Interesting debate.....

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Didn't the USA leave a similar number in the PI? And how many did the UK lose at Singapore?

American troops in the Philippines in 1941 were around 30 000, the rest of the 150k+ were local recruits. It makes a huge difference, public opinion wise.

More British troops were captured in Malaya, but at this point, the UK had been in war for 18 months, the war had become global, the Home Islands had been bombed, some territories had been invaded... Quitting was impossible by then.

Dunkirk is different, I believe, because it is at the very beginning of the conflict, at a time when Britain is still intervening abroad.

Francois

I disagree about the "local troops" comment. The USA has never had "colonial armies". All troops are/is/were either USA or National Guard. The Phillipino troop losses were taken very seriously , according to the 100 or so surviors I've interviewed from that campaign , and many other veterans of that time period. I've rarely seen the the description as 30 thousand USA and "130,000 others". And then generally in non-American sources.

And as far as the British losses, Yes Britian had been at war since Sept. 1939...WITH GERMANY. This was a whole new war , with a whole new adversary, when they still were not finished with the 1st.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


Problem here is that the Sudetenland had NEVER been German territory. It had once belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but not to Germany.

[/b]

Sorry, but this is somehow wrong.
Bohemia was, as a matter of fact part of "Germany" for almost 1000 years. Until Napoleon Austria was part of Germany. The people living in the area felt as Germans. Would the victors of WWI have stood to their word and have asked people to which counttry they liked to belong to, large parts of Silesia and Westprussia would have stayed German and the Sudeten would have joined, too.

So, with all respect, your statement is plain wrong.

Actually, Bohemia was part of "the Germanys" and the "Holy Roman Empire"..., but Bohemians are Slavs, not Germans. Never have been, never will be. The presense of a German minority in Bohemia was an excuse for Hitler's demands..., not a justification.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: warspite1

.....and British politicians are different from US one's because? Strange comment.

Much smaller gene pool. Also, much narrower educational background--they have a three year degree if they went to university, a one-year degree if they have a military background--and absolutely hagridden by class. They never question their assumptions as far as I can tell. There is no Plan B.

Warspite1

Okay - just got in from a long day at work so lets take one by one....

Have re-read your earlier post in conjunction with this one.

A) I do not understand
B) I do not understand

To lump all British politicans, regardless of party, beliefs, record etc and then lump all US politicians and decide what you have decided? Well all I can say is....staggering, simply staggering.....smaller gene pool?? am I reading this correctly??

I don't know modern British history that well

Correct

There doesn't seem to be anyone with as much brains, leadership skills and simple common sense as Obama and a few others.

Absurd, what now? during WWII? when? When did this "gene pool shortfall" rear it's ugly head? - and, if you mean now, what has Barack Obama got to do with the OP's original subject matter; namely a WWII question? This misguided comment just brings modern politics into play for no reason other than to get the thread locked.....

Neither prudent nor courageous.

No one, but no one, would argue you are wrong on the latter point. On the first however, I think you proved your first statement. Chamberlain was a very good Chancellor of the Exchequer, one that was greatly responsible for feeding re-armament in over a period of time, rather than in one spurt. This ensured that come 1940 we had a number of Hurricane fighters and a growing number of Spitfire's, rather than a shed load of Gloster Gladiators....

Chamberlain was no war leader, but he was not lacking in the fiscal prudence department either.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: redcoat
It is strange but true that Chamberlain still wanted a negotiated settlement in 1940 after what had happened to his worthless piece of paper from Munich. As I said in my last post I don’t believe that Parliament would have accepted a negotiated peace in any case. I believe that any PM who suggested such a negotiated peace would have faced and lost a ‘Vote of No Confidence’ at some point – either during the negotiations themselves or after the terms of the proposed treaty had been put before – and rejected by – the House of Commons.

But wouldn't the capture of 200-300 thousand British soldiers after the failure of Dunkirk sway public opinion? In France, the prisoners proved to be a very strong card, that the Germans used to their advantage throughout the Occupation. Of course, the number of French POWs was much higher than what the British would have suffered at Dunkirk. Yet, a quarter of a million "boys" in enemy hands would affect public opinion.

Also, national morale was bolstered by the fact the evacuation could be presented as a heroic quasi-victory, after an unending series a humiliating defeats. Without it, and with all the Expeditionnary Force lost in France, would support for that Continental war continue?

As for the reasons for a negociated settlement, I am not sure "saving the Empire" would have been the most important aspect. In early 1940, there was no Pacific War, just (in the eyes of most europeans) a local conflict in China, and a couple border disputes in Manchuria. The first real evidence that Japan would go for Western colonies was the invasion of Indochina, in September 40.

Francois

Warspite1

Then Francois, you simply do not understand the British mentality....this was about preserving our way of life.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yeah Mike as I said, I know where you are coming from on this. In his defence - and it's not much of one, but simply proves he was the wrong man etc - is that in handing over the Sudetenland, he naively thought he was keeping the peace by giving back to the Germans their former territory. Problem here is that the Sudetenland had NEVER been German territory. It had once belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but not to Germany.

Should he have known that Hitler would not stop there and simply walk into Czechoslovakia, now shorn of it's defences, six months later? Well one Winston S Churchill had been telling anyone that would listen what Hitler was about....... And Chamberlain and his buddies refused to listen..., in spite of Churchill being proved right again and again. Believing only what you want to believe in the face of continuing proof to the contrary is not brilliance..., it's lunacy.

Warspite1

I think we will agree to disagree Mike Scholl 1 - although I do not think we are miles apart...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: herwin
I don't know modern British history that well--I'm an American teaching in England--but my experience of British and European politicians in the ten years I've been here has made me appreciative of American politics. There doesn't seem to be anyone with as much brains, leadership skills and simple common sense as Obama and a few others. Chamberlain is a familiar figure from UK politics--a PM in water well over his head. Never willing to question his assumptions. Trying to muddle through and getting sucked deeper and deeper into the whirlpool. Neither prudent nor courageous. And in the end not really very wise.

Personally herwin, I'd swap Maggie Thatcher for ANY and ALL of our last four loser Presidents.

Warspite1

I do not wish to turn this thread political, much less comment upon American politics.

But yes, I would swap Margaret Thatcher and her balls - which by the way, were the size of church bells - for any and all of our last 10 prime ministers - WSC excepted [&o][:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy

Eh.. Well Truman survived the US Public when he on 14th August lyed to the US Public and said that Japan had agreed to a Unconditional Surrender...    He sort of forgot to mention that it was a Conditional Surrender, and one of Japans conditions was that the Empiror would remain Head of State. ..   so why not?

Warspite1

I do not pretend to understand a single word you write 5th Guards Tank Army......

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy

Eh.. Well Truman survived the US Public when he on 14th August lyed to the US Public and said that Japan had agreed to a Unconditional Surrender...    He sort of forgot to mention that it was a Conditional Surrender, and one of Japans conditions was that the Empiror would remain Head of State. ..   so why not?

He didn't lie. Hirohito was regarded by the US Government as a quaint tradition.NOT A HEAD OF STATE. His treatment at the hands of MacAurthur illustrates this. Hirohito went to visit Mac, not the other way around. Hirohito dressed in full diplomatic costume, whereas Mac didn't even bother to put on a tie. Mac kept Hirohito waiting, not the other way around. And lastly, Hirohito bowed to Mac. I don't know if you've ever spent any time in Japan 5th Guards, but I have, and I can tell you that there is no more carefully watched act than who bows to whom, and how deeply. ANY Japanese seeing the photo's of that meeting would have no doubt whatsoever as to who was in charge.

The only concession that Truman gave the Japanese , was that Hirohito would not be tried as a war crime, and could be treated however the Japanese wanted to. That wasn't a concession (or lie, as you styled it) It was an act of mercy, both to Hirohito and the Japanese people.

Warspite1

Personally, I think the US played a stonker with regards to the defeated Japanese. Well done Truman et al [&o]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


Problem here is that the Sudetenland had NEVER been German territory. It had once belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but not to Germany.

[/b]

Sorry, but this is somehow wrong.
Bohemia was, as a matter of fact part of "Germany" for almost 1000 years. Until Napoleon Austria was part of Germany. The people living in the area felt as Germans. Would the victors of WWI have stood to their word and have asked people to which counttry they liked to belong to, large parts of Silesia and Westprussia would have stayed German and the Sudeten would have joined, too.

So, with all respect, your statement is plain wrong.

Warspite1

Frank, you know more about your country than I ever will, but regardless of the land ownership, the fact was the Sudetenland was occupied by Germanic speaking people. That gave Hitler's wish for a return of that land - rightly or wrongly - some grounds for justification to those desperately seeking to avoid war. Chamberlain and Daladier took that view and well we all know the rest.....[:(]

With hindsight we all know that Czechoslovakia was the country Britain and France should have gone to war over. The German army was, even just one year earlier, much smaller, and the Czech border defences were formidable (as the Germans found to their surprise after taking the Sudetenland). Sadly it did not happen that way...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

Without those 200.000 men would the Brits have been able to spare enough troops to defend North Africa? If Rommel had taken the Suez the war would have been very different, IMO

Warspite1

No - the extra 200,000 were not needed to save North Africa.

Hitler wanted Lebensraum - thats it. Nothing but nothing was going to stop Barbarossa. Therefore the loss of those 200,000 was not going to suddenly give Rommel the troops he needed to take Cairo, nor was it going to denude the British of the troops required to defend said Egyptian capital; quite the contrary it actually may have saved a lot of Commonwealth troops and Royal Navy ships that were lost in the misguided bid to help the Greeks.

Yes, the Germans taking Suez would have meant a different war developing - as would the Germans taking Gib, Malta, Cyprus et al. Fact was, despite the protestations of Raeder, Hitler was simply not interested. He wanted Caucascean oil, Ukrainian wheat blah blah blah

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I dunno, 200,000 is a lot of men.

Didn't the USA leave a similar number in the PI? And how many did the UK lose at Singapore? Maybe not as many , but I don't see the British tossing in the sponge. Quitting just isn't in their nature. It might give them pause, but I think mthey'd still fight on.

Warspite1

Top man AW1Steve

To paraphrase Barbara Dickson:

"You know us so well"

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Didn't the USA leave a similar number in the PI? And how many did the UK lose at Singapore?

American troops in the Philippines in 1941 were around 30 000, the rest of the 150k+ were local recruits. It makes a huge difference, public opinion wise.

More British troops were captured in Malaya, but at this point, the UK had been in war for 18 months, the war had become global, the Home Islands had been bombed, some territories had been invaded... Quitting was impossible by then.

Dunkirk is different, I believe, because it is at the very beginning of the conflict, at a time when Britain is still intervening abroad.

Francois

Warspite1

You have a point Francois in that by the time 130,000(?) were lost at Singapore, the US were in the war and the majority of the free world was saved.

However, I can see no situation where - with Churchill in charge - the British would quit. Quite the opposite, the loss of those men and the hopelesness of our situation would have made the desire to fight on all the stronger.

Notwithstanding the fact that Dunkirk did happen (thank goodness), the fact was the Commonwealth was alone; with no army worth the name in comparison to the Germans - who let it be remembered - were still "Allied" with the Soviet Union. Despite that, the British and their Dominions stayed in the game, they did not quit to save themselves. The loss of 200,000 men would not have altered that.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I dunno, 200,000 is a lot of men.

Didn't the USA leave a similar number in the PI? And how many did the UK lose at Singapore? Maybe not as many , but I don't see the British tossing in the sponge. Quitting just isn't in their nature. It might give them pause, but I think mthey'd still fight on.

Warspite1

Top man AW1Steve

To paraphrase Barbara Dickson:

"You know us so well"

Yes I do. Lived there, studied there, and consider it my second home. And I just noticed, that I can't type or spell in either country![:D]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...With hindsight we all know that Czechoslovakia was the country Britain and France should have gone to war over. The German army was, even just one year earlier, much smaller, and the Czech border defences were formidable (as the Germans found to their surprise after taking the Sudetenland). Sadly it did not happen that way...

Warspite1,

Generally speaking I tend to agree with your series of posts in this thread. However I have specifically quoted the above because I do believe it is more subject to debate. I can see the argument for fighting in 1938 but on balance, for the following reasons, I do think Chamberlain was right to not go to the wall in 1938.

1. A guarantee of Czech integrity could not have been supported. Czechoslovakia could not be reached by an Anglo-Franco field army. The Czech situation could not be compared with the guarantee subsequently given to Poland.

2. By late 1938 the Anglo-Franco rearmament program had already matched the German's and by the summer of 1939 would have started to pull well ahead of the German's.

3. A necessary pre condition for a military confrontation with Germany was conscription. This did not occur until 1939. Without it, the only "feasible" military assistance to Czechoslovakia would have been a French offensive into the Saar/across the Rhine. The French had neither the plans nor the capability in the autumn of 1938 to do so.

4. Yes the German military was stronger in September 1939 than it had been in October 1938 but I would argue that the Anglo-Franco forces had improved much more in the same time period.

I would therefore argue that war in 1938 benefited Germany much more than the West. That however is not an arguement in favour of dismembering Czechoslovakia.

I note that most people in this forum always criticise Chamberlain. This criticism always stems from bias. Warspite1 has touched on Chamberlain's rearmament program but he has not fully pointed out Chamberlain's endeavours. Not only did Chamberlain institute a rearmament program which bankrupted Germany, he managed to keep it to just within Britain's financial capabilities.

Furthermore, Chamberlain never once misunderstood Hitler. What Chamberlain said publicly and what he said in private were quite different. At no stage did he think for a single moment that the piece of paper he waved upon his return from Germany meant peace. The claim of peace in our time was purely for public consumption.

Let us not forget that immediately after the conclusion of the Polish campaign, Hitler made his peace offer speech in the Reichstag. It was Chamberlain's government, not Churchill, which totally dismissed that offer.

Alfred

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
With hindsight we all know that Czechoslovakia was the country Britain and France should have gone to war over. The German army was, even just one year earlier, much smaller, and the Czech border defences were formidable (as the Germans found to their surprise after taking the Sudetenland). Sadly it did not happen that way...

Not to mention that the Soviets were eager to get involved as well, Whereas a year later, thoroughly disgusted with the dithering uselessness of the Western Powers, Stalin had signed a pact with the Germans.

[warspite1]

Interesting post Alfred.

I recall reading somewhere that if the Germans went through with Case Green in 1938, then they would have had just 5 Divisions available to defend the western border.

The Czech defences, and indeed their armed forces, were more formidable than the Polish army a year later (relative to the strength of the German army at the time).

If the above is true, then I think going to war in 1938 in hindsight would have been better. But isn't hindsight great?


Was Chamberlain cleverly playing for time? Did he really understand that war with Germany was definitely coming and that Britain and France would - if only given that time - ultimately out produce the Germans in war material?

Or

Was he an "idiot", caught like a rabbit in the headlights and making it up as he went along?

I think the thing that persuades many people (unfairly imo) that it was the latter, was his subsequent performance once war had been declared; the shambles of Norway being the straw that broke the camel's back, and that led to those famous - but deadful words by Leo Amery (?) - something like "for all the good you are doing, for god's sake go"......... And he did, a broken man, who died not long afterwards.

I think its too easy to dismiss Chamberlain's efforts in the ultimate defeat of Hitler (and Alfred you have pertinently pointed out the reasons why). I just wish the Munich agreement hadn't happened......

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
However, I can see no situation where - with Churchill in charge - the British would quit. Quite the opposite, the loss of those men and the hopelesness of our situation would have made the desire to fight on all the stronger.

I don't dispute this. I was reacting to the claim that any attempt at a negociated settlement would have been opposed by the Parliament and public opinion. Such an attempt would, obviously, have implied the dismissal of Churchill.

June 1940 is halfway between Munich and Pearl Harbor, and the public opinion that cheered Chamberlain is the same as the one that stood alone against Germany throughout 1941. In the long run, I have no doubt Britain and the US would have fought the Axis, at least in the Pacific, and over the Empire. But the failure of Dunkirk would have caused the west front to "close".

I believe that, in this case, the possibility of a truce, that might have last throughout 1940 and most of 1941, existed, and that the presence of 200 000 prisonners of war in Germany (psychologically, this is very different from 200 000 losses), might have made this decision a close call.


About Munich, two points could be added to Alfred's comments.

In 1938, lots of negociations were going on behind the scenes, and European powers were extremely suspicious of each other. The French suspected Chamberlain of trying to negociate a separate deal with Germany, and wanted to improve their relation with Italy (exploiting Mussolini's unhappiness with the annexation of Austria). This, of course, did not please the British, who were prime targets of Mussolini's imperial ambitions. And of course, everyone (rightly) suspected the Soviets. Hitler played these rivalries, and Munich, to some extent, came as a way to maintain a status quo and preserve alliances.

Also, Western European public opinions were much more pacifist than their governments. Somehow, they "needed" Munich to realize something had to be done about Germany. Both Chamberlain and Daladier were aware of this (Daladier had this famous "ah les cons, s'ils savaient!" "bloody idiots, if they only knew!"). It is now obvious that their pacifism was misplaced, and do dismiss this as foolishness... but then, we, the modern armchair strategists, haven't lived through WWI...

Francois

[LeeChard]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

Without those 200.000 men would the Brits have been able to spare enough troops to defend North Africa? If Rommel had taken the Suez the war would have been very different, IMO

Warspite1

No - the extra 200,000 were not needed to save North Africa.

Hitler wanted Lebensraum - thats it. Nothing but nothing was going to stop Barbarossa. Therefore the loss of those 200,000 was not going to suddenly give Rommel the troops he needed to take Cairo, nor was it going to denude the British of the troops required to defend said Egyptian capital; quite the contrary it actually may have saved a lot of Commonwealth troops and Royal Navy ships that were lost in the misguided bid to help the Greeks.

Yes, the Germans taking Suez would have meant a different war developing - as would the Germans taking Gib, Malta, Cyprus et al. Fact was, despite the protestations of Raeder, Hitler was simply not interested. He wanted Caucascean oil, Ukrainian wheat blah blah blah

That makes sense. Hitler's hatred of the Soviets would have been the driven out any other strategies.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think its too easy to dismiss Chamberlain's efforts in the ultimate defeat of Hitler (and Alfred you have pertinently pointed out the reasons why). I just wish the Munich agreement hadn't happened......

Chamberlain became a key ally once Churchill took the reigns of power. Had the former thrown in his full support to Halifax who in his job as Foreign Minister was in discussions with the Italian ambassador during the concluding weeks of France, the UK might have settled for a negotiated peace to which Churchill was diametrically opposed. Mind you, these discussions were only that.....discussions, but Churchill and his cabinent were aware of it and Halifax seriously opposed Churchill's conviction that Hitler would not take advantage of his victory and offer unacceptible terms.

Another interesting what if, is that had Halifax not declined the job of PM after Chamberlain's No Confidence fiasco and the realization that the new coalition government would not support his remaining PM, it would probably have been a certainey. Churchill must be given props IMO for being the driving force behind Britian's stand against Hitler and what he represented at a time when defeatist elements were present, (like in Joe Kennedy's case who was convinced the UK was a losing bet for the US to support)

Throwing in yet another what if.....the encirclement and loss of the BEF......aiee. Not sure if Churchill could have weathered that. Halifax's position would have been immeasurably strengthened.

[Skyros]

Warspite when did the attitude of the Oxford Oath die and the determination to fight on take hold? This to me would play a role in determining if a peace would have been negotiated or not. If the rescue of the BEF put the final nail in the "I won't fight for King and Country" crowd then the loss of the army and RN ships may have allowed the peace group to strengthen. If Dunkirk fails there are possibly more naval losses as well.

This is a great discussion.