Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

Chamberlain was a realist, not an armchair admiral like the people on this forum. It makes me laugh to read that some pro-Nazi people now accuse Chamberlain of starting the war. You can accuse Stalin of appeasement, or even Churchill with regard to Poland later on, which is ironic in view of subsequent events.
 
Henri McPhee said:
Chamberlain was a realist, not an armchair admiral like the people on this forum.
Click to expand...

Henri please stop repeating this accusation, other posters have offered you facts about the situation. YOU are the one who has ignored facts in favour of your own unsubstantiated beliefs. You are the one who thinks he knows betters than German Generals and Admirals.

It makes me laugh to read that some pro-Nazi people now accuse Chamberlain of starting the war.
Click to expand...

No there is nothing amusing at all about you posting links to Holocaust denial sites, who else would you expect Nazi's to blame for the war?

You can accuse Stalin of appeasement
Click to expand...

Yes you can, and?

or even Churchill with regard to Poland later on, which is ironic in view of subsequent events.
Click to expand...

And back to the twaddle. How many times do you need to be reminded that Churchill did not return to government until after the war broke out. There is no irony here, I suspect that it's a word you don't understand the meaning of, like 'waffle' or 'amusing'.
 
Henri McPhee said:
Chamberlain was a realist . . .
Click to expand...


Chamberlain was an appeaser who made a disastrous mistake in gauging Hitler's intentions in 1938.

Henri McPhee said:
. . . not an armchair admiral like the people on this forum.
Click to expand...


Continuing evasion noted. Your repeated attempts to belittle, rather than refute, the facts and informed opinions presented by other posters are growing tiresome. When are you going to answer the questions that have been put to you?

Henri McPhee said:
It makes me laugh to read that some pro-Nazi people now accuse Chamberlain of starting the war.
Click to expand...


What do you mean "now accuse"? The Nazis and their apologists have regularly made that claim for nearly 80 years. And, like others, I don't know why you find this at all amusing.

Henri McPhee said:
You can accuse Stalin of appeasement, or even Churchill with regard to Poland later on, which is ironic in view of subsequent events.
Click to expand...


Stalin's reasons for acting as he did toward Germany in the late 1930s have been explained to you. And the western Allies' later concessions to the Soviets on Eastern Europe are not relevant to the discussion of prewar appeasement.
 
Garrison said:
And back to the twaddle. How many times do you need to be reminded that Churchill did not return to government until after the war broke out. There is no irony here, I suspect that it's a word you don't understand the meaning of, like 'waffle' or 'amusing'.
Click to expand...


I think Henri's trying to insinuate that Churchill (and FDR) "appeased" Stalin by making concessions on Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, which the western Allies were in no position to prevent in any case.
 
SpitfireIX said:
I think Henri's trying to insinuate that Churchill (and FDR) "appeased" Stalin by making concessions on Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, which the western Allies were in no position to prevent in any case.
Click to expand...


Ah so it was irrelevant in the other direction...;)

ETA: Also it's bit rich of Henri to criticize Churchill over Poland in 1945 when it was Chamberlain's pre-war policies that conspired to Poland in that position in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
Chamberlain was a realist, not an armchair admiral like the people on this forum. It makes me laugh to read that some pro-Nazi people now accuse Chamberlain of starting the war. You can accuse Stalin of appeasement, or even Churchill with regard to Poland later on, which is ironic in view of subsequent events.
Click to expand...

No Henri the problem is you have a kindergarden view/or understanding of WWII. The majority of the others have a clear idea of what occurred - there might be some disagreement over the details but everyone knows the difference between an invasion launched from the NW German coast to England versus an invasion launched from the French coast to the Channel Islands.

You do not.
 
Craig B said:
Maybe that's why Henri hasn't linked us to "amusing" Stalinist websites.
Click to expand...

Are there such? This thread is an amusing demonstration of Henri's classic posting style - wild statement - no evidence - confusion - repeat - run - return - no evidence - runs off again, repeat.
 
Hans said:
No Henri the problem is you have a kindergarden view/or understanding of WWII. The majority of the others have a clear idea of what occurred - there might be some disagreement over the details but everyone knows the difference between an invasion launched from the NW German coast to England versus an invasion launched from the French coast to the Channel Islands.

You do not.
Click to expand...

Given the planning that the Germans put into Sealion, the [ETA important] difference would be whether any Germans would make it to the British coast to surrender there, or whether the RN destroyed the invasion "fleet" in the Channel or the North Sea.
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
Chamberlain was an appeaser who made a disastrous mistake in gauging Hitler's intentions in 1938.
Click to expand...

Our Secret Service, and Chamberlain, were fully aware of Hitler's intentions in 1938, which was one of aggressive war against the Czechs and French and UK and America and Soviet Russia. Like all politicians he talked a lot of empty waffle about peace in our time, and the Anglo-German Naval agreement, but that was because most people in the public and House of Commons had never heard of the Sudetanland.

Chamberlain had no powerful, or reliable, ally and most countries in the British Empire and America were opposed to war in 1938. His military advice was that there were dangerous deficiencies in the army and air force, and in military equipment in 1938. To declare war in 1938 with a 'with what' strategy would have been a want of judgment and could have ended in disaster.

I know Hitler wanted the British to join him in his war on Russia, and he had made promises that we could keep our colonies. Hitler had a long list of breaking agreements. It's ridiculous to underestimate the Panzers and Luftwaffe in 1938.
 
Henri McPhee said:
Our Secret Service, and Chamberlain, were fully aware of Hitler's intentions in 1938.
Click to expand...

So just to be clear we are still waiting for you to answer the myriad of questions you've ducked and support the claims you've made, but in the meantime let us yet again debunk your unsupported 'armchair general' nonsense.

Henri McPhee said:
Our Secret Service, and Chamberlain, were fully aware of Hitler's intentions in 1938.
Click to expand...

You've already admitted that Chamberlain was making his plans based on faulty intelligence, are you now reversing yourself yet again?

which was one of aggressive war against the Czechs and French and UK and America and Soviet Russia.
Click to expand...

Again, what Hitler wanted and what Germany could do were two very different things, despite your still unsupported claim they would have beaten Britain in a week.

Like all politicians he talked a lot of empty waffle about peace in our time, and the Anglo-German Naval agreement, but that was because most people in the public and House of Commons had never heard of the Sudetanland.
Click to expand...

He was the PM, he was supposed to know more than the general public about matters of foreign relations. We also have the evidence of his policies and private discussions to know that Chamberlain had to be pushed into taking a stand against Nazi Germany even after they marched into Prague.

Chamberlain had no powerful, or reliable, ally and most countries in the British Empire and America were opposed to war in 1938.
Click to expand...

Apart from the French, with the strongest army in Europe. How exactly did throwing the allies we did have under the bus and driving the USSR into arms of Hitler, help matters exactly?

His military advice was that there were dangerous deficiencies in the army and air force, and in military equipment in 1938.
Click to expand...

And if the army had deficiencies whose fault was that? And of course it wouldn't just have been Britain's army...

To declare war in 1938 with a 'with what' strategy would have been a want of judgment and could have ended in disaster.
Click to expand...

Except it wouldn't have, 'with what' was a French and British army far stronger than Germany's, A massive naval advantage and an airforce whose deficiencies would rapidly have been made good against a Germany already on the point of economic collapse, which would have been cut off from vital sources of imports.

Hitler wanted the British to join him in his war on Russia, and he had made promises that we could keep our colonies. Hitler had a long list of breaking agreements. It's ridiculous to underestimate the Panzers and Luftwaffe in 1938.
Click to expand...

No, what's ridiculous is someone who doesn't know the difference between a Pz II and a Panther making grand pronouncements about Panzers. What is ridiculous is someone who doesn't understand fighter ranges and quotes stats for a bomber that didn't enter service until 1942 lecturing people on the capabilities of the Lufwaffe in 1938.

In short Henri your arguments have become ludicrous, and about as 'amusing' as a pro-Nazi website.
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
That's a bare faced lie. That's what you people have been saying, not me.
Click to expand...

Then you are contending that Chamberlain had the correct information and still appeased Hitler? Even though that is demonstrably not the case? Oh and I really wouldn't start accusing people of telling lies, not with the myriad of 'factually incorrect' posts you've made in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom