Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[Garrison]

And actually some more. In the original Molotov-Ribbentrop plan, Lithuania belonged to Germany's influence sphere, but that was amended to become Soviet. And when Stalin grabbed Bessarabia from Romania, he also grabbed the Northern Bukovina which was not planned. Hitler did not protest, but then Romania was particularly the whipping boy among his allies - losing about one third of its territory.


Cough cough. Hitler also stuck to the bargain of Munich - for half a year.

True, Stalin should have known better, but I think he genuinely didn't believe that Hitler would risk a war on two fronts.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is an interesting article about this appeasement business which indicates Britain's military weakness in 1938 at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

The pure unadulterated historical truth is still a mystery.

When asked what forces Britain itself could deploy in the west against possible Nazi aggression, Admiral Drax said there were just 16 combat ready divisions, leaving the Soviets bewildered by Britain's lack of preparation for the looming conflict.
The Soviet attempt to secure an anti-Nazi alliance involving the British and the French is well known. But the extent to which Moscow was prepared to go has never before been revealed.

Professor Donald Cameron Watt, author of How War Came - widely seen as the definitive account of the last 12 months before war began - said the details were new, but said he was sceptical about the claim that they were spelled out during the meetings.
"There was no mention of this in any of the three contemporaneous diaries, two British and one French - including that of Drax," he said. "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious."

 

[Garrison]

The pure unadulterated historical truth is still a mystery.

And it will continue to be so for you until you stop using newspaper articles and random websites as your source of information.

 

[lobosrul5]

There is an interesting article about this appeasement business which indicates Britain's military weakness in 1938 at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

When asked what forces Britain itself could deploy in the west against possible Nazi aggression, Admiral Drax said there were just 16 combat ready divisions, leaving the Soviets bewildered by Britain's lack of preparation for the looming conflict.
The Soviet attempt to secure an anti-Nazi alliance involving the British and the French is well known. But the extent to which Moscow was prepared to go has never before been revealed.

Professor Donald Cameron Watt, author of How War Came - widely seen as the definitive account of the last 12 months before war began - said the details were new, but said he was sceptical about the claim that they were spelled out during the meetings.
"There was no mention of this in any of the three contemporaneous diaries, two British and one French - including that of Drax," he said. "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious."

The pure unadulterated historical truth is still a mystery.

Only 16! Zoinks OMG, thats hardly anything. Actually no. Not for a peacetime army from a western democracy who prioritized their Navy and AF over the Army and who depended on France to have a much bigger Army at least at the beginning of a potential war. I'm actually surprised it was that many in '38. The US could mobilize maybe 5 at that time.

 

[Henri McPhee]

And it will continue to be so for you until you stop using newspaper articles and random websites as your source of information.

At least I don't post a lot of gibberish about how powerful the Czech armed forces were at the time, and how incapable Hitler was of launching a war in 1938 against a Britain with practically no Spitfires. There are people who say there should have been no appeasement of Hitler by Britain and America when he occupied the Rhineland in about 1936, which was against the Treaty of Versailles. The trouble is the British public were only interested in beer, cigarettes and football and Strictly Come Dancing at the time. They didn't want to know.

There is a bit of background to all this at this website:

http://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/conf/w2-conf.html

The Pact shocked the world and the purpose was immedietly apparent. It meant that Germany could attack Poland without fear of Soviet intervention. Thus after defeating Poland, Germany did not have to fear a full-scale European war on two fronts. What was not known at the time was that there was a secret protocol to the pact which in effect divided Eastern Europe betwen the two countries.

This protocol was discovered after the end of the World War II in 1945. The Soviets continued to deny this protocol until 1989. The NAZIs 8 days after signing the Pact invade Poland on September 1, 1939, launching World War II. Although the Soviets did not enter the War against Britain and France, the Soviets were virtual NAZI allies as they provided large quantaies of strategic materials, especially oil. Communist parties in Britain and France opposed the war effort. The Communist Party in America opposed President Roosevelt's efforts to expand defense spending and assist Britain and France.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Only 16! Zoinks OMG, thats hardly anything. Actually no. Not for a peacetime army from a western democracy who prioritized their Navy and AF over the Army and who depended on France to have a much bigger Army at least at the beginning of a potential war. I'm actually surprised it was that many in '38. The US could mobilize maybe 5 at that time.

I must say I was surprised by that internet quote about the British army having sixteen divisions in 1938. I'm not on firm ground about all that, and I have never researched the matter in the National Archives.

This is on the internet, which may or may not be true:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101003131611AAdPvGZ

Best Answer: It was around 850,000 for the German Army and approx 220,000 for the British Army. Almost half of the British Army were based around the world.

AndyMc234 · 7 years ago

 

[Garrison]

At least I don't post a lot of gibberish about how powerful the Czech armed forces were at the time, and how incapable Hitler was of launching a war in 1938 against a Britain with practically no Spitfires.

Not one person here has made either claim, but of course facts are not your strong suit. You refuse to do any proper research on the subject and get upset when people point out the endless flaws in your unfounded beliefs. Oh and yet again you provide a link to a second rate site to reiterate information that had already been discussed as if no one else here was aware of it.

 

[jimbob]

Not one person here has made either claim, but of course facts are not your strong suit. You refuse to do any proper research on the subject and get upset when people point out the endless flaws in your unfounded beliefs. Oh and yet again you provide a link to a second rate site to reiterate information that had already been discussed as if no one else here was aware of it.

To be fair, I hadn't been aware of Chamberlain's refusal to tell Stalin about the German plans for Barbarossa, previously thinking that being dead before the planning started was sufficient reason.

I imagine most people in this thread (including you) had thought that too.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I must say I was surprised by that internet quote about the British army having sixteen divisions in 1938. I'm not on firm ground about all that, and I have never researched the matter in the National Archives.

This is on the internet, which may or may not be true:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101003131611AAdPvGZ

Britain was a maritime nation. Our army was secondary to the Naval power.

 

[Henri McPhee]

To be fair, I hadn't been aware of Chamberlain's refusal to tell Stalin about the German plans for Barbarossa, previously thinking that being dead before the planning started was sufficient reason.

I imagine most people in this thread (including you) had thought that too.

There is some background waffle about this matter at this website:

http://bayardandholmes.com/2015/05/04/intelligence-failures-operation-barbarossa-the-soviet-view/

Chamberlain, and our Secret Service, were fully aware of Hitler's intentions from 1934 onwards. It's just that Stalin did not believe Chamberlain, or Churchill. He believed Hitler's empty promises. That's not Chamberlain's fault.

In addition to its direct sources in Germany, Stalin’s intelligence community was aware of US and UK assessments of Hitler’s intentions.

When diplomats from the US and the UK informed Stalin of German plans to invade the USSR, Stalin had already heard this from his spies in the UK and the US. He assumed that all the warnings coming from the Western nations were part of a Western conspiracy to force him to go to war with Hitler prematurely. Stalin preferred to let the West demolish itself, and he planned to step into a convenient power vacuum of a destroyed Western Europe.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Only 16! Zoinks OMG, thats hardly anything. Actually no. Not for a peacetime army from a western democracy who prioritized their Navy and AF over the Army and who depended on France to have a much bigger Army at least at the beginning of a potential war. I'm actually surprised it was that many in '38. The US could mobilize maybe 5 at that time.

Yes.

By way of comparison, the BEF in 1914 comprised 6 Divisions (5 infantry and 1 cavalry), while the Somme offensive was kicked off with 14 Divisions

 

[Garrison]

There is some background waffle about this matter at this website:

http://bayardandholmes.com/2015/05/04/intelligence-failures-operation-barbarossa-the-soviet-view/

Chamberlain, and our Secret Service, were fully aware of Hitler's intentions from 1934 onwards. It's just that Stalin did not believe Chamberlain, or Churchill. He believed Hitler's empty promises. That's not Chamberlain's fault.

Make up your mind Henri, you previously claimed that Chamberlain, or rather the British since Chamberlain was dead before it was planned, didn't tell the Soviets about Barbarossa. Now you post a link saying they did. And Stalin hardly needed the British to inform him of Hitler's 'intentions' in 1934 since 'Mein Kampf' was published in 1925 and would have left no one in any doubts about what Hitler planned for Russia and the Ukraine.

Stalin certainly made a massive error, which of course has zero to do with pre-war appeasement, except of course that if war had come in 1938 the USSR would have been at war with Germany from the start and Stalin wouldn't have been able to make that mistake.

 

[Craig B]

There is some background waffle about this matter at this website:

http://bayardandholmes.com/2015/05/04/intelligence-failures-operation-barbarossa-the-soviet-view/

Chamberlain, and our Secret Service, were fully aware of Hitler's intentions from 1934 onwards. It's just that Stalin did not believe Chamberlain, or Churchill. He believed Hitler's empty promises. That's not Chamberlain's fault.

You're mixing up two things. Hitler had desires to crush the Soviet regime in 1934, he had "intentions". But he did not have "plans for Barbarossa" in 1934. Nor in that year did he have intentions of signing a non aggression pact with the USSR. Therefore Chamberlain couldn't have warned Stalin about Barbarossa, though he could have told Stalin that Hitler didn't like Jews and Communists as a matter of general principle. But that wouldn't have helped Stalin to predict the date of the Nazi attack.

All this has been pointed out to you before, to no avail. You still churn out the same nonsense with not even an attempt to address the cogent objections raised against it.

 

[Henri McPhee]

From the book The Ultra Secret by F. W. Winterbotham 1974:

Churchill wondered how much information we ought to give the Russians. He consulted Menzies and then wrote a letter to Stalin saying that we had excellent information to the effect that there was a very big build-up of forces in Eastern Germany. Stalin did not reply.

Chamberlain knew what was going on all right. There was no guarantee Stalin would have been on our side if war had broken out in 1938, as nearly happened.

 

[Craig B]

From the book The Ultra Secret by F. W. Winterbotham 1974:



Chamberlain knew what was going on all right. There was no guarantee Stalin would have been on our side if war had broken out in 1938, as nearly happened.

Chamberlain knew because Churchill wrote a letter? Really? Was Chamberlain already dead when Churchill wrote it? When did Churchill come into possession of the information he wanted to impart to Stalin?

Have you forgotten that in 1938 the USSR and CS were allies? That if France had complied with her alliance Stalin would not have joined the Germans to attack his own ally, CS.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Have you forgotten that in 1938 the USSR and CS were allies? That if France had complied with her alliance Stalin would not have joined the Germans to attack his own ally, CS.

How do you know that for sure? As Chamberlain once said, treaties and agreements cannot be depended on to keep the peace, and the public and House of Commons only understand straight lines. It is more complex than you make out

There is some background waffle about this at this website:

https://history.blog.gov.uk/2013/09/30/whats-the-context-30-september-1938-the-munich-agreement/

The bottom line was: did the British people want to go to war for the Sudetenland? His answer was ‘no’: and while there were certainly differences between Chamberlain and his colleagues, and indeed with the Foreign Office who had no real hope that Hitler would settle for a peaceful future, very few were prepared to answer ‘yes’ in 1938.

Munich was the logical conclusion. And while in hindsight the inaction of the international community in the face of dictators’ aggression and brutality may seem culpable, more recent history continues to demonstrate that such situations and decisions are never straightforward.

 

[Craig B]

How do you know that for sure? As Chamberlain once said, treaties and agreements cannot be depended on to keep the peace, and the public and House of Commons only understand straight lines. It is more complex than you make out

There is some background waffle about this at this website:

https://history.blog.gov.uk/2013/09/30/whats-the-context-30-september-1938-the-munich-agreement/

Waffle if may well be, as most of your sources are, but it gives little comfort to believers in Chamberlain's perspicacity as regards the future of the USSR.

Stalin’s paranoid fantasies were quite alien to Chamberlain and his colleagues, who worried, needlessly at this point, about Soviet expansionist intentions.​

 

[Garrison]

From the book The Ultra Secret by F. W. Winterbotham 1974:
Chamberlain knew what was going on all right. There was no guarantee Stalin would have been on our side if war had broken out in 1938, as nearly happened.

And yet again all you demonstrate is your ignorance. Ultra didn't exist when Chamberlain was still alive, the code breaking efforts that would lead to it had barely started. There may have been no guarantee Stalin would have joined the war in 1938, but the chances were far higher than a year later when he was an ally of Hitler and supplying Germany with much needed war materials. All of this after Hitler had acquired valuable equipment and industrial capacity after taking over a prostrate Czechoslovakia.

If you would like to make a case that the delay of 18 months before war broke out was more valuable to the UK than Nazi Germany, feel free. Up to this point all you've posted is irrelevant or just plain inaccurate information from second rate websites.

 

[Craig B]

... There may have been no guarantee Stalin would have joined the war in 1938, but the chances were far higher than a year later when he was an ally of Hitler and supplying Germany with much needed war materials. All of this after Hitler had acquired valuable equipment and industrial capacity after taking over a prostrate Czechoslovakia.

You have made that comment, so have I, but according to Henri's own linked source, it was evident even in 1938. In the paragraph on Mussolini, we are told that

Fascist leader Mussolini ... and his Foreign Secretary, Ciano, found it hard to understand why the British should feel they would have to join in if the French fought Germany on behalf of their ally, Czechoslovakia.

Surely, said Ciano, Britain would not want to fight on the same side as the Bolsheviks?​

Indeed the U.K. Would have had to do just that, and Hitler would have had to fight a prepared USSR, because both France and the USSR were allies of CS. If France had not betrayed CS, why should the USSR default? And if the USSR also for some reason betrayed CS, it would at worst have stayed neutral; it would not have joined Germany in attacking one of its own most valued allies.

On this point Mussolini was only stating the obvious.

 

[Hans]

Waffle if may well be, as most of your sources are, but it gives little comfort to believers in Chamberlain's perspicacity as regards the future of the USSR.

Stalin’s paranoid fantasies were quite alien to Chamberlain and his colleagues, who worried, needlessly at this point, about Soviet expansionist intentions.​

Just a side point. Stalin had intervened in the Spanish civil war therefore demonstrating a desire/ability to intervene outside of his own country and having no concerns about taking casualties.

The Republic sent its gold reserve to the Soviet Union to pay for arms and supplies. That reserve was worth $500,000,000 in 1939 prices. In 1956, the Soviet Union announced that Spain still owed it $50,000,000. Other estimates of Soviet and Comintern aid totaled £81,000,000 ($405,000,000) in 1939 value. The German military attache estimated that Soviet and Comintern aid amounted to:

242 aircraft,
703 pieces of artillery,
731 tanks,
1,386 trucks,
300 armored cars
15,000 heavy machine guns,
500,000 rifles,
30,000 sub-machine guns,
4,000,000 artillery shells,
1,000,000,000 machine gun cartridges,
over 69,000 tons of war materiel, and
over 29,000 tons of ammunition.

A couple of hundred Soviets died in that war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War#Soviet_Union