Neville Chamberlain could've prevented WW2

Originally posted by MacSwain
Well said.

If I can be permitted to add an extension, in the form of a "what if," to your piece.

What if Neville had been hawkish, moving all available ground and air resources quickly to France. Joining in with Czechs & French efforts. Think of Spitfires near Germany greatly lessening range so as sorties would reach Germany and challenge Luftwaffe dominance.

he probably would have been fired.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you know whether there were high ups in the French government handling foreign policy and/or military policies/strategy in the 1938-40 period who later played prominent roles in the fascist Vichy administration?

That's a great question. Now I'm curious to dig a little deeper to find out.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you know whether there were high ups in the French government handling foreign policy and/or military policies/strategy in the 1938-40 period who later played prominent roles in the fascist Vichy administration?

Well, there was Petain, who led the military until becoming Vichy head of state.

Reviewing his achievements between the wars, it's doubtful France could have engaged Germany at any stage. "Marechal Petain's utter neglect of French military preparation before WW-2 is often overlooked, but it ranks perhaps as even worse for its long term consequences than his years as the head of the Vichy Regime." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_P%C3%A9tain

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, there was Petain, who led the military until becoming Vichy head of state.

Reviewing his achievements between the wars, it's doubtful France could have engaged Germany at any stage. "Marechal Petain's utter neglect of French military preparation before WW-2 is often overlooked, but it ranks perhaps as even worse for its long term consequences ...[text shortened]... is years as the head of the Vichy Regime." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_P%C3%A9tain

I tend to disagree. The French military was adequate numerically in virtually every category to wage war on reasonably equal terms with Germany in 1938-40 (the exception, though an important one, was front line aircraft). Esp. when you consider that they could count on significant reinforcements from the BEF and the tough Belgian army when the Germans inevitable attacked.

But their General Staff was terrible and defeatist. The bloodletting on the Western Front in WW1 had left them with no confidence in offensive war. Gamelin, the French Chief of Staff, didn't believe that the French army could possibly go on a major offensive until 1943 at the earliest. In reality, a French offensive in September 1939 could have driven deeply into Germany's industrial heartland; there was little to oppose it.

Of course, a couple of divisions of French troops resisting the German re-occupation of the Ruhr would have been sufficient to crush that operation and almost certainly end Hitler's reign back in 1936.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I tend to disagree. The French military was adequate numerically in virtually every category to wage war on reasonably equal terms with Germany in 1938-40 (the exception, though an important one, was front line aircraft). Esp. when you consider that they could count on significant reinforcements from the BEF and the tough Belgian army when the Germans in been sufficient to crush that operation and almost certainly end Hitler's reign back in 1936.

The terrible, defeatist General Staff, symbolised by Petain, is my point: absent entirely different leaders, what could they have been expected to accomplish?

For example, what valid reason would French soldiers have had to fight in the Ruhr, especially considering their poor showing on their own soil?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The terrible, defeatist General Staff, symbolised by Petain, is my point: absent entirely different leaders, what could they have been expected to accomplish?

For example, what valid reason would French soldiers have had to fight in the Ruhr, especially considering their poor showing on their own soil?

The French Army's "poor showing" was caused by its forces being misdeployed. At the critical point of the battle for France (Sedan), crack German panzer divisions were arrayed against French reservists. Where they faced the Germans at anywhere near equality in numbers and equipment, the French Army performed adequately. An attack into the Rhineland in September 1939 would have seen the French heavily outnumber the defenders. I see no reason to think that it wouldn't have been able to advance at a brisk pace.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The French Army's "poor showing" was caused by its forces being misdeployed. At the critical point of the battle for France (Sedan), crack German panzer divisions were arrayed against French reservists. Where they faced the Germans at anywhere near equality in numbers and equipment, the French Army performed adequately. An attack into the Rhineland in Se ...[text shortened]... enders. I see no reason to think that it wouldn't have been able to advance at a brisk pace.

do you take into account the fact that the french had no way of knowing what we know now? that with their intelligence at that time, they saw war as undesirable ?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
do you take into account the fact that the french had no way of knowing what we know now? that with their intelligence at that time, they saw war as undesirable ?

War is always undesirable. If France felt war was so undesirable that the fate of Czechoslovakia was unimportant, then they shouldn't have made treaties binding them to defend it.

The French had plenty of way to know what we know now. Intelligence i.e. information was not the problem; lack of will was.

Originally posted by no1marauder
War is always undesirable. If France felt war was so undesirable that the fate of Czechoslovakia was unimportant, then they shouldn't have made treaties binding them to defend it.

The French had plenty of way to know what we know now. Intelligence i.e. information was not the problem; lack of will was.

i agree with lack of will. what i don't agree is the prevention of the war part. in my opinion the germans were much more prepared for war than the french or the british. that is why they tried to expend any diplomatic means before going to war.

the case of Czechoslovakia was despicable indeed. it was a case of watching out for one's own ass while a puny person gets trampled. they seriously lacked the power (and like you said, the will) to do anything about it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i agree with lack of will. what i don't agree is the prevention of the war part. in my opinion the germans were much more prepared for war than the french or the british. that is why they tried to expend any diplomatic means before going to war.

the case of Czechoslovakia was despicable indeed. it was a case of watching out for one's own ass while a pun ...[text shortened]... mpled. they seriously lacked the power (and like you said, the will) to do anything about it.

Germany was better prepared, but not so well prepared that they could have defeated the French, British, Czechs and Soviets at the same time. Munich was not only "despicable"; it was stupid.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Germany was better prepared, but not so well prepared that they could have defeated the French, British, Czechs and Soviets at the same time. Munich was not only "despicable"; it was stupid.

as if the french, british, czech and soviets could work together. they all tried to make the germans attack the others. except the czechs, they had more pressing matters to attend to.

germany did defeat both the english and the french a year later, did one year made a huge difference?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
as if the french, british, czech and soviets could work together. they all tried to make the germans attack the others. except the czechs, they had more pressing matters to attend to.

germany did defeat both the english and the french a year later, did one year made a huge difference?

🙄

Yes, facing Czech and Soviet armies on an Eastern Front would have made a huge difference to the outcome of a campaign in the West.

Originally posted by no1marauder
🙄

Yes, facing Czech and Soviet armies on an Eastern Front would have made a huge difference to the outcome of a campaign in the West.

soviets were more interested in carving up poland with the big dood (hitler).

what are you babbling about? that the events leading to WWII where so simple that even a two year old could have figured them out? that the whole international situation could have been handled by a "magical log" action?

the west opposed the soviets kind of as much as they opposed hitler. a feeling that was mutual. sure in retrospective we know now the if they were to band together and wipe germany off the map, WWII could have been avoided. only to let the soviets unchallenged and able to occupy paris in 5 years. or maybe there could have been a 1000 year long peace and fluffy feelings among humanity. what are you trying to communicate here?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
soviets were more interested in carving up poland with the big dood (hitler).

what are you babbling about? that the events leading to WWII where so simple that even a two year old could have figured them out? that the whole international situation could have been handled by a "magical log" action?

the west opposed the soviets kind of as much as they o ...[text shortened]... 0 year long peace and fluffy feelings among humanity. what are you trying to communicate here?

I'm "babbling" about historical facts, while you're spewing propaganda long since discredited. I suggest you read my two posts on the top of page 3 of this thread; the salient point is:

France and the USSR had a mutual agreement to defend Czechoslovakia if attacked. On virtually the eve of Munich, the Soviets conveyed to the French and the British that they were willing to fight to defend Czechoslovakia. Arrangements were being made with Roumania (which was still in the Allied sphere at that time though one of the results of Munich was to change that) to ferry large numbers of Soviets troops on Romanian railroads to aid the Czechs.

A defeat of Germany by a Western alliance along with the Czechs and Soviets in 1938 probably would have seen the Soviets grab a lot less of Eastern Europe than they did in 1945. Roumania, Hungary, Bulgaria wouldn't have declared war on the USSR and would have avoided occupation. The war would have been much shorter and tens of millions fewer people would have been killed. There would have been no Holocaust.

And all it would have required is for France to honor its commitments to Czechoslovakia and the UK to act in its own self-interest.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
not just Chamberlain, there was a whole bandwagon.

maybe the Treaty of Versailles was too lenient.

couldn't you also argue the other way?

had that pompous horse's patoot Woodrow Wilson stuck around or, better yet, had TR been president, I would argue that the Treaty of Versailles would not have been so punitive regarding Germany and therefore the post-war situation might have avoided Hilterism altogether.

As George C. Marshall realized, you do not want a bunch of Teutonic and/or Russian tribesmen left hungry and angry too long -- they fester.

Best to keep them employed, fed, and able to take care of themselves, at least until you find the means to turn them into ash heaps if they make trouble again.

seems to have worked since then.