Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

What about gunboat diplomacy today? It worked in the past, it works now, and it will work in the future. Just a fleet exercise but how would the Germans know that? What could they have done short of bombing the fleets, which would have started a war that Hitler did not want then.

warspite1

But Britain and France were taking all the actions they were to avoid war. If Britain was going to mobilise the fleet then France would have to mobilise the army too. But the democratic politicians of the time were - for all the reasons outlined above - absolutely desperate to avoid another slaughterhouse. And, they were as fooled by Hitler as everyone else incl. the German people themselves and they thought a solution without war was possible. We know with hindsight that that was never going to happen. Chamberlain and Daladier didn't have hindsight.

As Aurelian said above, the Allies believed (falsely) the Germans were more advanced in their war plans than they were. The French air chief in particular was totally sold on just how many aircraft the Germans SAID they had. The British and French weren't ready for a war. Nor were the Germans, but the Western Allies believed otherwise.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

What was the cost of not buying out the Sudeten "Germans?" The mountainous border areas were fortified. Benes got along with Stalin.

warspite1

Well this massive house/business move of a quarter of the population was never proposed and, for the reasons given, I don't think it was remotely possible. So the cost is irrelevant.

But we know what cost was of not doing something else - because we know what happened. But this is all about what the western democracies knew (or thought they knew) and how best to handle the situation without another 1914-18 charnel house.

Benes and Stalin might well have been BFF's, but without Poland on board there is a problem. And let's be real. The paranoid Stalin 'got along' with absolutely nobody.

A brit complaining about Britain defending others..... How quaint, The appeasement was wrong plain and simple and based on the actions words and deeds of Hitler Chamberlain and Britain and France damn well should have known what was coming.

. . . Chamberlain and Daladier didn't have hindsight.

I think that you meant to say foresight. It was in the future for them. It was in the past for us, so it would be hindsight for us. Of course, it is in the wee wee hours of the morning for you . . . [;)]

I believe that I read where Benes went to the Soviet Union in 1943 and was with the forces liberating Czechoslovakia in 1945. He was the leader right after the war.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

A brit complaining about Britain defending others..... How quaint, The appeasement was wrong plain and simple and based on the actions words and deeds of Hitler Chamberlain and Britain and France damn well should have known what was coming.

warspite1

I'll ignore the rather lame initial comment.

I find it interesting that you say Britain and France should have known damn well what was coming. That's interesting. Perhaps you can tell us why are Chamberlain and Daladier singled out for such special treatment?

What about the Germans that voted for Hitler - should they have known?
What about the German politicians that handed him the country (despite not being elected) - should they have known?
What about the German generals who could have done something about it but chose not to - should they have known?
What about the US Government - should they have known?
What about the Soviets who signed the NS Pact - should they have known?
What about all the neutral countries that did nothing/little to increase their preparedness for war - should they have known?

Strange isn't it? All these people that should have known but strangely didn't act in a way that would have stopped Hitler - but only two democratic politicians get it in the neck. Funny old world eh?

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

. . . Chamberlain and Daladier didn't have hindsight.

I think that you meant to say foresight. It was in the future for them. It was in the past for us, so it would be hindsight for us. Of course, it is in the wee wee hours of the morning for you . . . [;)]

warspite1

No I meant to say "didn't have the benefit of hindsight". But thank you for picking me up on that [;)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

A brit complaining about Britain defending others..... How quaint, The appeasement was wrong plain and simple and based on the actions words and deeds of Hitler Chamberlain and Britain and France damn well should have known what was coming.

warspite1

I'll ignore the rather lame initial comment.

I find it interesting that you say Britain and France should have known damn well what was coming. That's interesting. Perhaps you can tell us why are Chamberlain and Daladier singled out for such special treatment?

What about the Germans that voted for Hitler - should they have known?
What about the German politicians that handed him the country (despite not being elected) - should they have known?
What about the German generals who could have done something about it but chose not to - should they have known?
What about the US Government - should they have known?
What about the Soviets who signed the NS Pact - should they have known?
What about all the neutral countries that did nothing/little to increase their preparedness for war - should they have known?

Strange isn't it? All these people that should have known but strangely didn't act in a way that would have stopped Hitler - but only two democratic politicians get it in the neck. Funny old world eh?

FDR knew but was powerless cause of the isolationists in our Country. Germany under Hitler pulled the EXACT same stunt with Austria. just a year or so before that. And the small Countries couldn't have done anything about it. I am sure Stalin knew too, he just never though Germany would attack him. I thought you knew History I guess I was wrong.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

A brit complaining about Britain defending others..... How quaint, The appeasement was wrong plain and simple and based on the actions words and deeds of Hitler Chamberlain and Britain and France damn well should have known what was coming.

warspite1

I'll ignore the rather lame initial comment.

I find it interesting that you say Britain and France should have known damn well what was coming. That's interesting. Perhaps you can tell us why are Chamberlain and Daladier singled out for such special treatment?

What about the Germans that voted for Hitler - should they have known?
What about the German politicians that handed him the country (despite not being elected) - should they have known?
What about the German generals who could have done something about it but chose not to - should they have known?
What about the US Government - should they have known?
What about the Soviets who signed the NS Pact - should they have known?
What about all the neutral countries that did nothing/little to increase their preparedness for war - should they have known?

Strange isn't it? All these people that should have known but strangely didn't act in a way that would have stopped Hitler - but only two democratic politicians get it in the neck. Funny old world eh?

FDR knew but was powerless cause of the isolationists in our Country. Germany under Hitler pulled the EXACT same stunt with Austria. just a year or so before that. And the small Countries couldn't have done anything about it. I am sure Stalin knew too, he just never though Germany would attack him. I thought you knew History I guess I was wrong.

warspite1

Again I will ignore the equally lame "I thought you knew history" jibe.

So where to begin.

FDR knew but was powerless cause of the isolationists in our Country

Thank-you for supporting my argument and totally undermining yours. Yes, exactly, democratic politicians can't ignore public opinion - same for Roosevelt, same for Chamberlain and same for Daladier.

But despite what you've just admitted, Roosevelt gets a freebie in your view because he can't sell taking the US into war because Congress and public opinion won't support him.......

But what? You think Chamberlain doesn't have that problem? You think Chamberlain can simply stand up in the House of Commons and declare "We are going to war for the second time in 20 years, without the support of our empire, a war we can't afford, and that the people don't want, and that we are not prepared for. And we are going into that war because 3m ethnic Germans want to live under German rule"?

Right, well that's a sure fire casus belli if ever I heard one.........

Austria? You think Hitler invented the notion of Germany and Austria joining? Really? The Germans and Austrians could not join together (even if they wanted to) because France inserted a clause into the Versailles agreement forbidding it without League of Nations agreement.

But you think the British and French should have gone to war because German speaking Austrians and Germans got together? So what happened after the Germans marched in? What opposition was there in Austria to this 'outrage'? No they were both happy with the arrangement. Another great casus belli for the western powers.....[8|]

The minor powers could have done nothing about it? So they couldn't have re-armed or built alliances then? Do you think Weserubung would have worked if Norway had brought its gun and torpedo defences up to scratch? You think Belgium would have been such a walk over if they had co-ordinated with the French? You don't think Greece or Yugoslavia or the Netherlands could have put up more resistance by embarking on better defences, more up to date equipment etc.?

But I'll save the best for last

am sure Stalin knew too, he just never though Germany would attack him.

Right so Uncle Joe gets a freebie because he never thought Hitler would attack him, but Chamberlain and Daladier get no such consideration because they thought (just like the German politicians that handed him power) that Hitler could be reasoned with?? So Chamberlain and Daladier should have read Mein Kampf and taken it as a blue print for the future, but not Stalin??

Well you are certainly consistent.... consistently inconsistent and chop and change your arguments on each point....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

A brit complaining about Britain defending others..... How quaint, The appeasement was wrong plain and simple and based on the actions words and deeds of Hitler Chamberlain and Britain and France damn well should have known what was coming.
How and Why? Or are you basing it on a book that he wrote in prison well over a decade before? I understand that the version sold in the United States was edited. I can imagine that it was edited for Britain and France as well. So what version should have been trusted to be the most accurate?

warspite1

I'll ignore the rather lame initial comment.
Thank you!

I find it interesting that you say Britain and France should have known damn well what was coming. That's interesting. Perhaps you can tell us why are Chamberlain and Daladier singled out for such special treatment?
As leaders of the two most powerful countries in Western Europe, they should have asked "What is the worst that can happen?" Then plan accordingly. The United States did not do this in regards to the Japanese which, in the final analysis, was good for the United Kingdom in that the United States became a cobelligerant. Of course, Chamberlain and Daladiers predecessors also share the blame. They all had to respect public opinion.
What about the Germans that voted for Hitler - should they have known?
Do you think that they believed everything politicians say that they will do? Do you?
What about the German politicians that handed him the country (despite not being elected) - should they have known?
He won four elections in one year.
What about the German generals who could have done something about it but chose not to - should they have known?
They liked the rearmament and the expansion of the Wehrmacht. Fatso Hermann was a Nazi - but his brother was not.
What about the US Government - should they have known?
That is why US Naval expansion Acts were passed in the 1930s, which had provisions for the Iowa class battleships, the Alaska class battlecruisers, and the Esse class aircraft carriers.
What about the Soviets who signed the NS Pact - should they have known?
My understanding is that the Soviets thought that the Western Democracies and Nazi Germanywould bleed themselves white and they could pick up the pieces.
What about all the neutral countries that did nothing/little to increase their preparedness for war - should they have known?
If you ignore it, it will go away . . . [color]

Strange isn't it? All these people that should have known but strangely didn't act in a way that would have stopped Hitler - but only two democratic politicians get it in the neck. Funny old world eh?

I hope that you don't mind my answers, plus this:
I think that you forgot the industrialists who helped the Nazis get power and who thought that they could control Hitler.

That said, Gute Nacht!

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I find it interesting that you say Britain and France should have known damn well what was coming. That's interesting. Perhaps you can tell us why are Chamberlain and Daladier singled out for such special treatment?
As leaders of the two most powerful countries in Western Europe, they should have asked "What is the worst that can happen?" Then plan accordingly. The United States did not do this in regards to the Japanese which, in the final analysis, was good for the United Kingdom in that the United States became a cobelligerant. Of course, Chamberlain and Daladiers predecessors also share the blame. They all had to respect public opinion.
But its knowing what is the worst that can happen - and that is where judgement comes in. Without foresight then its all just (educated) guesswork and assumptions. Sometimes (very often in fact) planning for the worst is just too costly, so we'll plan for something else.....

What about the Germans that voted for Hitler - should they have known?
Do you think that they believed everything politicians say that they will do? Do you?
Quite, but if they don't know (and plenty did) then why do they get a freebie?

What about the German politicians that handed him the country (despite not being elected) - should they have known?
He won four elections in one year.
Adolf Hitler never won the mandate to lead the country (he never had the Majority needed, although he did have the largest party in 1932), indeed the NS share of the vote went down in the last election before the fateful decision was taken to make him Chancellor.

What about the German generals who could have done something about it but chose not to - should they have known?
They liked the rearmament and the expansion of the Wehrmacht. Fatso Hermann was a Nazi - but his brother was not.
There were plenty in the anti-Hitler camp - but, despite knowing what was going on, none of them had the balls to do anything about it.... but would (of course [8|]) if the British and French took their countries to war.....nice work if you can get it

What about the US Government - should they have known?
That is why US Naval expansion Acts were passed in the 1930s, which had provisions for the Iowa class battleships, the Alaska class battlecruisers, and the Esse class aircraft carriers.
But the Germans weren't going to be defeated at sea. Following the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty the US did not build its navy up to the maximum allowed. Furthermore many of the ships it had were heading for the end of their useful working life in the not too distant future. The early 30's saw the building of ships to rectify that situation. Only in 1938 (after Japan had unilaterally withdrawn from the naval treaty system) did this start to gear up.

The army was a different story and there is a famous throw away line that the US army was smaller than that of Portugal by the outbreak of WWII. The air force was not in much better condition.

Only in iirc September 1939 did US rearmament (non-naval) really start to move with the limited national emergency.

What about the Soviets who signed the NS Pact - should they have known?
My understanding is that the Soviets thought that the Western Democracies and Nazi Germanywould bleed themselves white and they could pick up the pieces.
It certainly appears to be Stalin's thinking - and if so then quite shrewd...except he was wrong. How could he not have known? [;)]

What about all the neutral countries that did nothing/little to increase their preparedness for war - should they have known?
If you ignore it, it will go away . . . [color]
Quite - I fully understand the logic - but why does the government of those countries get away with it, but not Chamberlain and Daladier? By ignoring the problem they've made the lives of their people a whole lot worse....

warspite1

Answers to your answers in red [:)]

Sorry about all of that blue!

There is plenty of blame to go around. Countries all over the world should have done things differently. But so many countries had much better things to do with their money. Hindsight is good but foresight is needed. But one problem with alliances is that is how WWI got to be such a mess.

Just think if France would have extended the Maginot Line and backed it up with tanks and mobile infantry to assist the defense. It was reequipping its forces, some of it from the US, but it was too little, too late. When I used to play Hearts of Iron II, that was a winning strategy.

As far as preparing for war, my understanding is that the US Army ran some of the welfare work programs in the United States under Rooseveldt so they did have experience with suddenly having masses of men to take care of. By not having enough weapons for its military, the United States when it did finally enlarge and equip its military, did have more modern equipment. But the United States up to that point in history, did not trust a large standing army.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Sorry about all of that blue!

warspite1

No problemo! [;)]

To answer the OPs question: No.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Having seen three of these debates now - Napoleon, 1914 and Appeasement - I must try and find more. They are really well done and provide much food for thought. This latest one I've come across is about Chamberlain's policy of appeasement in the 1930's.

I don't think the speakers were quite as impressive as in the 1914 debate (one of them is the same) but still an interesting debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8

Thank you. I will look at this as well.

Right. I have now seen the debate. That was interesting, although not as illuminating as I would have thought.

And I though the debate had a clear winner.

I am wondering why the USA always gets the "You entered the war late!!!" when they were doing exactly what everyone else had been trying to do.

ORIGINAL: KurtC

I am wondering why the USA always gets the "You entered the war late!!!" when they were doing exactly what everyone else had been trying to do.

warspite1

Probably for similar reasons that Chamberlain gets the same criticism (though for a different reason)..... everyone is a genius when they have the benefit of hindsight and know that whatever they say, they can never be proven wrong.

Well, USA might get some criticism because they didn't enter late. They didn't enter at all. They were 'invited' by being attacked. While UK, and France, actually said that enough is enough and actually went to war. USA didn't.

Chamberlain, in my humble opinion, did the right thing. And my opinion was reinforced by the debate. Although, at some point, I was of the opposite opinion. So at some point I completely reversed my thinking on this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUMcABvgoIg
Go to 1:20 .