• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

Chamberlain was not convinced that war was inevitable, and of course nobody knew what the future held.

I agree with JihadJane.

This website is closer to the truth about Chamberlain. He used cunning and subtlety, unlike the average Joe in America who tend to be a lot of armchair admirals. From:

www.politicalbistro.com/neville-chamberlain

The other alternative worth noting, and the only one that brings honor to Chamberlain, is rather simple.* That is that Chamberlain was fully aware of the inevitability of war with Germany but also knew that the British could never defeat the ever-increasing power of the German forces, especially their Luftwaffe or air force, which was truly the envy of much of the world for its skilled abilities.* This possibility is altogether probable for the British air forces were particularly weak during this time, numbering a mere 135 squadrons even come the beginning of 1939 (www.raf.mod.uk/history), production lagging and, most importantly, skilled pilots hard to come by.* As it was, once production was begun on Hurricane’s and Spitfires, two fighters that would ultimately prove invaluable in the Battle of Britain and beyond, delivery of a sufficient number came only a scant 10 days before the first attack.
 
As history has shown, that didn't happened and as a result, millions upon millions of people would eventually lose their lives in the coming years because no real action was undertaken to confront Germany when it would have made a difference.
Confronting Germany to maintain the Versailles Treaty wouldn't have solved the underlying problem - which was the Versailles Treaty - and would probably have made matters worse. We might now be hearing people bitch about how the intransigence of Britain and France and their determination to keep Germany down led to WW2, with terrible consequences for Europe's Jews.

That's the sort of thing people had to consider at the time, and we have to consider in ours. Often, doing nothing is the right option. for instance, Canada and Mexico could intervene in the US to preserve NAFTA, but removing Trump would only strengthen the forces which created him, storing up greater trouble for the future. Better to let him crash and burn, like Hitler did, but hopefully more quickly and less destructively.

Putin is testing the rest of the international community to see how much he can get away with.
In your opinion. In mine, Putin is playing to his own populace by demonstrating that Russia can and will to act on its own initiative whether those fat-cats in Washington like it or not (so to speak).
 
Not unreasonable except in parts, especially the bit about the Luftwaffe. Chamberlain would have compared the British strategic bomber force - which was significant - with the German one - non-existent. The Luftwaffe was a tactical arm for employment in blitzkrieg, not a war-winning one. When Hitler tried to use it as one it was gutted, to the later benefit of the USSR.

If any lesson is to be learnt it's that air power alone does not win wars, but it's a zombie concept that just will not lie down.
 
Confronting Germany to maintain the Versailles Treaty wouldn't have solved the underlying problem - which was the Versailles Treaty - and would probably have made matters worse.


It couldn't have gotten worse when you considering the 56 million deaths that were the result of appeasement.
 
It couldn't have gotten worse when you considering the 56 million deaths that were the result of appeasement.

It could have been worse, having 56-million killed, and the Nazis ruling an empire from the Atlantic to the Urals would do that.

We *now* know that Hitler was willing to remove his troops from the Rhineland. This wasn't known at the time.

Similarly by Munich, some people argue that it bought time for Great Britain to rearm and update the RAF in particular.

I agree that with the benefit of hindsight, it was the wrong decision. I would even agree that some people could see that it was the wrong decision at the time.

However I disagree that it was so clear-cut as you make out with the benefit of hindsight.

This is secondary to your point about Putin, and I agree that he seems to be playing on salami tactics. It is one reason why credible conventional forces are needed, not just nuclear deterrents.
 
It couldn't have gotten worse when you considering the 56 million deaths that were the result of appeasement.
You seem to think that, without that war, there would have been no war. Intervening in Germany to prevent re-armament would not have persuaded the German people that they didn't need it. Quite the opposite. Nor would it have weakened Hitler and the nationalists generally. And this isn't even to touch on the US reaction, given its suspicion of the Imperial powers and rather large German-American population.

So yes, it could have been all that it was and more.

A major re-ordering of Europe to replace the Versailles arrangement was the only thing which might have worked, and that's what Chamberlain and like-thinkers were seeking. The French were the problem, of course. Perhaps Britain should have intervened there.

The parallel in the ex-USSR is, of course, the arbitrary nature of the borders and the sanctity granted to them by the international order. Hence the frozen conflicts. A grand re-ordering is definitely in order. Things can't carry on like this for ever, after all. Or if they can, it's a drab prospect.
 
You seem to think that, without that war, there would have been no war. Intervening in Germany to prevent re-armament would not have persuaded the German people that they didn't need it. Quite the opposite. Nor would it have weakened Hitler and the nationalists generally. And this isn't even to touch on the US reaction, given its suspicion of the Imperial powers and rather large German-American population.

You seem to be saying we could have had a different war. One where Germany didn't have as much time to prepare.

Seems like that would have been a good thing?
 
You seem to be saying we could have had a different war. One where Germany didn't have as much time to prepare.

Seems like that would have been a good thing?
It might have had more time to prepare. The elements of the conflict would not have been dispelled by enforcing the Versailles Treaty. The anti-democratic nationalist influence would only grow stronger, and more drawn to the equally anti-democratic Soviets. They might well have started things when they were ready, not before they were ready, as they did.
 
It might have had more time to prepare. The elements of the conflict would not have been dispelled by enforcing the Versailles Treaty. The anti-democratic nationalist influence would only grow stronger, and more drawn to the equally anti-democratic Soviets. They might well have started things when they were ready, not before they were ready, as they did.

Yes, I agree with this overall point. Hitler and his Nazis were the symptom of the problem, the main problem was virulent anti-democratic nationalist influence which allowed a person like him and his organization to ascend to power and then rule the country which never really was that much into them in the first place.

McHrozni
 
We *now* know that Hitler was willing to remove his troops from the Rhineland. This wasn't known at the time.


That message is a very good example how dictators use lies to obtain their goals. Chamberlain learned that the hard way and Putin is another example who use lies.
 
it is understandable given the casualties suffered, especially by France in WWI
A French male born in 1896, so 18 in 1914 had about a 1:6 chance of being killed during the war. That statistic still shocks me.

ETA: Again, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, just saying that there were reasons that seemed good at the time.
 
Last edited:
it is understandable given the casualties suffered, especially by France in WWI
A French male born in 1896, so 18 in 1914 had about a 1:6 chance of being killed during the war. That statistic still shocks me.

Ouch. Add in those with permanent disabilities plus the fact some of those would be unable to serve due to injuries and diseases suffered in the childhood and you have an even more devastating statistic for the average Pierre.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
Ouch. Add in those with permanent disabilities plus the fact some of those would be unable to serve due to injuries and diseases suffered in the childhood and you have an even more devastating statistic for the average Pierre.

McHrozni

Out of the Western Allies, France had had it the worst - in addition to the massive loss of life and the large number of men crippled in WWI, there was also the economic and social devastation that had occurred (as an example, the brewing industry in northern France is still recovering from WWI), coupled with the economic disruption of the Depression, France was not in a position where an aggressive war against Germany in 1933 would have been acceptable to the people of France.

Britain and the Dominions weren't in much better condition. Canadian casualties in WWI amounted to approximately 1% of the overall population, for example (pre-war pop. approx. 8.8M, size of the CEF approx. 880, 000 in 1918 - with approximately 89,000 dead and wounded). Going to war to stop a country from moving troops within their own borders, or for ignoring parts of what was being seen as an unfair treaty when there were so many more pressing domestic issues and being well aware of the costs of war, was simply not an option most countries were prepared to seriously consider.

With hindsight, we can see that negotiating with Hitler and not taking a stronger line led to WWII. Back then, that wasn't so clear this was where it would lead.
 
It couldn't have gotten worse when you considering the 56 million deaths that were the result of appeasement.

No they were the fault of lunatic who was determined to have a war at any price. The hard fact is there was no real public support for a hardline against Nazi Germany until Hitler violated the Munich Agreement and occupied Czechoslovakia. After that the British were serious about drawing a line but Hitler chose not to believe them.
 
Do you honestly believe that?! Time for a reality check. Iraq had over 2200 tanks, 2500 personnel carriers, over 1600 artillery pieces, missiles and aircraft. Ever wondered why the no-fly zones were established over Iraq after the Gulf War?

Iraq was completely toothless. Their stuff was rusted, rotten, unusable. They were not a threat to anyone, and because of our monitoring, the moment they tried to use any of those things, they would have been blasted into dust.


Apparently, you are unaware of the rest of the story. I guess you are unaware of Saddam's threats to his Gulf neighbors if they failed to forgive his war debts that resulted from his invasion of Iran. Ever wondered why the U.S. Navy conducted its naval drills in the Persian Gulf prior to the Gulf War? During the Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and Saddam's ambitions were to continue through Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and beyond. Check your military history. I was in Kuwait and saw the results of Saddam's atrocities and Iraqi invasion into Saudi Arabia was no secret. Let's not forget where Khafji is located.

And after that war, he was completely neutered. This was proven when we invaded again and met no resistance until an informal insurgency started.

Iraqi's Sarin stock was deadly period!!

It was unthreatening. It could not be used as effective weapons. It was deadly in the same way toxic waste is deadly.



Just to let you know that after the Gulf War, Saddam was busy slaughtering his own people in Southern Iraq, which is something that you were unaware of.

This is a total non sequitor. Saddam was an *******; he was not Russia.


Of course not. However, Russia did supply military hardware to Iraq and even supplied Iraq with JDAM jammers, which we took out with our JDAM bombs. So once again, Trump had better learn from history when dealing with the Russians and Putin.

Sure, but the lessons you're teaching him are hysterical, overwrought nonsense.

The lesson should be - dealing with Putin has absolutely nothing in common with Iraq.
 
What did the UN do to prevent military action? Serbs were slaughtering innocent people while the rest of the world sat back and watched and that was before NATO became involved, which ended the carnage with its own military action that should never have happened if someone had taken care of business in the first place before things got out of hand.
How did NATO end the carnage? I seem to remember that the Dutch UN soldiers in Srebrenica were promised NATO air support...
 
Why would Britain and France have lost the war in 1938? Could it have been that Britain and France had failed to take care of business in 1933 when Germany began remilitarization, which was in violation of the Versailles Treaty? They let the fox continue to feed unimpeded at the chicken coop until the fox became too strong for both countries to handle. In other words, it was too late. To sum that up, you don't wait to have an accident before you buy insurance.

So, once again, appeasement serves to embolden the bad guys as it did Hitler and now, Putin. Either confront the bad guys in the present, or face the consequences in the future. Putin continues to send his aircraft toward Alaska and the Russians are not flying near Alaska to scout for new fishing grounds.

What does that even mean? As far as I can see it means start to kill the soldiers of the other country which is usually called "a war".

And to be fair American appeasement of the Nazis did very much lead it to becoming the world's only true superpower, so as far as the USA's history is concerned appeasement - at least for many years - has a pedigree of being good for the USA.
 
Yes, I agree with this overall point. Hitler and his Nazis were the symptom of the problem, the main problem was virulent anti-democratic nationalist influence which allowed a person like him and his organization to ascend to power and then rule the country which never really was that much into them in the first place.
And this anti-democratic feeling in Germany was fueled by the first great mistakes the Allies made, and that was on 11 November 1918. When the German army command sued for an armistice, the Allies allowed it to be signed in German side by a MP, the catholic Centre party member Matthias Erzberger, and not by the military. German supreme commander Hindenburg and his chief of staff Ludendorff should have done that; armistices aren't signed by civilians but by military. This crucial piece allowed that piece-of-work Ludendoff, who later was Hitler's co-conspirator in the Beer Hall Putsch, to perpetrate the stab-in-the-back legend: the army had been undefeated in the field, it was those pesky democratic politicians which had lost the war for Germany.

And to top it off, the Allies should have held a victory parade on the Kudamm.

On its own, the Versailles Treaty was not that harsh: it was milder than the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt, which in turn referred in its amount of indemnities to the 1806 Treaty of Tilsit, in previous Franco-German wars. Also, the much-maligned "war guilt clause" is a red herring: It was a standard clause about Germany's responsibility for indemnifying the victors, and the same clause appeared in the peace treaties with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey, and none of those countries ever whined about that they got stuck up with admitting guilt of starting the war.

And on top of that, the democratic government in Germany decided to spite its face by cutting of its nose with an unnecessary hyperinflation in 1923, and blamed it all on "Versailles". And the Allies fell for it all hook, line and sinker. But by the time that Hitler came to power, the Versailles payments had all been stopped for a few years already.

Of course, that is all hindsight and all, but it still strikes me as unreal that the Allies let a civilian sign an armistice, and then let the chief of staff who begged for that armistice run for years a slander campaign that his army had not been defeated in the field.

And maybe Germany was simply still not up for truly democratic governance. The whole bureaucracy, judiciary and all educators were still deeply steeped in the aristocratic class society of Wilhelminian Germany. If there's one thing we can thank Hitler, as well as Stauffenberg, for, then it's the elimination of the German nobility, in particular the Prussian junkers.
 
It couldn't have gotten worse when you considering the 56 million deaths that were the result of appeasement.

The 56 millions figure includes 20 millions Chinese deaths and other victims in the war against Japan, which have nothing to do with the Versailles Treaty. As a matter of fact the Second Sino-Japanese War had started on 7 July 1937. The Versailles Treaty had no incidence on it.
 
The 56 millions figure includes 20 millions Chinese deaths and other victims in the war against Japan, which have nothing to do with the Versailles Treaty. As a matter of fact the Second Sino-Japanese War had started on 7 July 1937. The Versailles Treaty had no incidence on it.
I'm not sure. The Treaty created a Sino-Japanese territorial dispute, the Shandong ProblemWP arising from the transfer to Japan of former German possessions in China.
Despite its formal agreement to Japan's terms (in 1915 and 1918), China at Paris in 1919 now denounced the transfer of German holdings, and won the strong support of President Wilson. The Chinese ambassador to France ... demanded the promised return of sovereignty over Shandong, to no avail. Japan was adamant and prevailed. Chinese popular outrage over this provision led to demonstrations and a cultural movement known as the May Fourth Movement and influenced Wellington Koo not to sign the treaty.

China's refusal to sign the Versailles Treaty necessitated a separate treaty with Germany in 1921. The Shandong dispute was mediated by the United States in 1922 during the Washington Naval Conference. In a victory for China, the sovereignty of Shandong was returned to China. However Japan maintained its economic dominance of the railway and the province as a whole.​
 

Back
Top Bottom