in response to increased German aggression, but it was too late.

Italy: Poor morale, leadership and equipment made the Italian Army a laughing stock. Its "might" was displayed to the world in 1940 with the Italian invasion of Greece.

United States: Had the 17th largest army in the world at the time, behind Portugal. A joke.

So, to rank overall (very subjective, mind you):
France
Germany
Soviet Union
Japan
United Kingdom
Italy
United States

 

[Garrette]

The German army in 1938 was not quite a laughing stock, but it was more of a shell than was the Soviet army, and in the invasion of France its success was due more to a bunch of "in spite ofs" than it was to a bunch of "because ofs."

I don't think that is quite correct. In the book The Russian Outlook published by Lieutenant -General Sir Giffard Martel in 1947 he writes:

The German army which faced the Russians was probably the finest military machine that has ever been produced. Nothing had been spared to make it as perfect and as efficient as possible. This army had been training at full strength for many years before the war and it had now won two great campaigns against Poland and France respectively. No wonder that the German forces and their commanders were full of confidence.....

There is a bit of waffle about all this on another forum which I admit might not be listening to experts:


https://www.reddit.com/r/history/co...e_strength_of_the_world_powers_1939[/HILITE]/

This won't all be sourced, as most of it is cobbled together from my past research on the subject. Unfortunately, I can't find many figures for these things either, so I can only talk in broad terms. But hopefully it will help answer your question somewhat.

Army/Air Force

France: In 1939 the French Army was widely considered the best in the world. Notably, France outnumbered Germany in tanks, planes, and just about everything else. Its equipment was top-of-the-line and was in most cases equal to or better than what the Germans had. However, the French military suffered from poor leadership, poor morale and outdated doctrine.

Germany: Contrary to popular belief, the Wehrmacht in 1939 was materially quite poorly off. Its equipment was decent enough, though the French had better, but it was otherwise fairly unremarkable, and it was quite lacking in tanks, planes and so forth. It did, however, have excellent leadership, high morale and better doctrine than anyone realized at the time, even the Germans themselves.

Soviet Union: The Red Army was the largest in the world in 1939 and even in 1941 the USSR had more planes, tanks, men, et al. than Germany. However, it was poorly equipped compared to France and Germany, and terribly lead, mostly thanks to Stalin killing almost every military leader with half a brain. Its abysmal performance against Finland was a testament to this.

Japan: Very large army, as the Imperial Japanese Army was currently invading and occupying much of China. However, it was poorly equipped, having almost no tanks and fairly low-quality guns, and was decisively defeated by the Red Army in border conflicts in 1939.

United Kingdom: The British Army was well-equipped, superbly trained, and pathetically small. The UK had recently begun rearming itself in response to increased German aggression, but it was too late.

Italy: Poor morale, leadership and equipment made the Italian Army a laughing stock. Its "might" was displayed to the world in 1940 with the Italian invasion of Greece.

United States: Had the 17th largest army in the world at the time, behind Portugal. A joke.

So, to rank overall (very subjective, mind you):
France
Germany
Soviet Union
Japan
United Kingdom
Italy
United States

I will post just this once more in direct response to you. If you acknowledge your obvious errors, I may post more; if not, I will simply recognize you as someone uninterested in actual discussion or actual facts and not worth my time and will restrict my comments to others in the thread.

Do you see the problems in comparing the highlighted parts?

 

[Garrison]

Chamberlain provided another year to get organised.

Which in no way contradicts my point, the Germans gained far more from that extra time than the British did.

I agree that Zhukov was a good Russian general and that the Siberian troops were crack troops who were extremely tough and used to winter warfare.

What a shame for the Soviets then that Khalkin Gol was a summer campaign...

I don't think that is quite correct. In the book The Russian Outlook published by Lieutenant -General Sir Giffard Martel in 1947 he writes:

Two things wrong with that quote. First that was 1941 not 1938 and secondly the notion that nothing had been spared is nonsense. Had you bothered to looked at a source that benefitted from the decades of research since 1947 you would be aware that the Wehrmacht of 1941 was desperately overstretched and crossing its fingers that the Soviets would collapse before the Heer's logistics broke down.

And as for your next quote:

France: In 1939 the French Army was widely considered the best in the world. Notably, France outnumbered Germany in tanks, planes, and just about everything else. Its equipment was top-of-the-line and was in most cases equal to or better than what the Germans had. However, the French military suffered from poor leadership, poor morale and outdated doctrine.

Germany: Contrary to popular belief, the Wehrmacht in 1939 was materially quite poorly off. Its equipment was decent enough, though the French had better, but it was otherwise fairly unremarkable, and it was quite lacking in tanks, planes and so forth. It did, however, have excellent leadership, high morale and better doctrine than anyone realized at the time, even the Germans themselves.

Which literally contradicts your claim that French Army was a laughing stock. It also makes it clear that even by 1939 the Heer was far from overwhelming. Do you read any of the material you quote?

 

[Garrison]

I will post just this once more in direct response to you. If you acknowledge your obvious errors, I may post more; if not, I will simply recognize you as someone uninterested in actual discussion or actual facts and not worth my time and will restrict my comments to others in the thread.

Do you see the problems in comparing the highlighted parts?

I'm afraid that honest debate is not in Henri's vocabulary. He will simply post some poorly researched quotes from some blog, or political editorial relating appeasement to modern politics, without bothering to read the whole thing, meaning that it more often than not says the opposite of what he thinks it says. I don't think anyone is really posting for Henri's benefit.