Chamberlain, Versailles and Appeasement (Again)

False dilemma: it is the same false dilemma as saying in 1949 : what is better : preventing the Soviets to have the bomb or waiting till they have him .

Or as saying in 2014 : what is better : preventing North Korea to have the means to attack the US with MDW or waiting till she is able to do it .

It is suggesting that a democracy should start a preventive war

 

Reality was that the British voter was unwillingly willing to pay more taxes for the defence of the Empire (Singapore,Hongkong,Suez) and for the protection of British cities against air attacks,but,not to send a big army to the continent to help a country about no one cared,to oppress a minority .

Would Congress in 2014 approve to send a big army to Europe if there was a war between Slowakia and Hungary because both accused the other of oppressing each others minorities ?

 

No one wanted to fight in October 1938, except Hitler.
What was the issue in October 1938? Ethnic Germans living in Sudetenland, then a part of Czechoslavakia.

The British public did not want to go to war over which nationality a German speaker has.
The British politicians didn't want war; knowing how the public felt about war. And the economy was improving.
The British Army didn't want war; they were still gearing up.
The German army didn't want a war; they too, feared France and UK combined.
It still was not a foregone conclusion, that this would not be the final request that would assuage Hitler.

After the countless reckless attacks that wasted so many lives in the Great War, it is hardly surprising that the democracies came to value peace and the defensive. I don't know about what small towns look like in the US, but throughout the UK and Australia and New Zealand, every little town has a cenataph with long lists of names remembering the war dead. Every year, Australians and New Zealanders remember ANZAC day, 25th April. Every year, The UK, Australia, and New Zealand remember Armistice Day: A minutes silence in schools at 11th November, 11:00 am. Still today. How much more poignant would all that have been in 1938, only 20 years after the horrors?

Kristallnacht, in November 1938, proved Nazi Germany was evil, but that was internal policies.

In March, 1939, it was too late for the Czechs. It was over before it started, before the West could sneeze. But it proved that Hitler could not be placated. That the threats in Mein Kampf were real. It was instrumental. Look at the British timing. Suddenly, there is no question of if there is going to be a war, only when.

That's very clear given the historical timetable, and the attitudes of the public. The British public no longer believed Hitler. Prior to March 1939, many sympathised with Germany's aim to unite Germans. In September 1938, Chamberlain could not have declared war. In March 1939 he was able to promise to defend Poland. In mid-1939, the public was psychologically prepared to go to war.

 

Britain was not capable of fighting the German without allies so why fight at all. The whole point of the entente was to have allies so Britain wouldn't be alone. Even after the German threats to Poland people said " why die for Danzig" Chamberlain assumed he could prevent a war and he was so very wrong, he assumed Britain was not ready to fight and while that is true, he assumed that Germany was. Despite all the propaganda from Germany did the German people really want war. Did any one ever ask, it would be hard to fight a war now, is what we are doing going to prevent war or leave us in better shape? Considering how much better position the Germans were in in 1940 the answer was no. Finally, since the German war machine was an invincible juggernaut, on what basis was the feeling the French could beat them?

 

1) Was this so ? Proofs please ?

2) The outcome of the war gives an other picture

3) Afaics, no one said this .

 

Lets us concede that which we can all agree upon, no one wanted any European war in 1938 or '39 except Hitler, much of his inner circle and to some degree Mussolini. They desired war to capture land & resources and the prestige of becoming a great European power.

LJAd has thoughtfully provided documentation that the desire of German Lebensraum was a well known concept to the Anglo-French leadership before, during and after Munich. Meaning that Germany expected to acquire land, natural resources and ethnically German peoples. Doing so, making her the predominate nation in Europe. In effect, Hitler intended to recreate the German Empire within Europe rather than across the globe as prior to the Great War. Mein Kampf and official and semi official writings available prior to Munich at least hinted to something far more ominous. LJAd also thoughtfully provided quotes that in the Anglo-French allowing this to occur Germany would create satellite/client states on her periphery that would have far greater interest in promoting Berlin's will over their own or that of the Democratic west.

Isn't this at odds with Great Britain's long standing desire to prevent any single power to acquire a dominate status on the European continent?

Rather interesting that at precisely the absolutely wrong time possible Great Britain's leadership acts in a historically atypical manner, a manner adhered to for most of her modern history and one she reverted to after WWII.

Yes of course the slaughter of the Great War had a profound impact upon the democratic nations, so doing what you could to avoid another is not entirely hard to understand. But it was understood by many who were in positions of power at the conclusion of the Great War that the untidy peace created only laid the ground work for a new war a generation later at most.

LJAd asks why would you seek allies if you had no war to fight. The answer is, and should have been, obvious to the Anglo-French governments of the period. If you wish to dissuade a aggressor intent on redrawing national borders (and don't want to do all the heavy lifting yourself at some inconvenient time), you seek out allies who have similar goals to present a united front. Failing in dissuading them, you want those same allies to help you bring any war to a short and victorious conclusion.

The problem with Munich is that in buying into letting Germany incorporate ethnic Germans, and the land they live on her borders is that this situation occurred ON ALL her borders. Belgium, France, Denmark and Poland incorporated ethnic Germans after the WWI. Was all these people fair game? Certainly France and Poland would fight no matter what, Belgium and Denmark would likely call upon assistance as Czechoslovakia was. If you give in now, you set a precedent. There were places where no Anglo-French government could expect any kind compromise being possible, so setting such a precedent isn't just counter productive, its dangerously more likely to lead to a war down the line.

This is not post war nitpicking, this is just common sense.

 

What!?!?!

Britain was not alone when it went into the war. But the British Empire could and did fight Germany without allies.

The major reason Stalin agreed to the Molentov-Ribbentrop Pact was by being more valuable to Germany, he was buying time, hoping that Germany would tire itself out versus the Western powers, so he could waltz in and "liberate" more chunks of Europe. No one believed France would fall in the fashion it did. Not even Hitler, the great opportunist expected that. Not his generals either. Stalin certainly didn't.

No one thought the German Army was an invincible Juggernaut. Where on God's green Earth did you get that idea? Trying to save peace, is not just done because you consider yourself weak. Its done to preserve the value of the sacrifices of those just a generation before. It's done because, if you're going to ask millions of young men to go out and kill other humans, and risk getting killed themselves, it better be for an effing good reason, and not just because some Royal heir got shot by an anarchist assassin on the other side of the continent. Or because some Ethnic German Charlies wants their houses their families have owned for generations to be ruled by Adolph and his goose-stepping goons.

Surrendering the Sudetenland was not an easy choice, but many, many people believed. "Peace in our time!"

In October 1938, no one knew what lay in the future. No one. All your comments seem coloured by what you know of events that occured later.

 

Isn't this at odds with Great Britain's long standing desire to prevent any single power to acquire a dominate status on the European continent?


LJAd asks why would you seek allies if you had no war to fight. The answer is, and should have been, obvious to the Anglo-French governments of the period. If you wish to dissuade a aggressor intent on redrawing national borders (and don't want to do all the heavy lifting yourself at some inconvenient time), you seek out allies who have similar goals to present a united front. Failing in dissuading them, you want those same allies to help you bring any war to a short and victorious conclusion.

reply :

1)German expansion in eastern Europe would not give her a dominate status on the European continent : before 1914 Germany and Austria dominated central and eastern Europe,but they had no dominate status on the European continent .


2) Britain had no objections if Germany was redrawing her borders in central and eastern Europa,as long as that happened without fighting .Thus,Britain needed no allies to stop the Germans in Central Europe :if Hitler attacked CZ,Britain would not need CZ as ally,but CZ would need Britain as ally .

 

When facts exists, common sense is unnecessary. Just facts are good enough.

It is well documented that Germany wanted colonies too and Britain was ready to settle with Germany but was not ready to give up former German colonies mandated to her in Versailles. Instead, British were ready to force Belgium and Portugal to give up territories in Africa to compensate Germany. Also, independent state of Liberia was considered by Simon and Eden in 1935 as suitable "British" concession to the Nazi Germany. British did not go into the war over the "freedom and democracy" in Europe but because selfish, rational interests. The Axis, not just Germany, was seen as a treat to the Empire. Italy wanted colonies, Japan wanted colonies, Germany wanted colonies. The only way to acquire colonies was to take them from the largest "owner" of the "overseas possessions" – The British Empire. The main reason for the war was global domination, not just local Europe grudge. It was mainly if not entirely about the possessions.

 

""It is us today. It will be you tomorrow."
-His Imperial Majesty, Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia at the League of Nations, 1935

 

Germany was able to attack France because there were no allies left to threaten her rear. The Soviets signed a peace treaty with their idealogical enemy because of allied inaction, removing the last threat to Germany and negating the effects of the blockade. The British obviously thought Germany was capable of destroying London from the air when there was no evidence, but Hitlers boasting. The allies also believed that Germany could defeat the Czechs immediately and then turn and at least stalemate the west. If Chamberlain had actually paid attention to Mein Kampf they would have known Hitler wanted war and to expand. Because of their paralysis they were willing to abandon their friends in the forlorn hope they would prevent the war from coming to them. To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller of the German resistance. We gave them Austria because wasn't Britain, We gave the Czechoslovakia because we wasn't Britain, we gave them Poland because it wasn't Britain, then when we needed help we realized there was no one left to help. The only reason Britain did not fall is the channel saved them. What would have happened to Britains war effort if Roosevelt had not come up with Lend lease?? Britain would have had to quit because it was bankrupt.

 

The British sell out of the Czechs did not prevent war it made it that much worse for Britain, which no one stopped to ask, will Britain be better off getting rid of its friends, because giving up the Sudentenland clearly rendered the Czechs impotent and if Britain could not help the Czechs when they were able to why would they be able to honor their worthless guarantee??? It was worthless because as Hitler understood, the British would never honor it.

 

If President Roosevelt, in 1940, after the fall of France had acted like Chamberlain. Chancellor Hitler, because we Americans are so convinced that we were conned into getting involved in WW1 by the allies and since we so desperately do not wish to be involved in matters not of our concern and shed American blood for colonialists, we are no longer rendering assistance to Britain. We know we can trust you to not fight any more and to leave America alone.

 

Britain was not bankrupt

 

1)The Soviets signed a treaty with Germany because they did not want to fight for Poland .


2)It was not because of Hitler's boasting,but because of the claims of BC (the Douhet doctrine) :afaics,Hitler never boasted that his LW could destroy London .

 

Britain ran out of money to buy the goods it needed, that is bankrupt.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the first phrase above but looking at the last bit. Unless there is a a lot of waste increasing funding does indeed correlate strongly with better preperation especially if that's why the funding was increased.

Or not, indeed mostly or not.

???? Saying they were not better prepared and then trying to support it by sayilng they could "initially send 2 divisons" is frankly inane. There's a lot more to offense than the number of divisons that can be committed "initially".

Reallly? Aside from the fact that defence also has more than a couple of components let's look at the Uboat defence in some detail. I count half a dozen sloops that either came into service or were launched in that period plus 145 corvettes ordered during that period. That sounds like some significant improvement in preperation to me.

Indeed and with as much veracity. For instance the use of chain home to guide an air to air intercept was demonstrated in 1939 so that capability wasn't there in 38. Then looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane#Variants
it states:

I'd say that would help with perperations vs the LW. Since the first squadron of Spitfires didn't enter into service until August of 38 I'd think both the numbers and experiance with them would render the RAF considerably better prepaired a year later as well.

Some of the experts did but Britain had been working hard to defend against such attacks that included not only fighters and Chain Home, but civil defence, fighter control measures, air craft spotters and listeners, etc. Much of this was improved and/or increased in the period under consideration and the foundation was layed for even more improvments.

Not really. Certainly there was improvement in that period but it was to a large extent dependent on actions taken previously. For instance while the KG V was commissioned in Dec of 1940 if the decision to build her had been made in Sept of 39 she would have been years away from commissioning in Dec of 40.

 

When I've seen this discussed before the implications I've seen indicate that Hitler and thus Germany were not really very interested in overseas colonies at that point in time. It was obvious that most simply weren't worth it and Germany's former colonies were some of the least worthwhile.

 

That's a wrong definition of bankruptcy :bankruptcy is not beying able to pay back his debts .

 

Indeed and with as much veracity. For instance the use of chain home to guide an air to air intercept was demonstrated in 1939 so that capability wasn't there in 38. Then looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane#Variants
it states:


Some of the experts did but Britain had been working hard to defend against such attacks that included not only fighters and Chain Home, but civil defence, fighter control measures, air craft spotters and listeners, etc. Much of this was improved and/or increased in the period under consideration and the foundation was layed for even more improvments.


REPLY



Spitfires and Radar did not prevent the Germans from destroying Coventry and other cities . If the Germans had used MDW,there would have been a catsrophe .In 1938,in 1939,in 1940 and even later .There was no 100 % certainty that no German aircraft with MDW could pass .


And for the U Boats : the losses of the British merchant navy in 1939 were big,very big .

As for the aircraft, there was not much defense possible against U Boats,even convoys would not protect totally against U Boats .

if there had been a war in 1938,there is no proof that the merchant navy losses would have been lower in 1939 than in 1938,or that they would have been bigger in 1938 than in 1939.