Originally posted by no1marauderof course he's right -- we are talking about the French, are we not?
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 ScriabinThe Treaty of Versailles wasn't all that harsh to Germany compared to the treaties the Germans forced on others after victorious wars (including the Brest-Litovsk one in 1917 with Russia). Perhaps the reparations were too high.
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 ...[text shortened]... ns to turn them into ash heaps if they make trouble again.
seems to have worked since then.
Anyway, the world wide depression would have hit Germany eventually and it seems the logical result of that was going to be a right wing dictatorship of some sort in Germany.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Treaty of Versailles blamed Germany for a war they didn't start, how is that not harsh?
The Treaty of Versailles wasn't all that harsh to Germany compared to the treaties the Germans forced on others after victorious wars (including the Brest-Litovsk one in 1917 with Russia). Perhaps the reparations were too high.
Anyway, the world wide depression would have hit Germany eventually and it seems the logical result of that was going to be a right wing dictatorship of some sort in Germany.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, Austria started the war by declaring war on Serbia.
Actually it blamed Germany and its allies for starting the war. Which they did.
Even if they didn't, who cares who gets blamed for the war? Did it hurt Germany's feelings?
Article 231 of the treaty(the "War Guilt Clause" ) placed sole responsibility for the war on Germany, which would be accountable for all the damage done to civilian population of the allies.
Now I am not saying Germany is blameless in WWI, but they did get punished separately and way more harshly. They also had more to loose and it all got taken. I think it is a commonly held belief by historians that the treaty was the kindling that Hitler needed to start his fire.
I think history shows that, yes, it did hurt Germany's feelings.
Originally posted by StTitoNo, it didn't.
No, Austria started the war by declaring war on Serbia.
Article 231 of the treaty(the "War Guilt Clause" ) placed sole responsibility for the war on Germany, which would be accountable for all the damage done to civilian population of the allies.
Now I am not saying Germany is blameless in WWI, but they did get punished separately and way more harshly. Th ...[text shortened]... eeded to start his fire.
I think history shows that, yes, it did hurt Germany's feelings.
Article 231
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/versailles231-247.htm
Austria-Hungary wouldn't have declared war on Serbia without assurances of German support if, as was virtually certain, Russia intervened to save its small Balkan ally. Germany declared war on both Russia and France and invaded neutral Belgium. Under the circumstances, the term "aggression" certainly is accurate to describe the actions of Germany and her allies.
You're exaggerating; Germany hardly had "it all" taken by the treaty. In fact, Austria-Hungary and Russia lost more territory than Germany. If you want to look at a harsh treaty, look at the one imposed on Russia by the Germans in 1917. By comparison, Germany got off easy.
I'm not impressed by "commonly held" beliefs. The Germans were unhappy they lost the war and because Germany itself wasn't occupied, the military leaders were able to foist the absurd "stab in the back" theory i.e. the claim that Germany was not militarily defeated but lost only because of leftist traitors at home. The "war guilt" clause had nothing to do with that.
Originally posted by no1marauderRegardless of the veracity of " 'commonly held' beliefs," they were surely grist for the mill that helped put the German Volk under the spell of a deranged demagogue, from whom Chamberlain could never have negotiated any peace.
I'm not impressed by "commonly held" beliefs. The Germans were unhappy they lost the war and because Germany itself wasn't occupied, the military leaders were able to foist the absurd "stab in the back" theory i.e. the claim that Germany was not militarily defeated but lost only because of leftist traitors at home. The "war guilt" clause had nothing to do with that.
Originally posted by kmax87A militaristic society like Germany doesn't take losing a war well esp. when someone besides the military can be blamed (however implausibly).
Regardless of the veracity of " 'commonly held' beliefs," they were surely grist for the mill that helped put the German Volk under the spell of a deranged demagogue, from whom Chamberlain could never have negotiated any peace.
No, Chamberlain couldn't have negotiated a peace with Hitler; the question is why he thought he could by selling out Czechoslovakia (and Republican Spain to a lesser extent).
Originally posted by no1marauderfrance was in no position to fight a war. not with germany, not alongside the soviets who where just as expansionist as the german. the soviets weren't even invited to munich.
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 ...[text shortened]... ance to honor its commitments to Czechoslovakia and the UK to act in its own self-interest.
"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"
i disagree, with the french declarin war on the germans, the french would have been weakened by the germans, the us would probably had not have intervened which would leave a weakened germany, france, perhaps even england to content with a Russia just as eager to aquire land as hitler was but without a single battle being fought on its soil. we could have probably be speaking all ruski by now.
what historical facts, all you do is babble about what could have been. you have watched the movie and decided it was foolish for the dumb blond to go into the room where the killer was waiting for her. the historical fact was that hitler was preparing for war for 10 years. even after he made the mistake of attaking the soviets it took a lot of time and the help of the americans to take him down. could the war have played out differently if hitler would have been attacked before he set up all his pieces? sure. but the fact remains the french and the english were ill prepared even when they declared war and they couldn't afford to engage a much better prepared germany without assurance the soviets will help or at least not intervene to help the germans.
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziYour stubborn insistence not to even read my posts is pathetic.
france was in no position to fight a war. not with germany, not alongside the soviets who where just as expansionist as the german. the soviets weren't even invited to munich.
"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" ...[text shortened]... rmany without assurance the soviets will help or at least not intervene to help the germans.
I guess rabid nutjob anti-communism is alive and well. The historical facts remain that France and the USSR had mutually agreed to defend Czechoslovakia and that France, not the Soviets, reneged. Why do you think the Soviets weren't invited to Munich? Roll that around that empty head of yours.
Could you please point out to me what territory the Soviets had expanded into prior to Munich? Thank you.
EDIT: Clement Attlee stated this in the House of Commons on Chamberlain's return from Munich:
Throughout the whole of these proceedings the U.S.S.R. has stood by its pledges and its declarations and there has been some pretty hard lying about it, too. There have been lies told, and people knew they were lies, about alleged conversations between M. Litvinoff and the French Foreign Minister. At no time 58 has there been any difficulty in knowing where the U.S.S.R. stood. At no time has there been any consultation. I am aware that the Prime Minister may say that we were not the prime factor in this problem and that we were only concerned after France had been brought into it. But we have had very close collaboration with France, and in the order of commitment the U.S.S.R. comes before this country, and it has been a very great weakness that throughout there has been this cold-shouldering of the U.S.S.R. The Prime Minister cannot bear even to mention them. They were never brought into consultation except on one occasion, and that was when it looked as if things were coming to the worst, and their help was wanted. Then an approach was made, but when it was a question of negotiation they were not brought in at all. I do riot know whether they will be brought into any future negotiations. But there you get the weakness of this Government and at the same time of France—and I say the weakness of France is even greater. At no time did they make up their minds whether they were going to stand or to tell Czechoslovakia to make its own terms.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1938/oct/03/prime-ministers-statement
Originally posted by no1marauderoh you mean to tell me that the ussr were not expansionists just because they waited to see where the wind blows? as soon as hitler set his eyes on the west stalin moved and gotten huge chunks of land. he would have gotten more if hitler hadn't decided to end their deal soon.
Your stubborn insistence not to even read my posts is pathetic.
I guess rabid nutjob anti-communism is alive and well. The historical facts remain that France and the USSR had mutually agreed to defend Czechoslovakia and that France, not the Soviets, reneged. Why do you think the Soviets weren't invited to Munich? Roll that around th ...[text shortened]... own terms.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1938/oct/03/prime-ministers-statement
don't tell me how the soviets were fluffy carebears. you are moronic to think they would have been any better. the russians actually played this quite well. none of the allies were so well prepared as the germans but at least the soviets managed to buy themselves some time.
read what? documents that say that if they all would have banded together the war would have been stopped? who the heck can know that? it could have been stopped. or the russians would have had clear road to paris. stop fantasizing and get real.
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo, the Soviets cleverly "brought time" by saying they would fight for Czechoslovakia if the West did? And all that to fuel their "expansionist" plans (which they hadn't, of course, done anything to further)?
oh you mean to tell me that the ussr were not expansionists just because they waited to see where the wind blows? as soon as hitler set his eyes on the west stalin moved and gotten huge chunks of land. he would have gotten more if hitler hadn't decided to end their deal soon.
don't tell me how the soviets were fluffy carebears. you are moronic to think ...[text shortened]... en stopped. or the russians would have had clear road to paris. stop fantasizing and get real.
Let's face it; you are completely brainwashed and immune to the actual facts. The "Russians marching down Main Street USA (or Paris or whatever)" was a paranoid Cold War fantasy; you'd do well to get over it.
Originally posted by no1marauderTrue, Uncle Joe waited until 1940 before grabbing the Baltic states.
So, the Soviets cleverly "brought time" by saying they would fight for Czechoslovakia if the West did? And all that to fuel their "expansionist" plans (which they hadn't, of course, done anything to further)?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy? (And why the scare quotes? Do you object to 'grab'? What word would you prefer?) First, because under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, those countries fell under the Soviet sphere of influence. (Finland was the first country to be invaded, even before Germany invaded Poland.) Second, because Stalin didn't trust Hitler and needed a buffer zone against potential German aggression.
And why did he "grab them"? And what was the military consequence of said "grab"?
The immediate military consequence of the pact was the invasion of Poland. What else did you have in mind?
I raised this example merely to point out that USSR was quite capable of swallowing up smaller countries when conditions suited it or when it deemed it necessary.