Chamberlain, Versailles and Appeasement (Again)

I just thought, when Chamberlain was told by the RAF that the mighty JU 52 transport could destroy London did he wet himself out of fear??? I think Winston said it best, Chamberlain returned from Munich claiming peace with honor, he found he had neither.

 

You keep igoring the obvious point: what was feasible to do at the time, with the knowledge they had at the time, with the public opinion it was at the time, with the resources available at the time.

But I'll play the game you want to, Would crushing Germany in '38, have kept the Soviets out of Eastern Europe by '45? Or would France be another Soviet Socialist Republic?

 

Reference please.

 

The German air force composed of some HE 111's, DO 17 and JU 52 for bombing so he had to believe they could.

 

So your reference to that he wet himself consists of that you believed it to be so?

Who in the RAF, told Chamberlain that the Luftwaffe could easily destroy London? When did this exchange take place, and what evidence is there that the then Prime Minister Mr Chamberlain wet himself?

 

That is saying the man who is mentionned in the Guinness Book of Records as the inventor of the one side equation, and as co-inventor of clinchers and strawmen .

The man who said that Britain was better prepared for war in september 1939 because the military got more money .

The man who refuses to understand that it is not a question of more money,but on what the money is spent .

ex: if the army got more money and the money is spent on pay rises

: if the navy is spending more money on the defense of Hongkong and Singapore .

:if the RAF is building more bombers and the LW more fighters ?

The man who ignores what the enemy is doing :while it is so that Britain was outproducing Germany in aircraft production in 1940,it does not mean that the RAF was better prepared,because what types of aircraft were produced : bombers,fighters,trainers ? What would be the RAF strategy : strategic air war ,tactical,air defense ? What would be the strategy of the LW?

In 1935,the RAF budget was 27.5 million £,in 1938 133.8 million:does that mean that the RAF was better prepared in 1938 than in 1935? The opposite is perfectly possible,because in 1935,the LW was quasi inexistant .

In september 1939,France produced 284 aircraft and in february 1940 279,although the French air force had more money in february than in september .

An iron rule is that investments /more money will produce positive results only in the long run,not in the short run :new factories must be build,more staff hired,more raw materials are needed;all this claims time, a lot of time .And,it is more than likely that the increase of the British military budget between 1938/39 would deliver results only years after the start of the war .

It is even possible that the increase of the Budget will result in beying worse prepared,if the enemy production is higher .

Let's look at the pre WWI period :

British army budget 1904/05: 36.7 million £ 1913/14:28.1 million

Was the army better prepared in 1914 than in 1905,or was it the opposite ?

Navy : 04/05:35.5 million in 13/14:44.4 million:it is perfectly possible that the RN was better prepared in 04/05 than in 13/14,because the German navy was very weak in 1904.

From Arms,economics and British strategy (P 39) :

1)"The Treasury believed that the level of naval expenditure was in effect determined by the ability of industry to meet orders " : this meant that not the increasing of the budget would make the navy "better" prepared,but the abilityof the industry to produce what was aked .

2)"There is evidence that the increasing demand represented by the Admiralty orders forced up prices" : in plain English : X million to built 3 destroyers would result in 2 destroyers .

:

 

1) No : he needed to go to Munich to prevent a war between CZ and Germany,a war in which Britain would be involved.

2)It was not the mission of Britain to keep Germany in check,as long Hitler was bullying in Eastern Europe

3)As Germany did not violate the Czech border,there was no war

4)Hindsight and wrong : WWII was not caused by Munich,but by the quarrel between Germany and Poland .

 

Every case has to be judged on its own merites and can not be compared to other cases,because every case is different .

It has been claimed that Britain was better prepared in 1939 than in 1938,because it had more Hurricanes and because of the Anderson shelters,but,this is a fallacy,because no one knows what would happen if there was a war in 1938:would the "more" Hurricanes of 1939 be useful? Would the Anderson shelters be useful ?

1938 : if there was a war ,no one knows what would happen

1939 : there were no big air attacks on the British cities,and the Hurricanes were not used

1940 : in 1940 were the Hurricanes used and useful,dito for the Anderson shelters .

It is the same as saying that in 1914 britain was better prepared than in 1939,because it had a BEF of 6 divisions and a stronger fleet : that is ignoring that in 1939 there was no need for a fleet as big as in 1914,neither was there a need in 1939 for a BEF of 6 divisions .

 

You cannot just measure usefulness, but preparedness.

The issue is one of mental preparedness.

When you know that you have done a proper risk analysis, examined the risks, and taken actions that have mitigated the risks.

So the actions taken were vastly improving the UK's mental preparedness.

 

GS, while I concede the Anglo-French public was more mentally prepared to accept a conflict in 1939, I do not think you give them near the credit they are due. Many went into this conflict confident that a civilian populace could be broken by some form of military action, but the historic results proved otherwise and both Britain and France had proof from the Great War. Though both the Zeppelin/Gotha Blitz's and the Rail gun bombardments on each capitol caused initial concern, neither induced panic or even significant disruption on the home fronts.

 

I just dot understand why its such idea to have allies then not. The French were at a manpower disadvantage against Germany which is the reason for the alliance with the Czechs and Poles. Allowing Germany to take over those countries gave them a far greater benefit then the allies. Could Germany have risked an attack on France with the Poles and Czechs still independent?? Not to mention the armament and other factories Germany acquired.

 

Before disecting LJAd's latest reply to me on the perhaps mistaken assumption that he really doesn't undersand what it means to be more or less prepared here is an analogy that hopefull he will be under to stand.

First there are, as I've previously stated, two different types of preparedness. One for lack of a better term is absolute. Simply put ones competition is irrelevant to it. The other is relative and thus the levels fo the two entities must be compared.

Let's address the absolute case first. The analogy is an individual has decided that he may run in a several mile race(s) sometime in the next few months. If he works out more often then (assuming no imjuries due to such workouts) he will be better prepared. Being better prepared however does not guarantee victory merely increase the probabillity of it and indeed increase the potential margin of victory and decreases the potential margin of defeat.

In the relataive case say their is another individual that he desires to beat in said race. Our proponent has been running regularly for some time once a week. The opponent was also doing so up until a month ago when he started running twice a week. Let's examine the following options.
A) Continue at once a week.
B ) Run on average one and half times a week.
C) Run twice a week.
D) Run three times a week.

A) Obviously does nothing to increase preperation of our proponent. It doesn't mean that he will loose however it just means that it is more likely.
B ) Means our proponent will be better prepared in an absolute case. Relativly speaking depending on when one approaches the steady state case (if there is one) relative preparedness will likely increase for a period of time then decline.
C) The relative preparedness of our proponent will increase until both are at steady state levels (again assuming there are such)
D) Our proponent will become increasingly better prepared and at some point should become more prepared than his opponent. Again this doesn't guarantee victory and certainly doesn't guarantee leading for all of the race.

 

Now for the edification and amusement of those still interested I well disect his reply. Those who have lost interest in this may wish to skip it.

A marginally coherent rant with a couple of fallacies thrown in, let's just ignore this one.

Given that the overwhelming evidence is that this is true I'm not sure why it's being highlighted unless of course someone doesn't understand fact and logic ....

What have I posted that would indicate this is true? Indeed I have pointed out that some of the things on which it was spent clearly did increse the UK's level of preparedness in both relative and absolute terms.

I thought it was clear I was looking for real world examples. I certainly can't think of others where when a nation has increased it's military spending by significant percentages that there were no gains in preparedness. On the other hand your examples clearly aren't supportive of your claim. The latter two would indeed increase the UK's or any nations military preparedeness. The latter would also in most cases as pay raises tend to result in better retention, higher moral, and induction of personel with better qualifications.

Which of course I did not except in the case of absolute preperation where it was irrelevant.

All types of aircraft contribute to better preperation for war. Some may contribute more than others but as we've seen Britain was producing a balanced force and argueably a better one than Germany especially for the long term. When was Britain reduced to stripping her training squadrons to meet operational requirements? I know some consideration was done to doing so in the event Germany actually tried to launch Sea Lion but that's the only time I can think of. As far as strategies go Britian had to be prepared for both offense and defence on both strategic and tactical levels and was building to do so. The LW strategy was irrelevant because Britain had no contorl of it. They had to be prepared to counter any reasonable LW strategy and they build accordingly.

In absolute terms yes they were better prepared in relative terms perhaps not but then we weren't talking about 35 and a non existant LW were we.

And your point is? It's not unusual at all for monthly totals to vary quite a bit. There's also the question of what else France was spending the money on and of course when the planes being produced are payed for. It's also worth noteing that based on the figures above France was producing mare aircraft per day in Febuary of 40 than in September of 39. So again what's your point? This little factiod means essentially nothing in regards to the topic at hand withough considerably more background info and perhaps not even then.


*** Got a "too many quotes message" to be continued ***

 

There is no such "iron rule", indeed if you want a counter example look at the British purchase of weapons from the US in June of 1940 and how quickly they reached operational units. Even if there was long term positive resutls = increased preparedness.

That certainly sounds like becoming more prepared to me.

I certainly don't see how.

??? absurd. Clearly the RA was better prepared in absolute terms in 1913 than it was in 1904. Just look at the equipment. Now whether their level of preparedness changed with respect to Germany is another question but even there had they maintained the 1904 level of expenditures up to 1913 they surely would have been in a worse positoin. The same can be said of the navy.

Certainlly pumping too much money in too fast can result in inefficiencies however it's still better to have 2 destroyers for what 3 would have cost at some point in the past if you need them and the alternative is one or none.

 

As I expected: everything that's not fitting in the world where he is living is rejected .

And,as usual,he is making own-goals : now,he admits that the British army was better prepared in 1913 than in 1904,while its budget was lower in 1913,while since ages he is proclaiming the dogma that more money means better preparation,which means that the British army was better prepared in 1904.


And,let's not talk about his insults of the British soldiers,when he is saying that they would fight better if they were better paid,like mercenaries .

 

Well I guess that pretty much throws the possiblilty that you are interested in a rational discussion. I had thought you might just be an individual with very strongly held false beliefs. But based on your posting on this thread I can only conclude that you are dilusional or a dweller under the bridge who posts purly to antagonize others. Twist and spin all you want there is no support for your viewpoint and I and others have provided plenty of fact and logic that supports ours and directly counters yours. Trying to imagine insuls to British soldiers where their clearly was none really takes the cake.

 

Saying : give the British soldier a better pay and his morale will be higher,is an insult to the British soldier and to all soldiers : morale has nothing to do with money .


In WWI and WWII,a lot of British men volunteered for the armed forces,knowing that they would earn less,much less money than in the civilian sector .


And,don't deny that you did say it .

 

Only in your imagination. Pay is widely acknowledge as having an impact on moral and especially on retention. You may not like it but it's the truth and is hardly an insult.

And your point is? I never said it was the only or even the dominant factor effecting moral. It also probably has a greater impact during times of peace than it does during times of war. One need only look at current US military pay rates and especially retention bonuses to see the impact.

What exactly do you think I said? That pay can impact moral? It certainly can. Something else? Well since I'm not sure exactly what it could be how can I tell if I said it or not.

We would all be better served if you crawled back under your bridge.

 

Since the Czech's would not fight if they felt they were alone, there is no need to embarrass the Anglo-French governments by participating in the process. Again a simple official statement that Britain and France had no position on the matter would have sufficed.

If it was not the mission of the Anglo-French to keep Germany in check, then it was equally true that it was not the mission of them to decide the fate of peaceful, law abiding nations.

Granted Germany did not invade Czechoslovakia and the war was postponed for 11 months, but it is a false statement to say that only this agreement prevented this war from breaking out. The Czech government was told by the Anglo-French that they could accept this deal, one they had no part in fashioning, or fight Germany alone. How could there be a war between the Anglo-French and Germany when they flatly stated they in fact would not aid Czechoslovakia?

In a real sense it was partially caused by Munich. It presented the situation where the second Czech crisis would convince even the most deluded observer that no agreement with Hitler was worth the paper it was written on. Not that they would have anyway, but any slim chance of a similar conclusion occurring between Poland and Germany was a non-starter. Further, the Sudetenland was never part of Germany in any configuration, It was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and ceded to Czechoslovakia during the break-up of that Poly got entity. If Germany could lay claim to this, did not area's outside of 'Eastern Europe' such as Allsas-Lorraine, which would mean war, be equally valid German acquisitions?

Hindsight, whenever you descend into a logic loop you fall upon the canard of that it is hindsight and therefore not be considered. Lets take a moment and consider what hindsight Chamberlain and Daladier should have had.

November 1923 The Munich Beer Hall Putsch. A obscure German politician, not willing to accept that the German people have no great interest in elevating him to great power, decides to seize it by force in this comic opera revolution. Tried and convicted of treason, this is the man they expected to achieve peace with honor.

July 1925 Hitler publishes Mein Kampf. A turgid manifesto that lays out Hitler's plans. Nearly every conquest, war crime and crime against humanity was detailed openly. By 1933 a abridged English version was available and by Munich it was given to every German newly wedded couple. Hitler at no time rejected or temporized its content. There is no way they could claim they did not know that Hitler's aim was anything less than domination of Europe. Not a regional power, European domination.

1933 Germany withdraws from both the League of Nations and the Geneva Disarmament Conference. A strong signal that orderly and diplomatic resolutions of international disputes is no longer a priority.

1934 After the death of Hindenburg, the office of President is effectively abolished and all power detailed to a new position called Fuhrer. This, plus the Enabling Act's and requirement that the Wehrmacht must swear a oath of personal loyalty to Adolf Hitler, effectively ends democracy in Germany and creates a one man dictatorship answerable to no one.

June-July 1934 Night of the Long Knives. A very public and bloody purge is executed. Anyone considered a political threat to Hitler is either murdered without any court proceedings or arrested without recourse to end their incarceration.

October 1935-36 Italy launches a war of conquest in Ethiopia and declares the Italian Empire. This matters as Hitler patterns his party and movement on Mussolini's Fascist Party and he is asked to participate in the Munich Conference as some sort of impartial mediator.

March 1935 Germany violates the Versailles Treaty by enacting Compulsory Conscription. Violates it again in March 1936 by entering the Rhineland, and again in March of 1938 by Annexing Austria. Yes The Anglo-French did not object, but these acts did violate treaties in force and demonstrated that Hitler placed no weight on negotiated settlements.

September 1935 Nuremberg Laws enacted. Significant numbers of people are effectively declared non-person's without any rights to exist where ever the Swastika cast its shadow. Since Germany was pushing her borders outward, this means people who are not even German are liable to the same fate.

1936 Membership in the Hitler Youth and associated organizations become compulsory for all German youth. This begins the total militarization of all German youth. A act of a nation headed for war.

1936 Spanish Civil War. Despite being members of Non intervention Committee, both Italy and Germany blatantly violates their promise not send or allow to be sent arms to this conflict. A further indication that treaties and agreements are nothing but temporary expedients to be broken whenever convenient or profitable.

March 1938 Just as with Czechoslovakia, pro-German Nazi sympathizers conduct acts of disruption, violence and discord, including the assassination of Chancellor Dollfuss, which gives Hitler the pretext of demanding territorial concessions. When Schuschnigg attempts a plebiscite, Hitler threatens war. Sounds offly familiar doesn't it?

As I said before, no one is more blind than those who chose not to see.

 

You have forgotten to include some other, important dates affecting International opinion about Germany (and Naziism/Fascism), on your timeline, which would also affect the interpretation of dates you have posted. I hope that this was just oversight, and not blindness?

October Revolution, Russia. (November 1917) Bolshevik's take over Petrograd.

August 1918 KPD (communist Party of Germany formed)
9th November 1918 German Revolutions, all over the country. All major ports, spreading to all cities.


Leftist Soldiers in Berlin, in the Pfeilersaal of the Berlin City Palace

March 1919 Hungarian Soviet declared.
April 1919 Munich Soviet Republic declared.

28th June 1919: The Treaty of Versailles signed.
Article 231, later became known as the War Guilt clause. The treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion or £6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $442 billion or UK £284 billion in 2014). At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes predicted that the treaty was too harsh—a "Carthaginian peace", and said the figure was excessive and counter-productive.

May 1919 Munich Soviet Republic crushed violently by Freikorps. Several hundred people summarily executed (Killing without trial of political opponents is a precedent by the Weimar Republic).
June 1919 Hungarian Red Army defeated by Romanians.
July 1919 Last Western Allied troops leave Archangelsk. (after much bitter fighting)
April 1 1920 Last Allied troops leave Siberia.
18 October 1920: Polish-Soviet war ended.

9th November 1923 Beer Hall Putsch (note date). It was also incredibly poorly planned and executed.

The withdrawal from Geneva Disarmament Conference was on the pretext that the Allies had not disarmed. Which they hadn't. All the major powers except the US had committed themselves to disarmament in both the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations. A substantial international non-governmental campaign to promote disarmament also developed in the 1920s and early 1930s. Stripping Germany of an air force, and reducing her to 100,000 man army was not enough for France? Remind me, what was the size of the armed forces in metropolitan France at the time?

Dictatorships were nothing new in Europe. Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in Russia, and lot's of other unsavory characters in the other semi-democratic and almost-democratic European countries. At that time in question near autocratic monarchies were not a distant memory. Similar people with similar opinions with right-wing nationalist agendas were all over the place in Central Europe. This is not a region with a long history of parlimentary democracy. But yes, a distinct warning flag.

Internal politics of non-Democratic governments: often entail killing off political opponents. Didn't prevent the CIA and MI5 from helping Saddam. Nor calling all sorts of nasty, undemocratic people our allies, over the past decades.

Italian conquest of Ethopia. This matters, because at this stage, people are more concerned about Fascist Italy, than a resurgent Germany.

By not having abided by our part of the Treaty of Versailles, (disarming), we are now to get up in arms about the Germans re-arming....

Let's not get too Holier-than-thou about the Nuremberg Laws. Let's look around a little closer to home, at some symbols and attitudes from our "enlightened" countries at the time:


It was not until 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.

In 1901 the Australian parliament passed the Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901. The result of this legislation was that 7,500 Pacific Islanders (called "Kanakas") working mostly on plantations in Queensland were deported and entry into Australia by Pacific Islanders after 1904 was prohibited.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference following World War 1, Japan sought to include a racial equality clause in the Covenant of the League of Nations. Japanese policy reflected their desire to remove or to ease the immigration restrictions against Japanese (especially in the United States and Canada), which Japan regarded as a humiliation and affront to its prestige. Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes vehemently opposed Japan's racial equality proposition. Hughes recognised that such a clause would be a threat to White Australia and made it clear to British Prime Minister David Lloyd George that he would leave the conference if the clause was adopted. The proposal failed.

Parts of Canada primarily British Columbia, ending in the 1950s and 60s - First Nations were segregated; denied entry to restaurants, made to use separate bathrooms, use different train cars and ride steerage on steamships. Segregation also affected immigrants from China, Japan and India.

I could dredge many, many more examples, but I'm sure you understand my point. Most people in 1935 would react with a shrug: "that's horrible" and forget about it.

Hitler Youth was based on the Scout movement, by Baden-Powell. Which in it's turn is generally seen as a "good thing" for young boys. Except in Sweden where it seems today to have gotten some kind of pervert stamp, for a reason I can't quite fathom.

Re: Spanish Civil War: so do the Soviets. And the Italians. The Italian surface fleet was involved in hunting its own submarines against piratical attacks... Was there anyone who wasn't involved in that conflict? Probably the Americans (although Hemmingway was there, driving ambulances, IIRC...)

Dollfuss was assassinated already in 1934. Austria was politically extreme right wing already by 1933.In 1938, there was not the strong Austrian identity there is today Schushigg talked about "being the better German state". Schushnigg raised the minimum age for participation in the plebiscite to 24, believing the youth 18-24 were pro-unification. Sort of puts a different light on events.


Anti-communism was a big part in the politics of the 20's and 30's, as was the disarmament movement, and flagrant right wing, pro-nationalist, antisemitic parties were the rule, rather than the exception in Central Europe. Additionally, most western countries (or states thereof) also had blatant racist laws, attitudes, and the white man's bigotry was widespread.

Advocates for "racial purity" existed and studied Eugenics at Universities in the States and the UK.

Being partially blind is not much better, than chosing not to see.