Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[Henri McPhee]

What evidence do you have for their being 'quislings'?

What evidence do you have for his being a 'Nazi'?

I am just repeating what has been said on a TV documentary. There are strong suspicions that Edward VIII was a Nazi. From a Daily Mail article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173871/Was-Queen-s-uncle-Edward-VIII-Nazi.html

But thanks to much excellent digging by distinguished historians such as Jonathan Petropoulos and Karina Urbach — and indeed these new images of him giving a Nazi salute — it is now becoming clear that the man who would be King was far more sympathetic to Hitler’s twisted and evil creed than we had previously supposed.

Like many aristocrats of his generation, Edward loathed Communism. Despite his famous displays of solidarity with the poor when he was King, Edward saw what was happening in Russia as representing a very real threat not only to his country, but also his family.

According to one British diplomat who had served in Russia, Edward’s thinking ‘was dominated by sharp fear of the Communist threat from Russia’. It was this fear that made Edward look to Germany as a bulwark against the spread of the Reds.

When the Nazis came to power in 1933, Edward was delighted. As he revealed to a senior Austrian diplomat, he saw Nazism as necessary for Germany. ‘Of course, it is the only thing to do,’ he said. ‘We will have to come to it, as we are in great danger from the Communists, too.’

 

[Garrison]

I am just repeating what has been said on a TV documentary.

Which is the heart of the problem, you refuse to do any proper research, you just post whatever you heard in some TV program or read in some blog or editorial.

As to Edward VIII his attitude in 1933 was hardly unusual, assuming the claims of the Austrian diplomat can be taken as fact. Hitler was seen as a figurehead for conservative elements in Germany and the Communists were what the British establishment were worried about. The fatal assumption was that Hitler would be nothing but a puppet and Edward was hardly the only one to make it.

 

[Hans]

I am just repeating what has been said on a TV documentary. There are strong suspicions that Edward VIII was a Nazi. From a Daily Mail article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173871/Was-Queen-s-uncle-Edward-VIII-Nazi.html

Henri, seriously consider this suggestion: Stop using the TV to tell you what you believe.

 

[Mondial]

You really need to read Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction. Germany in 1939 did not have a "peace time economy". It was an economy gearing up for war and by 1939 a little over 1/2 of massively increased government spending was being spent on defence spending! To quote another source:



The myth that Germany started the Second World War with a economy that was "peace time" largely was a myth that emerged in the aftermath due to a misreading of the production figures of German armaments production and what they meant. Further it was powerfully aided by the myth Speer created and many accepted of the "miracle" in production Speer achieved after he took over. Thus we heard for decades after the war about how the German economy was not preparing for a prolonged war, that civilian production continued on a massive scale etc. It is all largely crock has shown in detail by Tooze's book.

The Germans were rearming because they had been disarmed by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler himself stated that if the French had challenged his reoccupation of the Rhineland the German forces would have had to retreat. You also completely ignore the fact that Britain and France as signatories to the treaty had agreed to general disarmament but did not keep their word. https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7937

 

[Garrison]

The Germans were rearming because they had been disarmed by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler himself stated that if the French had challenged his reoccupation of the Rhineland the German forces would have had to retreat. You also completely ignore the fact that Britain and France as signatories to the treaty had agreed to general disarmament but did not keep their word. https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7937

Disarmament by the French and British had nothing to do with the Versailles Treaty, that was the product of post WWI pacifism that reached its climax in the early 30's. The Germans were required to disarm by Versailles because they lost WWI. And before our resident Hitler apologist/Holocaust denier brings it up there was no 'stab in the back'. The German army rolled the dice on the Kaiserschlact and failed, the British, French and Americans then struck back during the '100 Days' throwing the Germans out of the Hindenburg Line at the end of September. It was the German army that called for an armistice because they were on the brink of collapse.


The remilitarization of the Rhineland was the first of the series of gambles Hitler indulged in and like a degenerate gambler every win just encouraged him to raise the stakes until the inevitable happened and he lost everything.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The Germans were rearming because they had been disarmed by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler himself stated that if the French had challenged his reoccupation of the Rhineland the German forces would have had to retreat. You also completely ignore the fact that Britain and France as signatories to the treaty had agreed to general disarmament but did not keep their word. https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7937

I still don't think that Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland could have been used as a pretext for world war and that it was somehow appeasement. There is some background information to the diplomacy of the matter at this website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Rhineland

The Treaty of Versailles repeated these provisions, but limited the presence of the foreign troops to fifteen years until 1934. The purpose of the occupation was on the one hand to give France security against a renewed German attack, and on the other to serve as a guarantee for reparations obligations. After this was apparently achieved with the Young Plan, the occupation of the Rhineland was prematurely ended on 30 June 1930.

 

[Rincewind]

I still don't think that Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland could have been used as a pretext for world war and that it was somehow appeasement. There is some background information to the diplomacy of the matter at this website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Rhineland

Henri - you've made a mistake.

The occupation of the Rhineland was by the allied forces after the end of the First World War.

You seem to be confusing this with Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland that was a violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno treaty, so had the potential for restarting hostilities.

The fact that France and Britain allowed him to get away with it was appeasement.

 

[Pacal]

I still don't think that Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland could have been used as a pretext for world war and that it was somehow appeasement. There is some background information to the diplomacy of the matter at this website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Rhineland

Henri you have been told over and over again that there was NO, repeat NO danger of a World War being started if France had opposed the German remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936. Germany was in absolutely NO position to fight the French if they had sent in a few divisions into Germany. In fact Hitler had given instructions that if the French responded with military force the German forces he had sent in would withdraw. So NO World War, and has a bonus it is likely that the Nazi regime would have fallen due to a serious loss of face.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Henri - you've made a mistake.

The occupation of the Rhineland was by the allied forces after the end of the First World War.

You seem to be confusing this with Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland that was a violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno treaty, so had the potential for restarting hostilities.

The fact that France and Britain allowed him to get away with it was appeasement.

I remember watching some kind of young pundit on TV once saying that Britain and America and France should have gone to war with Hitler over his occupation of the Rhineland and that would have prevented the second world war. I thought that pundit was divorced from reality at the time. There is a discussion of all this at this website:

www.richardjevans.com/lectures/chamberlain-appeasement-differing-views-historians/

Guilty Men published in July 1940 by “Cato” (pseudonym for three journalists, including Michael Foot). Argued Macdonald, Baldwin and Chamberlain had all been weak and vacillating in face of the rising threat of Nazism. All those associated with Appeasement should leave the government. Reinforced by Churchill war memoirs, published after the war, arguing that the war could have been avoided had Britain rearmed earlier and with France prevented the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936. ‘Appeasement’ of dictators seen as immoral, stupid and foolish: this lead to the Suez misadventure in 1956. Underpinned by Cold War.
The assumption was that the UK was a world power that had the duty to intervene to crush dictatorships on the European Continent. UK governments should have realized Hitler was hell-bent on European and world conquest from the beginning.

 

[fagin]

I remember watching some kind of young pundit on TV once ...

Some advice.

Henri, seriously consider this suggestion: Stop using the TV to tell you what you believe.

 

[jimbob]

I remember watching some kind of young pundit on TV once ...

Some advice.

Henri, seriously consider this suggestion: Stop using the TV to tell you what you believe.

I initially thought this was good advice, but realised that in this thread the converse would improve matters. The TV was, again, presenting pretty much the well-evidenced conventional knowledge, which Henri disagreed with.

Henri, as long as you don't go any more left-field than programmes about Nazi Moon bases, letting the TV tell you what to think is probably better than watching the programme and sticking to your own opinions about WWII.

 

[Garrison]

I initially thought this was good advice, but realised that in this thread the converse would improve matters. The TV was, again, presenting pretty much the well-evidenced conventional knowledge, which Henri disagreed with.

Problem is that Henri is posting what he thinks the person on the TV show said based entirely on his memory of what he watched. At least with the blogs and editorials you can check what was actually in them.

 

[jimbob]

Problem is that Henri is posting what he thinks the person on the TV show said based entirely on his memory of what he watched. At least with the blogs and editorials you can check what was actually in them.

True, but the general gist was sort of correct

I remember watching some kind of young pundit on TV once saying that Britain and America and France should have gone to war with Hitler over his occupation of the Rhineland and that would have prevented the second world war. I thought that pundit was divorced from reality at the time. There is a discussion of all this at this website:

Demanding Hitler leave the Rhineland, backed up with the threat of military force, which is probably what was said, is vaguely related to that

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is a bit of background information to this occupation of the Rhineland business in a book called The Devil's Decade published in 1973 by the communist journalist Claud Cockburn, who used to write for Private Eye magazine when he was alive. I didn't know that the Italian army used poison gas in Abyssinia, though I did know the Japanese used poison gas against the Chinese:

It became necessary to risk-if it can be called a risk- incurring international horror and repugnance by resorting to the use of poison gas. In the absence of an Abyssinian air force, the operation was easy. The gas was either dropped in canisters or sprayed direct from the air. The eyes of the defenders were particularly affected, being burned by the gas. Years afterwards foreign observers were still struck by the number of blind men, former fighters against the Italians, still to be seen in the streets of Addis Ababa.

It strikes me that Hitler had intelligence information that the French and British, and even Americans and Russians and Australians and Canadians, would not retaliate if he moved into the Rhineland. The British were only interested in having a 'pool of unemployment' at the time. Edward VIII was reported by the British secret political police as being fifth column :

The German naval and military attaches, necessarily reporting immediate naval and military indications, were in the main alarmist in their messages to Berlin. But Leopold von Hoesch, German Ambassador in London, had some political understanding. He was intimate with the Royal Family, and in particular with Edward VIII, who had repeatedly voiced to the Ambassador and to his English friends, his sympathetic attitude to Hitler and his aims.

Von Hoesch had always assured the Berlin Government that Britain would not forcibly oppose German occupation of the Rhineland. And it was accepted by almost everyone that if Britain refused to act, France would do nothing either. There were minority groups in the French Foreign Office and at the French War Office who favoured independent French action. They believed- rightly according to the German archives and the testimony of the German generals at post-war Nuremberg- that the French Army alone could force an ignominious German withdrawal, probably without a shot fired.

General Jodl testified at Nuremberg: 'Considering the situation we were in the French covering army could have blown us to pieces.'

Speaking in 1942, Hitler said,' A retreat on our part would have spelled collapse.'

Even von Hoesch at one moment was half convinced by his attaches and other informants who told him there was at least a likelihood that the British would take forcible action, even if this were believed certain to lead to war

He immediately motored to Fort Belvedere to see the King. According to his own account, he persuaded Edward VIII to 'intercede for peace' with Prime Minister Baldwin. At midnight the King telephoned Fritz Hesse, correspondent of the official Nazi News Agency, and virtually a member of the Embassy staff, was present when the King rang to say, 'I've just seen the Prime Minister. There won't be war.'

Von Hoesch was under the ludicrous misapprehension that his trip to Fort Belvedere and the King's intervention with Baldwin had 'saved the peace'. Very few journeys have been less necessary. Baldwin and his Cabinet did not need Edward VIII to 'persuade' them not to act effectively against Hitler' They never had any intention of so doing...….

 

[Garrison]

There is a bit of background information to this occupation of the Rhineland business in a book called The Devil's Decade published in 1973 by the communist journalist Claud Cockburn, who used to write for Private Eye magazine when he was alive. I didn't know that the Italian army used poison gas in Abyssinia, though I did know the Japanese used poison gas against the Chinese:

Well for one thing I'm pretty sure everyone else posting in this thread knew about Abyssinia and for another if you had bothered to look up Cockburn you would have found out he was ardent opponent of Appeasement, so once again you've found a source that disagrees with your viewpoint.

It strikes me that Hitler had intelligence information that the French and British, and even Americans and Russians and Australians and Canadians, would not retaliate if he moved into the Rhineland.

Again what strikes you is unimportant, what's your source for this claim?

The British were only interested in having a 'pool of unemployment' at the time.

You don't think that a Communist might have a slightly slanted view of 1930's Britain?

Edward VIII was reported by the British secret political police as being fifth column :

And again what do you mean by British secret political police? What department/organization are you talking about Also your quote refers to the German ambassador Leopold von Hoesch. Reading his wiki reveals a couple of problems with this account of him desperately trying to stop British action over the Rhineland:

With the Nazi takeover in 1933, little changed at first between Germany and the United Kingdom politically. However, by 1934, Hoesch was beginning to challenge Hitler indirectly, sending communiqués to Konstantin Neurath, Foreign Minister of Germany, detailing Hoesch's distrust of Joachim von Ribbentrop whom Hitler had appointed to serve as Commissioner of Disarmament Questions. The relationship between Hoesch and Hitler continued to sour as Ribbentrop gained more power within the German government. By 1936, Hoesch was quickly becoming a thorn in Hitler's side. When Hitler occuipied the Rhineland on 7 March 1936, Hoesch wrote to Konstantin Neurath denouncing the act as an action designed to provoke the French and ultimately the British. Less than one month later, at 10 am 11 April 1936, von Hoesch died of a heart attack while dressing in his bedroom at the German Embassy. Following his death, von Hoesch was honoured with a large British-ordered funeral cortege in which his flag-draped coffin was escorted to Dover, where a 19-gun salute was fired as his body was transferred to the British destroyer HMS Scout for transport back to Germany.

So not only does he seem an unlikely person to be trying to spare Hitler by pleading with an alleged pro-Nazi Edward VIII he was also dead within a month and thus in no position to provide any account of events. This doesn't even get into the questionable likelihood of a foreign ambassador being given direct access to the King. This seems like a fanciful story made up after the war and regurgitated by a someone with little love for the monarchy.

 

[Henri McPhee]

And again what do you mean by British secret political police? What department/organization are you talking about Also your quote refers to the German ambassador Leopold von Hoesch. Reading his wiki reveals a couple of problems with this account of him desperately trying to stop British action over the Rhineland:

So not only does he seem an unlikely person to be trying to spare Hitler by pleading with an alleged pro-Nazi Edward VIII he was also dead within a month and thus in no position to provide any account of events. This doesn't even get into the questionable likelihood of a foreign ambassador being given direct access to the King. This seems like a fanciful story made up after the war and regurgitated by a someone with little love for the monarchy.

In the book King Edward VIII The Official Biography by Philip Ziegler, published 1990, the author does admit that Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson were pro Nazi but he never mentions that Edward VIII were being bugged, or had his phone tapped, even by the FBI, or the secret police reports when he was living in Spain and Portugal. Albert Canning was one such policeman, and others, including some of his bodyguards have recently been mentioned in TV documentaries. This was never reported by the mainstream media who were keeping it dark. Hitler seemed to be a bit upset when Edward VIII abdicated. I still think Churchill had a 'with what?' strategy.

This is a bit of waffle from that book which I admit might be gossip, but which is interesting nonetheless:

In March 1936 the German Army entered the Rhineland. Today it is generally agreed that prompt intervention by the French, with British support, would have driven the Germans into ignominious retreat and brought down Hitler's government. At the time armed opposition to the German move was advocated only by Churchill and a handful of his supporters, branded as warmongers by the government. Baldwin and Chamberlain were resolved not to risk war over an issue which they felt to be of secondary importance and in which they anyway had some sympathy for Germany's point of view, if not her actions.

The Germans believed his role to have been far more significant. Fritz Hesse a press attache in the German Embassy, claims to have been listening on a second telephone when the King rang von Hoesch. 'Is that Leo?' the King asked. 'David speaking. I sent for the Prime Minister and gave him a piece of my mind. I told the old so-and so that I would abdicate if he made war. There was a frightful scene. But you needn't worry. There won't be a war.' Hoesch then danced around the room with joy. 'I've done it. I've outwitted them all. There won't be a war...… It's magnificent. I must inform Berlin immediately.'

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is a bit of background waffle about that Scotland Yard detective Albert Canning spying on Edward VIII in this Daily Mail article. It seems that much of the information about the matter has been revealed in the past few years, when before the British public and House of Commons were kept in the dark about it all:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4342976/How-Stanley-Baldwin-SPIED-Edward-VIII.html

‘Tapping the Royal Family is one of the most controversial decisions a prime minister could make,’ says Dr Cormac. ‘But I think under the circumstances it can be justified if that person is posing a threat to national security, the constitution or liberal democracy. They’re not above the law.’

Indeed, as Prof Aldrich points out, Donald Trump is discovering how far a government agency can spy on its head of state. ‘It resonates with what’s going on in Washington today.

'How much should a head of state be monitored? With hindsight, I look at some of the things Edward did in 1940 and 1941, when he went to America and encouraged leading figures to sue for peace with Hitler, and think he was a national security problem. It was justified.’

 

[Craig B]

"How much should a head of state be monitored? With hindsight, I look at some of the things Edward did in 1940 and 1941, when he went to America and encouraged leading figures to sue for peace with Hitler, and think he was a national security problem. It was justified."

Edward was not head of state in 1940, so the issue of monitoring a head of state doesn't arise. He was the brother of the H of S.

 

[Henri McPhee]

It has been said that George VI gave his official permission for his brother the former Edward VIII to be monitored. There was a TV documentary yesterday saying that the Queen Mother made a mistake in allowing Chamberlain and herself to appear on the Buckingham Palace balcony in 1938. I don't see it that way. This is an interesting commentary about the matter:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4252980/Queen-Mother-reflected-the-public-mood.html

Probably 99 per cent of the country approved of the agreement reached by Chamberlain at the time. The Oxford Union vote some years before had decisively defeated the notion that young men should fight for King and country, while the Women's Peace Ballot a little later also endorsed that view, strongly enough to convince Hitler that this country would not go to war.

The Czech government itself did not wish to be involved in war in 1938. If the Queen Mother felt the same, it only shows how much she was in touch with popular feeling. The overwhelming sense in the days immediately after Munich was one of relief. With hindsight we can see that was an error, but it did not seem so at the time.

Also on the programme, Mr Roberts described the appearance of Chamberlain with the King and Queen on the Palace balcony as "the most unconstitutional act of the century". What tosh! There was not then, and I think there is not really now, any place in the constitution that defines balcony appearances.

 

[dudalb]

It is ,in a way, amusing to see somebody display his ignorance of History time and time and time again.