Chamberlain a new look.

[zraver]

What is the level and name of the class, Zraver?

Europe 1914-1939 3300 level class (Undergrad- Junior)

[Officer of Engineers]

Europe 1914-1939 3300 level class (Undergrad- Junior)

AHA! there in lies my discomfort!

Z, this is your statement

Instead I argue that Britain lacked the means, the will and the allies to do more than accept the German fait accompli.

What you have presented was your reading of the facts but you have not presented Chamberlain's reading of the facts. In order for Chamberlain to accept a fait accompli, you have to show that he saw a fait accompli. Nowhere in your paper did you present that.

[Kansas Bear]

Doesn't his paper summarize the situation, that by assumption, we all expect Chamberlain to have been aware?

[Officer of Engineers]

But that is in complete opposition to his stated and declared public view, "Peace in our time." Z would have to show that this was a lie and that Chamberlain knew he was lying.

[zraver]

AHA! there in lies my discomfort!

Z, this is your statement



What you have presented was your reading of the facts but you have not presented Chamberlain's reading of the facts. In order for Chamberlain to accept a fait accompli, you have to show that he saw a fait accompli. Nowhere in your paper did you present that.

That is because I didn't deal with Chamberlain directly. In choosing to attack the authors contention I zeroed in on the "emergency plan to remove the need for war".

that Chamberlain's actions at Munich were, "an emergency plan, intended to buy peace at the expense of the disintegration of Czechoslovakia..." Moreover, "Munich was a policy , dictated by fear and weakness, which Neville Chamberlain devised as means, not of postponing war but, as he personally believed, of making Anglo-German war unnecessary in the future."

By attacking the emergency nature of it, to show that his actions were due more to the physical realities of the situation I by-passed what he personally believed since that is an unknowable anyway.

Instead I focus on his lack of meaningful allies, domestic political support, financial constraints and weak military position. Granted I only had a max of 5 pages to make my argument and only 1 real source to use so its just the sketch of a more developed argument. But I think given the constraints I was working with that Chamberlain's actions were driven more by physical facts than wishful thinking.

I do think the full argument is there to be made. Wouldn't be a hard book or masters thesis to write, since for once I could read the most of primary sources without translation lol.

Chp1 introduction
Chp 2 allied military policy 19-38
Chp 3 Hilter's rise to power
Chp 4 Britain green lights Hitlers rearmament
Chp 5 France's failures with its allies
Chp 6 The anchluss and how it affected the czech defensive posture
Chp 7 Hitler, Henlien and Benes
Chp 8 The May Crisis
Chp 9 British Hesitation
Chp 10 France's lack of will
Chp 11 the economic reality
Chp 12 public sentiment in the UK
Chp 13 UK's military reality
Chp 14 other nations' response
Chp 15 conclusion

[Officer of Engineers]

Gotcha.

Is there any quote from Chamberlain or his staff about the lack of allies or their commitements?

[Mihais]

Gentlemen,


There are a lot of flaws with Z's position, I have serious doubts that the Wehrmacht could overrun the Sudetenland before the British could mount a military response. When Germany needs to commit 88 divisions out of 100, a fight and a half is going to ensue, especially given the fact that the Sudetenland lacks the maneuver room necessary for blitzkreig.

But that's not the point, the point is is Z's paper solid enough with limited resources stand up to challenge.

I personally am uncomfortable with it but I see how Z is formulating his arguements. I, for one, thinks the paper needs to be tighter. It goes against conventional thinking, ie the Sudetenland would have been the phyric death knell for Germany. Z, you would have to argue why this conventional thinking is wrong ... or why no one thought it.

Sir,a modest observation.The Germans did not had that many troops.They started the war with ~70 combat ready divs. They got to 100+until May 1940.Here are some OOB's:
-http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/File:Military_Strength_1938.PNG
-http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/%C4%8CSR_Army_Order_of_Battle_-_September_30,_1938_(Fall_Gr%C3%BCn)
-http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/German_army_Order_of_Battle_-_October_1,_1938_(Fall_Gr%C3%BCn)

-http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Hungarian_Order_of_Battle_-_October_1,_1938_(Fall_Gr%C3%BCn)
The Germans do vastly outnumber Czech armor,but Pz1-2 vs Czech 35-38 models...
The only clear advantage is in the air.

Overall,I agree that they could not easily beat the Czechs.

[Kansas Bear]

But that is in complete opposition to his stated and declared public view, "Peace in our time." Z would have to show that this was a lie and that Chamberlain knew he was lying.

Well of course he lied, sir! Put yourself in his shoes, and assess the situation. Remove what you know about 1939 and beyond, what do you do at THAT particular moment in time?

[zraver]

Gotcha.

Is there any quote from Chamberlain or his staff about the lack of allies or their commitements?

Not directly no, the use of primary sources in the source I was given is thin to say the least.

[Tarek Morgen]

It failed via a general strike and the army stayed out of it for the most part, correct? had the army jumped in, who ever they backed would have won.

A part of the Army was leading the coup. Much of the rest (and other Freikorps) did not intervine not because they did not symphatise witht the cause but believed that the timing was wrong and the Coup doomed to failure. And when your capital is seized by armed troops and your military declares to stay "neutral" in the conflict I would see it at least as a passive endorsment for the rebelling party.

Further even with full support of the military the Putsch might still have failed (in my opinion) due the lack of support outside the military in the general population which was at least this time rallying behind the young democrazy. Sadly it quickly lost this support in the following decade...

This is getting a bit sidetracked, my point was to show that an military coup can even happen in Germany (despite it being a failure)

[Tarek Morgen]

Not directly no, the use of primary sources in the source I was given is thin to say the least.

You were given your primary sources? You did not search and select them yourself?? (Chosing the right sources would be considered almost more important then what you actually write with them here)

[Triple C]

Question to All

Z,
Sorry to jack your thread, but I need to ask:

1979, you're using hindsight. What Z has done was to try to see what Chamberlain saw, not what actually happenned afterwards. In hindsight, London should have gone to war over the Sudetenland. Hitler would still have won but he would have been bled white and in no position to start WWII. Instead of inheriting the Czech guns, tanks, and horses he needed to start WWII, they would have been burning his German guns, tanks, and horses.

What would a British intervention in 38 look like? Assuming UK goes to war, how would hit the Germans and with what?

[1979]

Z,
Sorry to jack your thread, but I need to ask:



What would a British intervention in 38 look like? Assuming UK goes to war, how would hit the Germans and with what?

If FALL GRun comes into place 80 % of Germany divisions assault a heavy fortified line in the east and Hitler just signed the order to start building the westwall bordering France.
No wonder that the german generals were reluctant to say the least...

[1979]

France was not going to invade Germany.

Hindsight 20/20 .

France had no intention of actually fighting

Starting negotiations the german army has already lost the surprise factor , they have to attack a prepared defense in the est.
France may very well stab them in the back.

In the end it was Czech decision to make (to fight or not) , Chamberlain chose to disregard that.

[redco]

n, I have serious doubts that the Wehrmacht could overrun the Sudetenland before the British could mount a military response.

In September 1939 on the outbreak of war The British government sent the whole of its available forces to France as the BEF, this comprised of 4 infantry divisions* and a brigade of tanks.
Any claims that the British could have made a military response of any value against Germany in the period of the Munich agreement are complete nonsense.

ps; It should also be noted that Britain had no treaties of alliance of any type with Czechoslovakia, so helping negotiate the transfer of the region of Sudetenland from Czech to German control, which was in line with the wishes of the vast majority of the people who lived there, was in no way an act of betrayal.

* Even by May 1940 the number of British divisions in France was only 10 of which only about 8 were considered fit for battle. :(