Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[Henri McPhee]

Chamberlain was terminally ill at Munich. That does affect one's ability to negotiate effectively.

I don't know much about Chamberlain's medical condition in 1938. I have always been under the impression that he died fairly suddenly, or a few weeks and months, of stomach cancer, which is not the same as something like senile dementia, and it does not affect judgement. He did make the remark when he was alive that it would have been far worse if Britain had gone to war in 1938, which was right judgement.

I still think these wars and battles and complete victories are not an easy task, as Churchill seemed to think. Even Wellington made similar remarks about his battles with Napoleon as being a damned close run thing. The Americans found out that landings were not easy.

There is a fair and just account about Chamberlain at:

www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/97/a6655197.shtml

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Chamberlain was terminally ill at Munich. That does affect one's ability to negotiate effectively.

Maybe, but the situation was already decided with Runciman's report. There was not a lot more to do in Munich than actually sign the paper. I mean, sure, there'd be talks, and posturing, and the usual diplomacy thing, but the matter was already decided before Chamberlain even set foot in Munich.

And even the decision before, as I was saying, it's not like any politician could do anything else there.

Germany was hammering on the right to self determination issue, which the Allies (well, back then the Entente) had themselves used to dismember their enemies after WW1. They had managed to avoid the "for all races" clause that Japan wanted (it hadn't gone fascist yet), but they held fast to the idea that in the west if an ethnic group wants to be independent, it can hold a referendum and do so.

So now the Sudeten German majority wanted to exercise that right, and Hitler was hammering on that issue alone. In fact, he was making it very explicitly about that.

So NOW WHAT?

Even without the Runciman report that said that, yeah, they kinda have a good reason to be pissed off at their Czech overlords, the fact remained that someone wanted to exercise their right to self-determination. Even if it had been entirely without reason, they wanted to do the same thing that the UK had been hammering on for literally 20 years straight as being some fundamental right.

How would YOU sell the idea at home -- including to the parliament, which otherwise would overrule you -- that Britain must go to war to... prevent the Sudeten from exercising that right?

Even if you were from the future and knew how Hitler will use that to take Czechoslovakia and then use their tanks agains Poland, what evidence would you have to sell it to the press and the parliament? But Chamberlain wasn't from the future, nor clairvoyant, so he himself didn't know that.

Sure, in retrospect we know now that it led to a pretty catastrophic outcome. But the British population didn't know that at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, but foresight is much less.

What I'm saying is that no politician could touch any other choice with a 10 ft pollaxe than allowing the Sudeten to have their damn referendum. The other choice was political suicide, and ultimately would have been overrulled by the parliament anyway.

 

[Klimax]

Maybe, but the situation was already decided with Runciman's report. There was not a lot more to do in Munich than actually sign the paper. I mean, sure, there'd be talks, and posturing, and the usual diplomacy thing, but the matter was already decided before Chamberlain even set foot in Munich.

And even the decision before, as I was saying, it's not like any politician could do anything else there.

Germany was hammering on the right to self determination issue, which the Allies (well, back then the Entente) had themselves used to dismember their enemies after WW1. They had managed to avoid the "for all races" clause that Japan wanted (it hadn't gone fascist yet), but they held fast to the idea that in the west if an ethnic group wants to be independent, it can hold a referendum and do so.

So now the Sudeten German majority wanted to exercise that right, and Hitler was hammering on that issue alone. In fact, he was making it very explicitly about that.

So NOW WHAT?

Even without the Runciman report that said that, yeah, they kinda have a good reason to be pissed off at their Czech overlords, the fact remained that someone wanted to exercise their right to self-determination. Even if it had been entirely without reason, they wanted to do the same thing that the UK had been hammering on for literally 20 years straight as being some fundamental right.

How would YOU sell the idea at home -- including to the parliament, which otherwise would overrule you -- that Britain must go to war to... prevent the Sudeten from exercising that right?

Even if you were from the future and knew how Hitler will use that to take Czechoslovakia and then use their tanks agains Poland, what evidence would you have to sell it to the press and the parliament? But Chamberlain wasn't from the future, nor clairvoyant, so he himself didn't know that.

Sure, in retrospect we know now that it led to a pretty catastrophic outcome. But the British population didn't know that at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, but foresight is much less.

What I'm saying is that no politician could touch any other choice with a 10 ft pollaxe than allowing the Sudeten to have their damn referendum. The other choice was political suicide, and ultimately would have been overrulled by the parliament anyway.

First, Sudet Germans had zero reason to be "pissed off" at anything. (Thanks to their idiocy, their "problems" got in the end final solution fixing it al...) Second, just looking at our industrial base and production should have been more then enough to understand situation. And not to speak of various R&Ds here. (At least MI6(?) was ready to help)

There is no need for time travel.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, maybe, but what matters is that the Runciman report seems to have thought they had a point. Whether it was wrong or not, well, that's kinda beside the point when you have to sell a world war to the parliament, innit?

Second, the whole brouhaha about the right to self-determination didn't include an "unless they're idiots" clause. I mean, sure, they may or may not have been idiots, and they were influenced by NSDAP agitators, but in the here and now they wanted to exercise that right.

How would you sell to the parliament and to the British people the idea that you have to go to war to... keep the Sudeten under Czech rule against their will?

And I'm afraid that 'we need to send a couple million people to die to keep some people and their industry from joining Germany' wouldn't have cut it either. Remember Germany had't attacked anyone yet or anything. And while Hitler did do some sabre rattling in his speeches, it was directed strictly at the USSR, and frankly a LOT of people didn't mind that.

Again, I'm not saying it was the RIGHT solution in the long run or anything. Just that you couldn't sell any other solution to the people and the parliament at home.

Some people seem to completely forget that Great Britain wasn't some dictatorship, where the glorious leader can do whatever he damn wants and declare war on whoever. Sure, if it had been the USSR, then Chamberlain could do whatever he damn pleases. But this was the UK we're talking about. He had to work within the constraints of a democratic system. And then the more important issue isn't whether he himself wanted to appease Hitler or not, but whether the rest of the UK was ready to go to war over that issue.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Also, btw, just for the sake of setting the record straight, no, the Sudeten issue was NOT "solved" by the final solution. It was Stalin that deported the whole German population there forcibly after the war. I'm not sure if you can blame Stalin's deportations on the idiocy of the victims, or not with any degree of fairness.

 

[Craig B]

... right to self-determination didn't include an "unless they're idiots" clause.

Neither it did. Interesting point is this, however. Is the transfer of a territory from one polity to another a case of self determination, in particular if the receiving state is vastly more tyrannical and imperialistic than the relinquishing one? Did the Sudeteners, idiots that they were, seek self determination, or a change of suzerain? And if it was the second, is that a recognised right possessed by peoples?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

It was included in the version that England and France had preached since 1918, and which they used to dismember their enemies. Transylvania had been transferred from Hungary to Romania. The southern half of Tyrol and Trieste were moved from Austria to Italy. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, and Vojvodina were taken from Austria-Hungary and joined with Serbia, and the Serbs really proceeded to treat them as some kind of imperial subjects, like they wanted to have all along. We only saw the end of that in the 90's. Etc.

Hell, even if you're looking for a transfer to a less democratic suzerain, the Austro-Hungarian concession in Tianjin was ceded back to China. Which was a lot less quick to discover democracy, much less get to where Austria-Hungary was.

And really that was all that mattered: that it was very much included in the version that England and France had been preaching and applying for the last 20 years straight.

Maybe it was the right version, or maybe not. I'll grant that. But deciding to suddenly revise it when it's no longer convenient would have been just as much of an "I'm a hypocrite" move as denying it outright. It was still an option no politician could really take without committing political suicide.

 

[Craig B]

It was included in the version that England and France had preached since 1918

[citation required]

and which they used to dismember their enemies. Transylvania had been transferred from Hungary to Romania. The southern half of Tyrol and Trieste were moved from Austria to Italy. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, and Vojvodina were taken from Austria-Hungary and joined with Serbia, and the Serbs really proceeded to treat them as some kind of imperial subjects, like they wanted to have all along. We only saw the end of that in the 90's. Etc.

This was done under provisions that were founded on the right of peoples to self determination?

Hell, even if you're looking for a transfer to a less democratic suzerain, the Austro-Hungarian concession in Tianjin was ceded back to China. Which was a lot less quick to discover democracy, much less get to where Austria-Hungary was.

This is an example of the people of Tianjin exercising a right to self determination, in the view of the Entente?

Ah, finally you come out with it

And really that was all that mattered: that it was very much included in the version that England and France had been preaching and applying for the last 20 years straight.

[Citation required]

ETA Does your consistent reference to the UK as "England" imply any view on your part as to the question of self determination for the smaller countries of the political Union in these islands?

 

[Klimax]

Also, btw, just for the sake of setting the record straight, no, the Sudeten issue was NOT "solved" by the final solution. It was Stalin that deported the whole German population there forcibly after the war. I'm not sure if you can blame Stalin's deportations on the idiocy of the victims, or not with any degree of fairness.

First, it was done under mandate of Allies. Stalin on his own was only part of that. Second, they wanted to be part of Germany, they got to be part of Germany...

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@Craig B
Uh, you do know that the English still referred to the UK as England extensively, right?

E.g., just from Churchill, since we're talking about him in the thread:

"To England all eyes were turned." ('The Locust Years', House of Commons, 12 November 1936)

"To English ears, the name of Czechoslovakia sounds outlandish." (House of Commons, March 14, 1938)

"We may remember the words of old John Bright, after the American Civil War was over, when he said to an audience of English working folk: "At last after the smoke of the battlefield had cleared away, the horrid shape which had cast its shadow over the whole continent had vanished and was gone forever"." (The Russian Enigma, Broadcast, 1st October 1939)

So... WTH? Even as dictionary splitting hair goes, just... WTH?

THAT said, if you just want to say that the British government were hypocrites, wth, I just told you that a couple of messages ago. Again. They rejected the "for all races" clause proposed by Japan in the Versailles treaty, because they weren't going to grant all those bits of their empire the same rights.

Which incidentally was one major step in convincing Japan that, yeah, well, the western boys' club isn't really seeing Asians anywhere near as equals. And that in turn was a major factor in eventually turning Japan fascists. The Japanese pretty much went, 'Screw you! I'm making my own sphere of influence! With blackjack! And hookers!' (Not an exact quote.)

So, yeah, they WERE hypocrites. And, no, they weren't going to grant THEIR subjects the same rights.

But it wasn't a political minefield to keep a tight grip on the Empire. Quite the contrary. Whereas proposing to go to war to keep the Sudeten from having a referendum to split was.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

First, it was done under mandate of Allies. Stalin on his own was only part of that. Second, they wanted to be part of Germany, they got to be part of Germany...

Yeah, well, everyone getting expropriated for... being fed up with the forced expropriations imposed by the Czechs in the interwar period, is at best poetic injustice. It's kinda like beating up your wife for wanting to leave you because she got beaten before.

And it was hardly the rest of the Allies that came up with that idea.

But ultimately, you know, if you're going to play the card that you don't give a flip about deporting some millions of your own citizens with nothing but the shirt on their backs, because you think they didn't deserve any better, it seems to me like you lost all rights to complain that the Allies didn't care to defend your borders, when they thought YOU didn't deserve any better. The former is far more callous than the latter.

 

[Craig B]

First, it was done under mandate of Allies. Stalin on his own was only part of that. Second, they wanted to be part of Germany, they got to be part of Germany...

The expulsion of the Sudeten Germans was nonetheless an unjustifiable act. It was also attended by many anomalies.

I have read that some Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, seeking to return to their homes in the Sudetenland, were expelled because they were categorised as of German ethnicity in the latest Czechoslovak census. An apology for the unwarranted expulsion of anti-Nazi Sudeten Germans has been made by the government of the Czech Republic.

 

[Craig B]

Yeah, well, everyone getting expropriated for... being fed up with the forced expropriations imposed by the Czechs in the interwar period, is at best poetic injustice. It's kinda like beating up your wife for wanting to leave you because she got beaten before.

And it was hardly the rest of the Allies that came up with that idea.

But ultimately, you know, if you're going to play the card that you don't give a flip about deporting some millions of your own citizens with nothing but the shirt on their backs, because you think they didn't deserve any better, it seems to me like you lost all rights to complain that the Allies didn't care to defend your borders, when they thought YOU didn't deserve any better. The former is far more callous than the latter.

I can't agree with that at all. The integrity of borders against annexation by predatory neighbours is not conditional on the good behaviour of the state possessing the borders.

On the whole, despite the Sudetenland question, Czechoslovakia was a democracy. Poland was much less so; but that was quite rightly not taken into consideration when the UK and France declared war on Germany for violating that country's territory.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I can't agree with that at all. The integrity of borders against annexation by predatory neighbours is not conditional on the good behaviour of the state possessing the borders.

Neither is violating several human rights of your citizens. That was my point. One can't proclaim they don't give a flip about several millions of their citizens, while at the same time condemning someone else for not protecting SOMEONE ELSE's. Or not without losing any semblance of moral high ground.

Of course, it doesn't make either of them RIGHT. But it might make one a hypocrite, if they only care about protecting people when they're the ones to protect. Is all I was saying.

 

[Craig B]

Neither is violating several human rights of your citizens. That was my point. One can't proclaim they don't give a flip about several millions of their citizens, while at the same time condemning someone else for not protecting SOMEONE ELSE's. Or not without losing any semblance of moral high ground.

Of course, it doesn't make either of them RIGHT. But it might make one a hypocrite, if they only care about protecting people when they're the ones to protect. Is all I was saying.

And all I'm saying is that I don't agree. The repeated malpractices of the Polish government didn't deter the U.K. or France from declaring war on Germany, when it invaded Poland, soon after the Munich transactions. Nor did these malpractices imply that Poland was being hypocritical to request help from these western states.

It was right to go to war; just as it was right for the Allies to support the USSR, a monstrous tyranny, following Germany's invasion of that country.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think you're answering to something completely other than I was saying. Probably my limited communication skills. I was just saying that Klimax should pipe down, not anything about France or the UK.

THAT said, I'm not sure what the point is anyway. Seems to me like you're saying that we can choose our allies for whatever damn reason we wish. Then that includes not just stuff like "we like them more than we like the Germans", but also stuff like "we don't like them any more". So what's the exact problem, then?

 

[Craig B]

I think you're answering to something completely other than I was saying. Probably my limited communication skills. I was just saying that Klimax should pipe down, not anything about France or the UK.

THAT said, I'm not sure what the point is anyway. Seems to me like you're saying that we can choose our allies for whatever damn reason we wish. Then that includes not just stuff like "we like them more than we like the Germans", but also stuff like "we don't like them any more". So what's the exact problem, then?

I don't have any problem with that. I was just saying it wasn't hypocritical of the Czechoslovak government to want help to protect its borders, even if less than utopian conditions prevailed within them.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Good gods, I wasn't talking about the government either. I may be a windbag in my old age, but not every message is some history lecture

 

[ddt]

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, and Vojvodina were taken from Austria-Hungary and joined with Serbia, and the Serbs really proceeded to treat them as some kind of imperial subjects, like they wanted to have all along. We only saw the end of that in the 90's. Etc.

There was a National Council in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs - encompassing current Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina - that voluntarily declared they wanted to merge their new country with Serbia. And of course, it wasn't Tito's post-war policy that the Serbs should dominate the other nations within Yugoslavia - Tito himself being half-Slovene, half-Croat.

And really that was all that mattered: that it was very much included in the version that England and France had been preaching and applying for the last 20 years straight.

It wasn't so much the version that UK and France had been preaching as much as Wilson had. And the nations living within the Austrian-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires didn't need the call from the UK or France to strive for independence, as nationalism had been brewing there for at least half a century.

 

[ddt]

First, it was done under mandate of Allies. Stalin on his own was only part of that. Second, they wanted to be part of Germany, they got to be part of Germany...

I'm not sure why anyone introduced Stalin into this discussion. I don't think Benes needed Stalin's encouragement for one iota to kick out the Sudeten Germans.