Neville Chamberlain could've prevented WW2

Originally posted by sh76
Neville Chamberlain may not have been able to "prevent" WWII, but he could have made it a lot easier to win. In 1936, when the Nazis showed their first signs of aggression in re-militarizing the Rhineland and making overtures towards Austria that eventually resulted in the Anschluss, defeating Hitler would have been a cakewalk. In 1938, it may not have been a c ...[text shortened]... doesn't always work has application. The tricky part is knowing how to apply that lesson.

Of what possible relevance is the situation of Nazi Germany in 1938 to Iraq in 2003?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of what possible relevance is the situation of Nazi Germany in 1938 to Iraq in 2003?

As I said if you'd read the rest of my post, very little, except for the general lesson that appeasement doesn't always work.

And, please, I'm not interested in getting into a debate over Iraq right now. My post was about WWII; the other comment was just a side remark.

Originally posted by sh76
As I said if you'd read the rest of my post, very little, except for the general lesson that appeasement doesn't always work.

And, please, I'm not interested in getting into a debate over Iraq right now. My post was about WWII; the other comment was just a side remark.

I don't see how the concept of "appeasement" is even remotely applicable to Iraq in 2003, so your side comment was nonsensical.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't see how the concept of "appeasement" is even remotely applicable to Iraq in 2003

... and nor would I expect you to.

But those of us who were not admirers of Saddam Hussein might.

Originally posted by sh76
... and nor would I expect you to.

But those of us who were [b]not admirers of Saddam Hussein might.[/b]

Try again.

What was Iraq doing in 2003 that they needed or desired to be "appeased" like Hitler was?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Try again.

What was Iraq doing in 2003 that they needed or desired to be "appeased" like Hitler was?

Wasn't Sadam writing cowboy novels?

GRANNY.

Originally posted by FMF
It's a pretty cliched "factoid"... if it weren't for Neville Chamberlain and his piece of paper in 1938, 55,000,000 lives could have been saved!

Hardly anybody in Europe says this or thinks it. But for some reason people in American public life use it all the time it to try to insult one another in a kind of hairy-chested, ahistorical, Hitler Card Up The Slee ...[text shortened]... Neville-Chamberlain-could-have-done and how exactly do you think it might have panned out?

got to start further back.

Chamberlain was an idiot and what he did was contemptible. He well knew the kind of madman with whom he was dealing and he was willing to kiss Hitler's hind end. By that time, averting what came later was well nigh impossible without capitulating to Hitler and Mussolini's brand of totalitarianism, or to Stalin's.

However, had the American electorate been sensible enough to return TR to office instead of that dweeb Wilson, and if TR had lived long enough to influence the post WWI settlement, Germany would not have been left in a position where the onset of Hitler was in the least probable.

By impoverishing Germans, or Russians, or Americans, and I suspect quite a few other nationalities, you produce some truly extreme, violent, and catastrophic political consequences.

By making sure the peace after WW I left all parties in a position to recover and go forward to support the West's interests in the Russian civil war, perhaps the mass deaths of the last two-thirds of the 20th century might have been avoided.

Ever play the Avalon Hill game 1914? It was pre-electronics era. Terribly complex, but very useful for a history seminar to use to pick apart the causes of WW I and how that conflict might have been avoided.

Again, I think TR might have been able to work his magic, but it was probably too far towards the end of his life, even if he had been in power.

Just think what might have been if the USA had gone to war with the Kaiser in 1902 -- which came within a whisker of happening. TR faced Germany down over the Kaiser sending a fleet to invade Venezuela and hold territory as security for unpaid debts.

There was no war then -- come to think of it, other than conflicts he inherited, TR only finished wars, he didn't start them.

Originally posted by Scriabin
got to start further back.

Chamberlain was an idiot and what he did was contemptible. He well knew the kind of madman with whom he was dealing and he was willing to kiss Hitler's hind end. By that time, averting what came later was well nigh impossible without capitulating to Hitler and Mussolini's brand of totalitarianism, or to Stalin's.

However, ha ...[text shortened]... hink of it, other than conflicts he inherited, TR only finished wars, he didn't start them.

I admire TR too but you're going off on a pretty wide tangent/what if scenario to somehow tie him into a discussion about what could have been done to stop Hitler early on and avoid WWII.

As I see it the major reasons the allies were unable to stop Hitler before he really got started were as follows in order of importance.

1. Political instability of the 3rd Republic of France post WWI. It was bad enough leading up to WWI but post WWI it was even worse. The French Government turned over and found itself with a new cabinet on average every 6 months. This instability prevented France from ever gaining any consistent progress economically, diplomatically, and of course militarily. It's unfortunate because France found itself with the upper hand vs. Germany in those following three areas in the years following the war.

2. Backwards and overly conservative thinking in the French military in between the two wars. By the end of WWI France had a technological advantage over Germany in what was the future of warfare, namely aircraft and tanks. But the attitude of the French High Command resulted in France not exploiting this early advantage and had them leaning in favor of infantry, fixed defenses (in the wrong place no less - why no fortifications along the Belgian border?), and horse cavalry. They saw the tank as merely a supporting weapon to accompany non-mechanized infantry. The French High Command post WWI believed infantry to be the deciding force.

3. Appeasement Policy of Britain. The British Prime Ministers in between David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill were spineless fools. Repeatedly they leaned in favor of appeasement towards Germany over bolstering their ally France right from the Treaty of Versailles up until the invasion of Poland. There are many egregious examples but some of the worst are the British striking a deal behind the backs of the French to allow the Germans to construct battleships. This excerpt from a correspondence from Lord Halifix, an Ambassador in Chamberlain's government to the French government says it all. "4. If the French Goverment were to assume that His Majesty's Government would at once take joint military action with them to preserve Czechoslovakia against German aggression, it is only fair to warn them that our statements do not warrant any such assumption."
Nothing like filling your ally full of confidence at a difficult time.

4. Foolish isolationist policy of the United States. Rather than making a concerted effort to try and secure the peace in Europe and bolster the position of their French allies the US government spent most of the post WWI years badgering a nearly bankrupt and war exhausted French government to repay it's loans to the US while at the same time loaning money to Germany and not badgering them with as much vigour to make their reparation payments to France. Remember it was French and Belgian territory that bore the brunt of the war and in terms of manpower lost the French took the heaviest blow and this was in a war that they clearly did not want nor start.

You reverse these four factors combined with the fact that diplomatically the western allies would have had the support early on of Czechloslovakia and the Soviet Union and there is no way Hitler even gets off the ground to start WWII. He would have had his arse handed to him simply for sending troops into the demilitarized Rhineland.

A great book I recommend to anyone wanting to delve more into this topic is William Shirer's "The Collapse of the Third Republic - An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940." The author is of course more famous for his book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" but this book is equally as good.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the russians invaded romania and stole a chunk of our land. we were merely doing what you claim the soviets done, moved against a threat. the problem is, the russians wanted land back that wasn't theirs, we wanted land back that was ours. you might want to check your history, you kind of suk at it unless it is something that makes your precious soviets look ...[text shortened]... went so far as odessa and were mainly cannon fodder. oh the destruction and carnage we wrought.

Siguranta - Romanian secret service (a little milder version of Gestapo) were very active in Odessa during WW2, finding and killing partizans, Jews and terrorizing local population. Romanian troops fought alongside the German troops and were "rewarded" with an initial occupation of Odessa until the Germans took over later.

As for the Finnish - USSR war, the Russians proposed a territory swap to Finland, where a strategic piece of land next to Leningrad belonging to Finland would've been exchanged for a larger chunk of Rissian territory at another spot of the border. Finns resolutely refused and that eventually led to the war.

Originally posted by Ullr
You reverse these four factors ...and there is no way Hitler even gets off the ground to start WWII. ...

Oh, only those little things?

you strain at gnats and swallow the camel ...

Originally posted by Scriabin
Oh, only those little things?

you strain at gnats and swallow the camel ...

More realistic than your little fantasy of TR saving the day.

At any rate, I don't even think it would have taken all four things being reversed. I think #2 would have been enough by itself.

Originally posted by Ullr
I admire TR too but you're going off on a pretty wide tangent/what if scenario to somehow tie him into a discussion about what could have been done to stop Hitler early on and avoid WWII.

As I see it the major reasons the allies were unable to stop Hitler before he really got started were as follows in order of importance.

1. Political instability of the ...[text shortened]... or his book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" but this book is equally as good.

I generally agree with points 1-3 though some of your points in #2 are a bit contradictory (we know why "no fortifications on the Belgian border" i.e. money but it seems a bit unfair to demand more forts while chiding the French military for relying on infantry tactics). I feel #4 is overstated; it wasn't the US' job to keep the peace in Europe when the two main Western powers were unwilling to and absent British and French will, US policy was irrelevant.

I think Western distrust and paranoia of the USSR was a big factor also.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I generally agree with points 1-3 though some of your points in #2 are a bit contradictory (we know why "no fortifications on the Belgian border" i.e. money but it seems a bit unfair to demand more forts while chiding the French military for relying on infantry tactics). I feel #4 is overstated; it wasn't the US' job to keep the peace in Europe when the ...[text shortened]... nt.

I think Western distrust and paranoia of the USSR was a big factor also.

To clarify my point regarding fortifications in #2: I'm not arguing in favor of fortifications, however, since the French insisted on doing it why not invest the money on a front where the Germans have historically attacked rather than the Maginot line?

My only problem with letting the United States off the hook in all of this is that the policy of isolationism was short sighted and wound up costing the US more in the end. But in general I agree it was a first and foremost a European problem.

Good point about distrust of the USSR. Yes that is also one of the big factors.