Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[Hans]

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu over this conversation.

Yes now that you mentioned it their is a sniff of sameness in the air.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There was some silly journalist on the Press Review on Sky TV a few days ago saying that the leader of the British UKIP political party is the worst leader since Chamberlain. I think Chamberlain was a very clever man, and a man of wide and practical experience. He gets unfairly blamed for appeasement by ignoramus journalists and Churchill historians. He was no pacifist.

 

[Craig B]

There was some silly journalist on the Press Review on Sky TV a few days ago saying that the leader of the British UKIP political party is the worst leader since Chamberlain. I think Chamberlain was a very clever man, and a man of wide and practical experience. He gets unfairly blamed for appeasement by ignoramus journalists and Churchill historians. He was no pacifist.

Nor did he have romantic entanglements with 25 year old models.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nor did he have romantic entanglements with 25 year old models.

That we know of.

Dave

 

[Klimax]

There was some silly journalist on the Press Review on Sky TV a few days ago saying that the leader of the British UKIP political party is the worst leader since Chamberlain. I think Chamberlain was a very clever man, and a man of wide and practical experience. He gets unfairly blamed for appeasement by ignoramus journalists and Churchill historians. He was no pacifist.

That's why he throw us to Nazi Germany. Because he was no pacifist. Well, that might make twisted sense. He wanted massive world war, so he throw one of countries with well developed military industry and healthy economic base to Germany, so they had some chance at war...

 

[Henri McPhee]

The Czechs would have lasted about three weeks, like Poland. Then what and with what? Chamberlain had right judgment, even if you call it appeasement.

 

[Klimax]

The Czechs would have lasted about three weeks, like Poland. Then what and with what? Chamberlain had right judgment, even if you call it appeasement.

We had mutual defense treaty with both France and Britain. (Also with Soviet union)

You turned your back on us. You betrayed us. And as a consequence and reward you caused and got biggest war so far! You got what you wanted to prevent. You gave Hitler what he wanted and thus enabled his war of conquest. Without Czechoslovakian republic Hitler would not be able to launch it. We were final piece he had to have for his war.

Chamberlain had one of the worst judgements ever!

In short, you are WRONG!

ETA: And it is questionable if we would really fall in 5 weeks. And even if so, it would deplete resources of Germany to severe extent. They would have to destroy what they wanted (factories) And resistance would be far more effective because registry of population would be of no use anymore.

 

[Garrison]

The Czechs would have lasted about three weeks, like Poland. Then what and with what? Chamberlain had right judgment, even if you call it appeasement.

How would it have been like the Poles? The Czechs had much better natural defences, the Panzer divisions barely existed, the Luftwaffe was far weaker and there was no Molotov-Ribentropp Pact so Germany would have struggled for resources to keep their war machine running. Oh and in an invasion much of that Czech equipment and industrial capacity that was massively important to Germany in the build up to the invasion of Poland would have been destroyed so any offence in the west would have been far weaker.

The time bought by Munich may have benefited the UK, but it may have benefited Nazi Germany far more.

 

[Craig B]

... and there was no Molotov-Ribentropp Pact ...

Excellent point. The USSR had an alliance with Czechoslovakia, and even if she had not gone to war with Germany on account of it, she would not have helped Germany as she did in the destruction of Poland, a common enemy of Germany and Russia.

It is often argued that the Nazi Soviet Pact made WW2 possible, and it has been condemned on that account. If so, then the friendly relations between CS and the USSR would have made a general war impossible for Germany to contemplate. And would have made a local war against CS extremely expensive for Hitler both in resources and in diplomatic credit. Further aggressive military adventures by him might well have been prevented or deterred.

Czech tanks were so good, by the way, that Hitler used trophy ones - he never had to fight them in Czechoslovakia - in his campaign against France the following May.

 

[Klimax]

Thanks to both of you for providing better articulation of what I tried to say.

 

[ddt]

Excellent point. The USSR had an alliance with Czechoslovakia, and even if she had not gone to war with Germany on account of it, she would not have helped Germany as she did in the destruction of Poland, a common enemy of Germany and Russia.

It is often argued that the Nazi Soviet Pact made WW2 possible, and it has been condemned on that account. If so, then the friendly relations between CS and the USSR would have made a general war impossible for Germany to contemplate. And would have made a local war against CS extremely expensive for Hitler both in resources and in diplomatic credit. Further aggressive military adventures by him might well have been prevented or deterred.

It should also be noted that Stalin was mightily pissed off by Munich. The UK and France had sold out his ally and he wasn't even invited at the table. That also contributed to his decision to break down talks with the UK and France and go for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Czech tanks were so good, by the way, that Hitler used trophy ones - he never had to fight them in Czechoslovakia - in his campaign against France the following May.

The Czech 37t tanks also formed the core of the German Panzer divisions in the Polish campaign.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They chassis and running gear were used to build the Hetzers, my favourite German armour.

 

[jimbob]

To say nothing of the design of the Bren gun - used by the British Army up to the Falklands

 

[Henri McPhee]

How would it have been like the Poles? The Czechs had much better natural defences, the Panzer divisions barely existed, the Luftwaffe was far weaker and there was no Molotov-Ribentropp Pact so Germany would have struggled for resources to keep their war machine running. Oh and in an invasion much of that Czech equipment and industrial capacity that was massively important to Germany in the build up to the invasion of Poland would have been destroyed so any offence in the west would have been far weaker.

The time bought by Munich may have benefited the UK, but it may have benefited Nazi Germany far more.

There was nothing stopping the Czechs from going to war with Germany on their own in 1938 except that Hitler threatened the Czech prime minister at the time with bombing Prague:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_czechoslovakia_to_adolf_hitler_seventy.html

 

[Garrison]

There was nothing stopping the Czechs from going to war with Germany on their own in 1938 except that Hitler threatened the Czech prime minister at the time with bombing Prague:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_czechoslovakia_to_adolf_hitler_seventy.html

Which has nothing to do with what you claimed earlier. Could you please address all/any of the points raised about the actual strategic situation that contradict your claim that the Czech republic would have lasted three weeks and Munich was the right decision? Or can we expect yet more silence before you dredge up some non-sequitur from a 60 year old book?

 

[Klimax]

There was nothing stopping the Czechs from going to war with Germany on their own in 1938 except that Hitler threatened the Czech prime minister at the time with bombing Prague:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_czechoslovakia_to_adolf_hitler_seventy.html

Bit hard to fight when your supposed allies threaten you for "threatening peace".

 

[jimbob]

Bit hard to fight when your supposed allies threaten you for "threatening peace".

Yes, it definitely was an incident to be ashamed of. And it made Nazi Germany stronger

 

[Tolls]

How would it have been like the Poles? The Czechs had much better natural defences, the Panzer divisions barely existed, the Luftwaffe was far weaker...

Just the bolded bit, but in relation to everyone else the Luftwaffe was pretty much at its peak. Remember, that's in relation. Britain and France had next to nothing that could go up against the 109, for example.

In essence, the Luftwaffe were ahead of the curve, though they would start to lose ground by 1940.

 

[Parsman]

Also, not sure how much credence to give this, but I have read that many German officers at the time hoped for a war over Czechoslovakia as it would be so difficult and bloody that they would be able to act against the regime due to its unpopularity. When it went the smooth way of all Hitler's previous adventures they felt they had lost a last chance to try and resist.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I know it has been said in the past that German officers would have opposed Hitler if an invasion of the Czechs happened. It's just you need to be in touch with reality about all that. Nobody was stopping those German officers, least of all Chamberlain, if that's what they wanted to do. Later on officers from German military intelligence, like Admiral Canaris and Colonel Oster, were in touch with MI6, and there were bomb plots against Hitler, none of them successful.

It's also sad for the Czechs, and I agree to the benefit of German military strength that Britain was in no condition to go to war in 1938. It would have ended in disaster. That is not Chamberlain's fault.

There is a bit about all this in an internet article:

Some historians, for example John Charmley, believe that rather than being negligent, Chamberlain was justified in appeasing Hitler in the Munich Conference. Many historians argue that the year that was gained helped Britain build up her army. Chamberlain himself said that he would not contemplate such a guarantee ‘unless we had reasonable prospect of being able to beat her [Germany] to her knees in a reasonable time, and of that I see no sign.’ In other words, Chamberlain did not want to enter into a war with Germany unless they did have a large enough military to do this.

David Dilks, one of the leading revisionists, has been at the forefront of the historical revisionism of Chamberlain. According to Dilks, ‘the buying of time remained a strong element in British foreign policy, as it had been for several years…and to accelerate British rearmament, the spending upon which was moving swiftly forward in 1938 and 1939 and which far exceeded any expenditure upon arms ever undertaken in peace time’.