Originally posted by AmauroteYour history stinks; a war in 1938 with Czechslovakia, which had several hundred thousand well-trained troops, on the allied side would have been a far more favorable military situation than a year later. The Germans were able to spend an entire year building up their military and their Western fortifications to hold off the anticipated French-British counterattack that never came. The French had a mutual defense treaty with the Czechs, but they and the Brits cravenly sold out this peacefu, democratic nation to "avoid the horrors of a general war" which was inevitable anyway. British revisionist history is a wonderful thing!
I think there's a real danger of slipping into a chain of what-iffery here: while it's absolutely right to condemn the appeasers on the Right for selling out Czechoslovakia, the fact is that they were far from a single homogenous political bloc, they were to some extent reflecting popular horror of a general war which they knew from experience would be gh ...[text shortened]... stence is wildly exaggerated by Anglophobic hacks like John Gibson) occurred at about that time.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSteerpike isn't British, marauder, and I would suggest that the East End was more worried about not dying than preserving a national empire that was a matter of supreme economic indifference to it.
So what? The fact of the matter is you Brits were perfectly willing to sell out small countries to cut deals with the Nazis. Even the Poles grabbed a piece of Czechslovakia after Germany dismembered it! Why should the US have f ...[text shortened]... balls to complain that the US didn't save your a** early enough!
I honestly find this idea that the US entered the war for purely altruistic reasons ("Oh, save me, America, save me!" ) risible: nation-states do not work like that, any more than the class struggle works like that. The real reason can be gauged from the relative scale and objective size of the US empire and sphere of influence before and after the war. Was it less, the same or more?
On a personal note, if we're going to have an increasingly bitter discussion about which nation-state or boring imperial system sucks most, let me interject: all nation-states suck, except for the ones that blow.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are missing the point: no-one is arguing that the Appeasers were not self-serving or immoral, but the fact is that Britain was in a better state defensively in terms of aeroplane production for its treachery - and the Air arm disparity in 1937 was gigantic; even with the extra year Munich provided, the Battle of Britain was a very close-run thing. As for your determinist observation about the inevitability of war, this is no doubt true, but things often seem inevitable with the benefit of hindsight, and certainly this was not a unanimous view at the time.
Your history stinks; a war in 1938 with Czechslovakia, which had several hundred thousand well-trained troops, on the allied side would have been a far more favorable military situation than a year later. The Germans were able to spend an entire year building up their military and their Western fortifications to hold off the anticipated French- ...[text shortened]... f a general war" which was inevitable anyway. British revisionist history is a wonderful thing!
Originally posted by no1marauderSo the British should have attacked Germany in 1937 - but the US was not compelled to fight the Nazis even after they invaded France, Belgium, Holland, Yugoslavia and Greece.
So what? The fact of the matter is you Brits were perfectly willing to sell out small countries to cut deals with the Nazis. Even the Poles grabbed a piece of Czechslovakia after Germany dismembered it! Why should the US have felt compelled to rush to the aid of a bunch of European countries who were cutting each other's throats? The US had ent ...[text shortened]... re globe? You Brits have brass balls to complain that the US didn't save your a** early enough!
Can't follow your logic.
Originally posted by steerpikeLogic:
So the British should have attacked Germany in 1937 - but the US was not compelled to fight the Nazis even after they invaded France, Belgium, Holland, Yugoslavia and Greece.
Can't follow your logic.
Britain is in Europe; America ain't.
And "should have" does not = "compelled"
Hope that helps.
These are all valid points, and I'm sure we could argue the finer points of history until we're all blue in the face. The fact of the matter is, all of the terrors and hardships of WW2 are behind us, even if it did reshape our world and cause strife later on. We can learn many things from history, make sure never to repeat the same deadly mistakes over and over again, but we can't dwell on the past. The future is staring us in the face, but the majority of the world still has their head turned in the other direction; it can sometimes be a sad thing to see. *sniff* Well, now that I've spoken my strange and enigmatic piece, I believe it's time for me to go to bed. My eyes are struggling to stay open as it is. See ya!
Originally posted by AmauroteI never claimed, and would never claim, that the US entered the war for altruistic reasons. Obviously, the uS entered the war for reasons of its national security.; as did Great Britain. It is just as foolish to claim that the British "fought for Poland" as it is to claim that the US decided to "save Britain". There is little doubt the US entered WWII reluctantly and the substantial increase in world power the US obtained because of the war was mainly due to the loss of power by Britain and the continental powers of Europe. That the US has used that power in many cases in an atrocious manner is beyond doubt.
Steerpike isn't British, marauder, and I would suggest that the East End was more worried about not dying than preserving a national empire that was a matter of supreme economic indifference to it.
I honestly find this idea that the US entered the war for purely altruistic reasons ("Oh, save me, America, save me!" ) risible: nation-states do not work ...[text shortened]... stem sucks most, let me interject: all nation-states suck, except for the ones that blow.
Originally posted by AmauroteI would argue that Britain was worse off vis-a-vis Germany in air power in September 1939 than the year before which is when Munich occurred. Also if France had been able to hold, the Battle of Britain wouldn't have been fought and an alliance that included Czechslovakia would have been more formidable than the one in 1939, esp. has the Soviets would not have signed the NonAggression Pact with Germany (the Soviets were outraged that they were ignored at Munich). It is true hindsight is 20-20; but Hitler had not left much doubt about his ultimate goals in Mein Kampf and it was the height of naivete to suppose his would abandon those goals when he was being allowed to accomplish them so easily.
You are missing the point: no-one is arguing that the Appeasers were not self-serving or immoral, but the fact is that Britain was in a better state defensively in terms of aeroplane production for its treachery - and the Air arm disparity in 1937 was gigantic; even with the extra year Munich provided, the Battle of Britain was a very close-run thing. As fo ...[text shortened]... itable with the benefit of hindsight, and certainly this was not a unanimous view at the time.
Originally posted by no1marauderI am indeed impressed No. 1 and have rec'd accordingly.
I would argue that Britain was worse off vis-a-vis Germany in air power in September 1939 than the year before which is when Munich occurred. Also if France had been able to hold, the Battle of Britain wouldn't have been fought and an alliance that included Czechslovakia would have been more formidable than the one in 1939, esp. has the Soviets ...[text shortened]... to suppose his would abandon those goals when he was being allowed to accomplish them so easily.
1 edit
Originally posted by DelmerA misspent childhood; when I wasn't playing chess, I was playing Avalon Hill war games and reading everything about military history. A lot of the information here is from Shirer's book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which, while written in the early '60's remains probably the best overview of the Nazis and of the prewar manueverings that led to the war. He's obviously not very flattering to the British and French "leadership".
I am indeed impressed No. 1 and have rec'd accordingly.
Originally posted by no1marauderLast time I read Shirer's book was two years ago. That was probably my third reading. I really enjoyed John Toland's biography "Adolf Hitler". Read that about a year ago. Have you read it? And have you seen "Triumph of the Will"? It's available on a very well produced DVD now. If you message me your name and mailing address I'll send you copies of my two books of veterans war memories. They're available on Amazon if you want to take a look. Just type Delmer O. Gasche into the author search. But message me your name and address and I'll send you copies, my gift.
A misspent childhood; when I wasn't playing chess, I was playing Avalon Hill war games and reading everything about military history. A lot of the information here is from Shirer's book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which, while written in the early '60's remains probably the best overview of the Nazis and of the prewar manuevering ...[text shortened]... at led to the war. He's obviously not very flattering to the British and French "leadership".
Originally posted by DelmerThat's rather charitable, does the offer apply to all who have responded to this thread?
Last time I read Shirer's book was two years ago. That was probably my third reading. I really enjoyed John Toland's biography "Adolf Hitler". Read that about a year ago. Have you read it? And have you seen "Triumph of the Will"? It's available on a very well produced DVD now. If you message me your name and mailing address I'll send you copies of my ...[text shortened]... nto the author search. But message me your name and address and I'll send you copies, my gift.