Chamberlain, Versailles and Appeasement (Again)

The quote function really does make things easier to understand and isn't particularly hard to use. It would help if you learned how to use it correctly.

Which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Of course the initial part isn't actually correct either. Not that that it is relevant but what does "MDW" mean?

Were they? Perhaps by some scales but it again is irrelevant. If you want to address the question at hand in that way you need to look at the comparative losses not just in 39 but in 40, 41, and later with and without the steps taken in the period under discussion. Given the number of escorts and other measures that were put into service during that period or later due to measures taken in that period your premise is on very shaky ground.

The first part is not particularly accurate the latter (i.e. not total protection) is accurate but both are irrelevant the latter even more so.

Proof? of course not we are dealing with a hypothetical here so there will be no proof. However the additional escorts available and under construction would strongly suggest that the UK was better prepared in this area at least.

 

Nothing I have ever read about Chamberlain was that he was either callus or heartless, or at least no more than the norm for a member of the British ruling classes of the period, but a great deal of it documents a profound inability to make decisive decisions that would commit the UK to any real action. While I suspect that certainly after, and possibly during the Munich Crisis he felt sympathy for the fate of the Czech people, the decision for him was not all that hard. Signing that agreement was the easiest course of action he could possibly take.

He was seen as doing something, while not actually committing Great Britain to doing anything in real terms. This being a view largely shared by France at the time.

As to going it alone, I never opined they did, only that when they went to war they effectively lost two allies who could have made a difference. In the late summer of 1938 Czechoslovakia and Poland could be a effective balance to the Anglo-French. By the time they chose to resist, Poland was easy pickings, something she was not in 1938 when she shared a border with a armed Czechoslovakia. All this while keeping the Red Bear at a respectful distance.

Yes, Great Britain stood magnificently by herself for a year, but it was a hard year and she never could have won without two very powerful allies.

To say no one could see what is coming is far too broad a statement. While in the minority, Churchill was not the only voice or the first, Foch predicted war some 20 years earlier. Then there was the steady drumbeat of China, Ethiopia and Spain showing that militaristic forces were already on the march. The writings and speeches from Hitler, Mussolini and their cronies, the warnings from their ambassador's in various European capital's. No one is more blind than those unwilling to see.

We use our current position to review and critique all aspects about the war, from preparedness of the Pearl Harbor garrison, to Monte Cassino, to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so why is Munich some kind of protected subject?

 

So if Britain and France were so weak, wouldn't it be more important to keep the Czech and Polish armies available, instead of simply waiting for Germany to build up its strength so it could actually take France?? If Britain couldn't beat Germany with allies, why would they be able to do so with out allies??? Considering how quickly Hitler eliminated the German democracy shouldn't that have warned Chamberlain how Hitler felt about rules.

 

As to U-Boats, U-Boat.net has 36 U-Boats available by 1-1-1938, 9 built during 1938 and 18 during 1939.

So by Munich possibly 40-41 U-boats, many training or coastal types.

 

Stalin signed the peace treaty with Hitler, because he was convinced that the French and British would gladly allow Hitler to attack the Soviet Union and do nothing so he turned the tables on them and allowed Hitler a free hand against the west

 

MDW = mass destruction weapns = biological and chemical weapons .

As in 1938, in 1939 every one in Britain was carrying a gas mask,which means that every one was convinced that if there was a war, Hitler would use such weapons and that nothing could be done to prevent him from attacking the British and French cities with such weapons .

 

But also many training /coastal types in 1939.

The point is that when Germany had less U Boats in 1938,Britain had less ASW weapons than in 1939,and that when Britain had more ASW weapons in 1939,Germant had more U Boats .
Thus,one can not say that Britain was better prepared in 1939 :

the British army had the same offensive capacity in 1938 as in 1939


the RN was not better prepared

neiher was the RAF eople were still using gas masks in 1939

 

Chamberlain had no obligations to CZ (the Czechs did not vote in the British elections).Chamberlain had to care about his Birmingham constituence (otherwise he would not be reelected as MP),about the Conservative party (otherwise he would be fired),about Britain (otherwise he would not remain PM).

He did what was good for Britain,and Britain did not need CZ.There is no proof that if Hitler attacked France, CZ would attack Germany.There were 7.5 million Czechs whose domination was more and more challenged by the 6 other million inhabitants of Czechoslowakia .As Poland,Czechoslowakia could only survive if there was no war.Even a victorious war would be fatal for CZ,and,we know what happened in 1948 with CZ.

 

Is this a question, a statement or confused ramblings?

Rather implies that British foreign policy was based on film's like Things to Come. Should we base US policy on The Day After and Twilight's Last Gleaming?

 

If he had no obligations to the Czech nation, why participate in it's destruction? You have never answered this. He did not need to go to avoid a war, simply walking outside No. 10 Downing street and saying that they had no interest in the matter would have achieved the same result without adding any stain to HM's government.

History would seem to indicate otherwise if one takes the 20-20 hindsight you have so much trouble with.

Further you are missing the whole point, so allow me to spell it out.

Germany wanted to expand her borders, either by negotiation or war. He did not care (but preferred war), and the Anglo-French knew this at the time, otherwise why proclaim that they "preserved Peace in Our Time"?

You keep a bully in check by showing a united front, or failing that, fighting force with overwhelming force. The Alternative was to say unequivocally that attempting to seize territory by force that was not theirs by a treaty which Germany signed would be met by force. Germany was deployed to attack Czechoslovakia, not France and would be hard pressed to redeploy before bad weather would begin, so the Czech's not attacking is a false argument.

There would be no war UNLESS Germany violated the Czech border. The threat of war on three sides, plus the inevitable blockade might have been enough to hold him in check. It is as least as plausible as thinking that in giving in on the Sudetenland somehow this alone would keep the peace for the long term.

Failing in that, it meant that his forces would have to execute a attack on Czechoslovakia, while simultaneously guarding their western flank from a active enemy, and their eastern flank from a potential enemy in Poland. It also meant that the Skoda works and the Czech arsenal would not fall intact into German hands.

If war erupts over the Sudetenland, at worst Germany defeats the Czech's in late 1938, not likely considering the terrain, her military and the short period of good weather. More likely it would be into spring-summer 1939 before the Czech nation falls. This actually gives the Anglo-French more time to prepare in a war state. Longer still if Poland joins the Allies, for Germany would try to knock out Poland first before the West as they would likely remain behind their fortifications, that was after all their intention in 1939-40.

Best case, Germany gets bogged down in a three front war without the pillaging of conquered nations she used to offset the Blockade.

We know what they did did not work, there was no satiating Hitler and there was no peace in our time, but the most costly war in human history.

 

What was preventing Hitler from bombing Britain after surrendering the Czechs or the Poles?? Nothing, Just blind faith in an immoral man who they should have known had no intent of honoring his agreement. If it was a good thing to give up the Czech army and the Polish army why was it not the best idea of all to give up the Empire's armed forces??

 

USing non standard acronyms especially when you don't explain/define them is an invitation to misunderstanding.

Your conclusions are not supported by your assumption which is I suspect is not correct either. I seriously doubt that "everyone in Britain was carrying a gas mask". Even if they were it wouldn't mean that they were convinced that he would use them they might just think that there was some nonzero chance that the would. The British ability to respond in kind or with biological weapons seems to have done a pretty decent job of preventing him from doing so by the way. So wrong all the way around.

Your inability to put together a logical argument continues to amaze me. If Britain had more ASW assets both in hand and under construction then the RN was better prepared likewise with aircraft. Now if you want to look at the relative levels of comparison that's another matter. For the RAF the advances in controlled intercept as well as the numbers of modern fighters I think make a good case for them being better prepared both on an absolute scale and in comparison to the Germans. As far as the RN goes I don't see the increase in subs by Germany adequate to off set the number of Flower class corvetts ordered alone.

One source I looked at mentions that the British lost 50 merchant vessels to the Uboats in 1939. During that period the Germans lost 9 Uboats which was over 15% of their operational subs at the start of the war.

 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make, or where you are going with this line of reasoning? As, in 1938, Japan was also going about their own preparations for gas warfare...and they were only fighting the Chinese.
http://www.lostateminor.com/2012/11/16/brilliant-1938-japanese-gas-attack-posters/

So? Does this mean the Japanese were afraid that Hitler was going to use WMDs on Japan? Or was this just another incremental step into preparing a civilian population for the expected rigors and sacrifices of war that said civilian population would have to endure.

 

No wonder Chamberlain was willing to let the Czechs be destroyed. Who cares how many died

 

Thinking about it, Britain stood alone, because Chamberlain failed to consider the consequences about abandoning allies that France needed to face a full strength German army.

 

Give up on the German army's superiority already.

The German plan for the invasion was very bold, daring, and audacious. It was a gamble. It succeeded because it played into Allied expectations. It had nothing to do with "full strength".

 

Who gave up the Polish army now?!?

Where do you get this blather?

 

No,the point is that in 1939,Britain was not better prepared than in 1938 against an expected German air attack with MDW.thus that the theory that Munich gave Britain a year extra to be better prepared,is not correct .

 

Actually, was not the 'Chain Home' being expanded during this period (August 1938-September 1939), plus continuing training to integrate it into the air defense systems. Then there is introduction date for Supermarine Spitfire's of August 1938. Also another year of training pilots and production of Hurricane fighters. Rather a considerable overall improvement I think.