Thread: Chamberlain a new look.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

The irony is that once the full picture was finally painted the situation reversed. Japanese barbarism was still seen as terrible, but I think our racial/ethnic view of the world sort of decided that they were 'less civilized' than us - 'cruel orientals'. Germany, on the other hand, used the tools of modernity in a calculated campaign to annihilate whole ethnic groups. Germans were supposed to be 'like us' yet they behaved as badly or worse than 'savages'.

That reminds of an not directly related event I once saw in a docu about the denazification in occupied Germany shortly after the war. There were several US taskgroups with the job of creating movies about the Holocaust and other crimes, and also to create movies that should promote tolerance to other races & cultures.

An old Veteran who was part of one of this group was interviewed and told the story how their officer told them that their job would be to create material (movies, leaflets) that would teach the Germans to "respect all people equally, regardless of race or religion."

One of the other soldiers raised his Hand and asked "Wait...even for ni*ers??"
The officer replied "Yes, even for f*cking Nig*ers"

Ok off topic and most likely not pc, but whenever I see that docu I can't help and laugh at that point.

I don't have anything to back it up, but I recall rading once that the horrors of Nazism were an important factor in taking racism out of the realm of acceptablility. it wasn't long after the war that films like 'Gentleman's Agreement' & 'Crossfire' won popular acclaim for attacking anti-semitism in America. De-segregation of Federally controlled realms like the military & Washington D.C. took place around the same time. It took a lot of hard work & a generation to break many of the institutions suporting racism in places like Australia & America, but Hitler unwittingly lent a helping hand.

Gentleman's Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Bigfella

De-segregation of Federally controlled realms like the military & Washington D.C. took place around the same time. It took a lot of hard work & a generation to break many of the institutions suporting racism in places like Australia & America, but Hitler unwittingly lent a helping hand.

Debatable, the popular narrative is that the blacks were basically static until MLK arrived but this is false. Washington, DuBois, Philip Randolph, Eleanor Roosevelt, the black suffragettes etc. Black empowerment really began during WWI with the Great Migration. The first big signs of progress were the massive decline in Lynchings and explosion of black schools.

By WWII, Philip Randolph was able to pressure FDR to desegregate defense plants (although blacks remained stuck in menial jobs/wages). Blacks also got a few more high profile combat jobs in WWII compared to WWI. The fact that blacks and their white allies could now pressure the President of the USA was a milestone.

FDR of course died in office, but Truman was not racially insensitive (for the time), ""I believe in brotherhood….of all men before the law….if any (one) class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race……and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety…….The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this." H.S. Truman 1940 senatorial campaign.

The 1947 report "To Secure These Rights" empaneled in 1946 which would seem to offer the best case for a reference to Nazism and American racism doesn't do it. Instead the focus is on how the treatment of blacks embarrasses America in its fight vs communism. Truman reacted to the panel and desegregated the military and set up a panel/board to push equal hiring in the civil service. Although he didn't go as far as the board wanted.

The rest of the Cold War is the same, fear of embarrassment not remorse because of Nazism.

Originally Posted by zraver

Debatable, the popular narrative is that the blacks were basically static until MLK arrived but this is false. Washington, DuBois, Philip Randolph, Eleanor Roosevelt, the black suffragettes etc. Black empowerment really began during WWI with the Great Migration. The first big signs of progress were the massive decline in Lynchings and explosion of black schools.

By WWII, Philip Randolph was able to pressure FDR to desegregate defense plants (although blacks remained stuck in menial jobs/wages). Blacks also got a few more high profile combat jobs in WWII compared to WWI. The fact that blacks and their white allies could now pressure the President of the USA was a milestone.

FDR of course died in office, but Truman was not racially insensitive (for the time), ""I believe in brotherhood….of all men before the law….if any (one) class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race……and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety…….The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this." H.S. Truman 1940 senatorial campaign.

The 1947 report "To Secure These Rights" empaneled in 1946 which would seem to offer the best case for a reference to Nazism and American racism doesn't do it. Instead the focus is on how the treatment of blacks embarrasses America in its fight vs communism. Truman reacted to the panel and desegregated the military and set up a panel/board to push equal hiring in the civil service. Although he didn't go as far as the board wanted.

The rest of the Cold War is the same, fear of embarrassment not remorse because of Nazism.

Don't disagree with much there & certainly wasn't looking to airbrush out the fine work of Randolph, DuBois et.al. (with which I was familiar), but I don't think it was a coincidence that you have a film like 'gentleman's agreement' winning best picture in 1947. Hitler helped to make racism less respectable. This may have weighed more heavily on anti-semitism than anti-black racism, but I think it was a factor. Obviously the political campaigning of activists was key to actually making changes, but being gifted a win in the realm of rhetoric doesn't hurt.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Don't disagree with much there & certainly wasn't looking to airbrush out the fine work of Randolph, DuBois et.al. (with which I was familiar), but I don't think it was a coincidence that you have a film like 'gentleman's agreement' winning best picture in 1947. Hitler helped to make racism less respectable. This may have weighed more heavily on anti-semitism than anti-black racism, but I think it was a factor. Obviously the political campaigning of activists was key to actually making changes, but being gifted a win in the realm of rhetoric doesn't hurt.

True enough, but I don't think Nazism had much to do with it. Since your already familiar with the area. Look at the whole sale exclusion of blacks from Levitt Towns. Also once the civil rights movement got into full swing especially starting with the Montgomery Bus Boycott, look at the violence unleashed, look at Little Rock and Central High. The simple fact is that racist, especially southern racists did not see what they were doing as anything close to what Hitler had done. If you could back in time and confront a klansman with the parallels between what he believed and what the Nazi's wanted he would not believe it.

back on the original topic, this is what SM Stirling said regarding this on his listserv:

>In a message dated 11/27/2009 8:05:51 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
stevejbrady@yahoo.co.uk writes:

>Churchill's policy of war regardless of the realities of the situation -
which I suspect was driven by megalomaniac egotism and recklessness not far
different from that of the person against whom it was directed - offered
only two alternatives for Britain and her Empire. Being ruined or being
beaten and ruined. We beat the odds and weren't beaten. Hooray...

-- well, that's perhaps a bit harsh. A deliberate decision to sacrifice
the accumulated position of centuries to deny the Third Reich victory might
be a more dignified way to put it... 8-).

That said, one has to realize that Neville Chamberlain's position was not
based on mere cowardice, still less on sympathy for fascism.

It was based on a quite realistic assessment that Britain didn't have the
resources to fight another World War, and that even victory would bring
bankruptcy and the end of her status as a Great Power -- which is essentially
what happened.

Nor was there any rational assurance that the US would intervene or that
it would do so in time. Churchill was "doing a Micawber", hoping that
something would 'turn up'.

Originally Posted by zraver

True enough, but I don't think Nazism had much to do with it. Since your already familiar with the area. Look at the whole sale exclusion of blacks from Levitt Towns. Also once the civil rights movement got into full swing especially starting with the Montgomery Bus Boycott, look at the violence unleashed, look at Little Rock and Central High. The simple fact is that racist, especially southern racists did not see what they were doing as anything close to what Hitler had done. If you could back in time and confront a klansman with the parallels between what he believed and what the Nazi's wanted he would not believe it.

Again, no argument there. I'm not arguing that racists suddenly had epiphanies & realised that they were wrong all along. I am arguing that the process of eroding the respectability of their arguments about racial superiority was given a boost by the extremism of Nazi racism. I don't think it mere coincidence that a point of view that had been respectable & commonplace in western societies for centuries (or forever, depending on your perspective) had ceased to be respectable within a generation of the end of WW2.

I am arguing that Nazism & the racial arguments used to justify its excesses gave moral force to anti-racist campaigners & took it away from those defending racism. The violent response to Civil Rights was certainly bad, but it pales before the violence used to institute & enforce segregation. I don't have figures on how many blacks were killed as a result of anti-Civil Rights murders, but I'd be curious to know if it was as many as died in Tulsa in 1921. And there was another difference of course, A Federal government intervening in force against the perpetrators to force de-segregation.

The relationship between racism & fascism gave anti-racists a rhetorical weapon that they could never have constructed on their own. Again, I don't see this as undercutting the work they had to do to achieve what they did, I just thnk it helped in the all-important 'war of ideas'.

Originally Posted by astralis

back on the original topic, this is what SM Stirling said regarding this on his listserv:

As "in dies the fire" SM Stirling?

Originally Posted by Bigfella

I don't have figures on how many blacks were killed as a result of anti-Civil Rights murders, but I'd be curious to know if it was as many as died in Tulsa in 1921. And there was another difference of course, A Federal government intervening in force against the perpetrators to force de-segregation.

Tulsa was a race riot and it looks terrible until you put it against the backdrop of the rest of the American experience from the late 1880's to the early 1920's. you'll see multiple race riots and even more riots resulting the conflict between labor and capitol.

If you look at Lynchings you see a steady decline.

I am arguing that the process of eroding the respectability of their arguments about racial superiority was given a boost by the extremism of Nazi racism. I don't think it mere coincidence that a point of view that had been respectable & commonplace in western societies for centuries (or forever, depending on your perspective) had ceased to be respectable within a generation of the end of WW2.

Except that the moral authority was already being eroded before the US knew the truth about the Nazis. Comments from whites finally picking sides once the Nazi barbarism was known don't reference it, but instead point out how it makes the US look bad compared to communism. I think the emergence of black's into white culture is also important. Black entertainers and athletes enter the stage/arena after WWII and their skill brings with it hero worship. For example Jackie Robinson entered the national stage in 1947.

Revulsion to Hitler and what he embodied could have had something to do with it, but I'd like to see some evidence.

So, a further question for Z: Your argument is that Chamberlain made a flawed judgement call that was based on careful evaluation of the situation and rationally calculated, not that it was a right decision, correct?

One problem I see with any counter-factual in which diplomatic policy forestalled the Second World War is that National Socialists are not ideologically predisposed to the balance of power theory of Europe wherein Germany only need to be strong enough to be secure. If you look at the propaganda Hitler fed his people consistently in the years before the war, the own communiques that Nazis wrote for themselves and extreme German nationalist literature between the wars, what they envisioned was a dominating Germany that was capable enough to subjugate Central and Eastern Europe with an utterly crushed the French. Vengeance for Versailles was a major goal for the Nazis, and the very harsh terms Hitler dealt with Vichy France really didn't suggest there was any other policy in Germany except global conquest.

Originally Posted by redco

Actually, war was was inevitable before April 1939, for the simple reason that while Poland might have been willing to ally herself with Germany, she would have never accepted the role Hitler had in mind for her, a vassal state.

Yes, "a" war was inevitable, but of what scope? We have to see it as leaders saw it then, not from the perspective of 2009 where we know all the outcomes. If Poland had become an ally of Germany, it would have had to align its national interests so as not to be in conflict with Germany's. But that would hardly make it a vassal state. In any case, no alliance came about. So, we can only suppose how the relationship might have turned out.

Hitler wanted a war against Poland once he had realised that they wouldn't accept German dominance, it was the war with Britain and France which he didn't want.

To be precise, Hitler didn't want a war with any of them, at least not in 1939. And it wasn't strictly dominance over Poland that he wanted. He wanted access to Danzig and an alliance. The first was a political necessity; the second a military expediency. Hitler's ultimate goal lay beyond Poland. When Poland became allied with Britain and France, foreclosing any possibility of a settlement with Poland on either count, he had "no choice" but to destroy Poland and confront her allies.

Even a politician/commander can count. How much better is it to sail through to your objective and gain 5 divisions along the way than to expend lots of war material and troops battling your way through? Although it turned out to be a cakewalk for Hitler, that was by no means certain before the invasion.

Halifax gets blamed for many things, a lot of which have no base in truth, so unless you have a reputable source for this claim, I would take it with a very large pinch of salt.

March 1939, The British Guarantee to Poland, by Simon Newman, 1976.

I have not read the book. I don't even know whether Newman is a respected historian. I only have it second hand that Newman "believed" that Halifax was the force behind the guarantee. He was the one who hastily called the cabinet meeting where it was discussed and decided upon. He had argued forcefully for it.

Halifax, who believed erroneously that Hitler was about to invade Poland is also quoted as saying later, "there was probably no way in which France and ourselves could prevent Poland and Roumania from being overrun." From this it is possible to construe that Halifax wanted war. Buchanan says the guarantee was foolish because Britain's national interests weren't at play in Poland. I wonder about that. If it's true that Halifax wanted war, wouldn't it be in Britain's interest for the initial phase to be fought in another country? Halifax is also said to have believed that war was necessary to protect Britain's economic status. He was concerned that Germany was rolling up too many countries without a fight, and it had to be stopped to continue the effectiveness of Britain's blockade of Germany.

To me all the facts and theories about WWII are historical post-it notes that can be arranged and rearranged to make many different and opposing arguments. Some facts are rock solid. I know there was a war because I was born in the south of France 5 weeks before Germany invaded Poland, and I can remember the sirens going off when the war ended. I know I grew up in America because of the war. Well into my 20s, I heard my parents' friends, many who were displaced by the war, talking about their war experiences. It's quite different hearing about the war from people who were there in the middle of it than from people who weren't born until much later and got their understanding from books. I have nothing against good scholarship, and there has been some here.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

JAD,

There are a few problems with this type of scenario. It isn't simply a case of 'anything is possible', but what is highly probable.

Only a few?) I'm ok with probable, but the probability of anything changes when events change.

One of those probablilities is that a Poland whose Army has headed off to invade Russia, where it no doubt suffers considerably, is in no position to refuse the inevitable Nazi demands for a considerable chunk of Poland & its likely conversion into a puppet state. It is in between Germany & its 'lebensraum'. It will not be allowed to get in the way. Allying with Germany against Russia offered Poland a similar fate to the one it feared in allying with Russia against Germany.

Why "suffers considerably"? We don't know what would have happened to Poland had it allied with Germany, because it didn't. But we do know that refusing to ally with Germany cost Poland dearly. So, let's replay the tape. Poland becomes an ally of Germany. Now what? Yes, maybe Germany strips off some territory later, but why? But more to the point, Britain and France do not fall on their sword over Poland. No war there. Now Hitler, true to his dream, strikes east and, without having to do war with Britain, etal., defeats
the Soviets in a year or two at most. Meanwhile Britain, France and by now the US are increasing their military strength along with Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey, Greece, the Commonwealth countries... Germany wins and consolidates its gains. Does it then make war on the rest of the world? Not likely, is it?

As for Russia, Germany had big plans, and they involved annexing a decent chunk of the Ukraine & western Russia - most of the good (and heavily populated) bits. This was VERY bad news for the inhabitants. The plan was to enslave the ones who were useful & dispose of the 'surplus eaters' who were left. The chilling language of that phrase should give you a hint as to their fate. The lucky ones might have been deported, but there were also plans to just kill them or let them starve.

That's a nasty twist... have to think it over. Best scenario: Hitler dies, is assassinated, or marginalized... Germany now needs a peacetime leader which Hitler probably can never be.

Meanwhile Britain, France and by now the US are increasing their military strength along with Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey, Greece, the Commonwealth countries... Germany wins and consolidates its gains. Does it then make war on the rest of the world? Not likely, is it?

If I remember the Nazi plans right, they intented a huge navy build up after getting access to eastern land and ressources. Would this not enough to finally convinve the UK to go to war (if Allies are found)? Stopping them before their navy gets too big?