Thread: Chamberlain a new look.

CR,

I don't disagree that there was a 'realist' case for intervening in Europe, but there was also an 'idealist' case. There are frequently both. The point I was making in relation to Mihais' argument was that he is using an definition of 'national interest' that is either too narrow to be accurate or too broad to be meaningful. An event such as WW2 is simply too large & complex to be so simply categorized.

Originally Posted by redco

Hitler did want to avoid war with Britain and France at that time, he just wanted his small war against Poland to ensure his dominance of Central and Eastern Europe. There is however, little doubt that after the Polish problem had been dealt with, he would wish to discuss the Alsace-Lorraine question with the French.

Afraid so.
In Richard Overy's book, '1939 Countdown To War', he shows how Hitler at a conference in May 1939 called for his military leaders to prepare for war against Poland, and where he told them that it was not Danzig that was at stake, " For us it is a matter of expanding our living space (Lebensraum) in the East and making food supplies secure".
Once Hitler had realised in early 1939 that Poland had little wish to negotiate over Danzig, and even worse had no intention of becoming part of the German camp, he had decided that only the destruction of Poland as a nation would suffice

Yes and no. Why worry about the Alsace? It's not going anywhere. The evidence seems to point to Hitler wanting to hopscotch over (that is, through) Poland and take down the Soviets. And war with Poland was by no means inevitable before April 1939. Early on he regarded Poland as a natural ally given that both shared a hatred for the Soviets. The Polish dictator, Pidsudski seemed to accept that idea albeit reluctantly. (His hope for a preventive war to snuff out the Nazis in their early days of power had gotten no support from France.) Afterall, he signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in the early 1930s..

When Josef Beck took over as foreign minister, Hitler expected the same of him. But Beck thought Poland was strong enough militarily to stand up to Germany and spurned Hitler's advances. No one knows if he would have given in eventually had Britain not promised to fight to protect Poland's independence. Thus, Britain presented Hitler with the inconvenience of a war with Poland he didn't want in order to wage the war with the Soviets he did want.

Actually, it probable that the Polish government would have chosen to fight. In March 1939 when Hitler issued his first threats to Poland over Danzig, and the British and French had not yet given the Polish government any guarantees over their borders, the Poles told Germany that they would be prepared to go to war over this issue.

What are the probabilities? The Germany of 1939 was not the weak Germany of 1932.

I believe your timing may be off. Here's the timeline I found. On March 24, Hitler told his staff that he did NOT want war with Poland. Around that time a supposedly credible source told Chamberlain or an aide that he had it on good authority that a German attack on Poland was imminent. He was wrong.

Nevertheless, Chamberlain sped up the announcement of Britain's decision to
guarantee Poland's independence. It had already been in the works for strategic reasons. The announcement came on March 31.

When Hitler heard the news, he went loco. On April 3 he ordered preparations for an invasion with a tentative launch date of Sept 1. Hitler was evidently sane enough to know that with Britain's war guarantee in hand, Beck would have all the more reason to refuse Germany's entreaties on the Danzig question.

Wanting to get on with main show, Hitler thought he had no choice but to sweep Poland aside. This was a rolling the dice big time. He would also be taking on the burden he wanted to avoid, a war with Britain and its allies, and condemning Germany to a two-front war, which was what Chamberlain hoped his war guarantee would dissuade Hitler from doing. Instead of staying cool and renewing his diplomatic efforts to reach a deal with Poland, Hitler gave way to his anger.

Hitler's irrationality in this and other crucial milestones still to come was at the time not fully appreciated by the allies. So, it's not entirely fair to fault Britain and the allies for their actions at the time. The war guarantee did not lack for strategic reasoning. Britain wanted Poland's 5-6 divisions on its side. It wanted the prospect of a two-front war to discourage Germany. I've even read that Halifax--this may be overly cynical--wanted to put Poland in a position to bear the brunt the war if it was to come and hoped Germany would be too spent by the time it was over it to turn its guns on Western Europe.

Trouble was, Poland was military the strongest Eastern European nation outside of the Soviet Union, if Germany managed to force it into the German camp, Germany would become the clear dominant power in Europe and a far greater threat to Britain and France

Yes, but wouldn't that power have been deployed eastward giving the Western European countries time to increase their military strength? The common assumption is that Germany being a dominant power in Europe is worse than chewing glass. It had been dominant for many years until WWI ended. Dominant doesn't necessarily mean absolute control.

How about this scenario: Poland throws its hand in with Germany canceling out the Germany's need for a pact with the Soviets. Together they invade the USSR. Stalin issues appeals for help, to which Britain and France, out of relief that they are not the target of German bombs and because they have no love for Stalin or communism, turn a deaf ear. German forces make quick work of it, annexing the Ukraine the Caucasus for itself, throwing tidbits to Poland, Italy... The USSR is broken up and reduced to mother Russia, where Hitler installs a toothless government. What's left is divided into semi-autonomous states tied together in an economic bloc with Germany calling the shots.

Thus, Germany is now a 500-pound gorilla on the world stage, but it cannot rule the whole world. It must coexist with what it does not control. That means diplomatic relations, trading agreements, cultural exchanges. Could the one thing that would spoil it all, the extermination of Jews and non-Aryans, have been possible in that context? Of course, with Hitler and his deranged cohorts anything is possible. So, maybe all scenarios of this sort fizzle when the question of Jewish extermination arises. If a coup is thrown into the mix, well, then...who knows.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

How about this scenario: Poland throws its hand in with Germany canceling out the Germany's need for a pact with the Soviets. Together they invade the USSR. Stalin issues appeals for help, to which Britain and France, out of relief that they are not the target of German bombs and because they have no love for Stalin or communism, turn a deaf ear. German forces make quick work of it, annexing the Ukraine the Caucasus for itself, throwing tidbits to Poland, Italy... The USSR is broken up and reduced to mother Russia, where Hitler installs a toothless government. What's left is divided into semi-autonomous states tied together in an economic bloc with Germany calling the shots.

Thus, Germany is now a 500-pound gorilla on the world stage, but it cannot rule the whole world. It must coexist with what it does not control. That means diplomatic relations, trading agreements, cultural exchanges. Could the one thing that would spoil it all, the extermination of Jews and non-Aryans, have been possible in that context? Of course, with Hitler and his deranged cohorts anything is possible. So, maybe all scenarios of this sort fizzle when the question of Jewish extermination arises. If a coup is thrown into the mix, well, then...who knows.

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.

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.

This means that Germany effectively owns or dominates everything from the urals to Turkey to the Italian border & the maginot line. France & Britain still have the power to negotiate as near equals, Mussolini will do whatever suits him best (probably attempt to divide the Balkans with Hitler), everyone else in Europe will do as they are told. I won't speculate too much further, but suffice to say that there were no shortage of nations & anti-colonial movements who would cheefully have embraced the whole Fascist thing - especially once Hitler builds that navy he was so keen on..

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.

Then, as you mention, there is the small issue of those other 'subhumans' (apart from slavs) who would now be under Nazi control. Do we have any reason to believe that this would not have simply been an earlier version of 1941? Unless you believe that the Nazis were genuine about sending Europe's Jews to Madagascar then I suspect they are for the chop. Without physical occupation of some countries (such as Hungary) the Jews there might have been OK, but for genuine puppet regimes the experience of Slovakia is instructive - most of its Jews ended up dead in the camps.

Germany may eventually 'normalize' (like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China perhaps?), but only after a pile of bodies at least as big as we actually got, after which we are still left with Germany dominating Europe. I'm not seeing much upside.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

How about this scenario: Poland throws its hand in with Germany canceling out the Germany's need for a pact with the Soviets.

That's one thing Hitler was accused of not doing his best to make it happen during talks with Marshall Antonescu.His predictible response was that it was the British giving false hopes to the Poles as well as Polish leadership's hostility towards Germany.

Bigfella reply
Since you gave what I consider good examples ,I'll work on them.Re. the US a rational case for ''Germany first'' can be easily constructed as cape royds said and yourself agreed.But John and Jane on the street don't get strategy;for them killing Japs is primordial and they might not fully support such a move-hence the implementation in the public of the idea of a threat to ''Western civilization''.In this case I'm talking about manipulation(reinforced by the stupid,nasty things the Nazi did)to support an otherwise correct but potentially unpopular strategy.Very successful implementation.
Singapore is the reverse;a wrong decision taken under ''emotional'' impulse,with full popular support.Easy to make justifications a posteriori.Result-one of the worst British and Commonwealth disasters,a long campaign to recover the lost ground,people killed and ultimately an empire lost.
We had a similar situation in 1916(that turned out in our favor by chance) so I really hate that kind of stuff and despise the leaders who go this way.But dare criticise this.

I'm not ignoring that people fighting have all sorts of reasons from the CINC to the lowest grunt or the women working in aircraft factory;that is part of the ''grey'' history and is as ''real'' as it gets.But the small part that I consider to be the one that really matters is the motivations of a very small elite-the ones at the top.Most of the times their reasons have nothing to do wth what the common folk think .If their interests happen to coincide they usually arrive to the same conclusion in different ways.


[/QUOTE]
I think the issue here is not public perception of WW2, but your perception of that perception.[/QUOTE]

If that's the case I'll be truly glad.

Originally Posted by cape_royds

But a discussion of Czech arms, fortifications, etc. is less than moot because the Czechs weren't willing to fight.

Of course the Czech strategic position, fighting alone, would have been hopeless in 1938. But so was the Finns' strategic position in 1939, facing the USSR.

I no longer understand how anyone can call Daladier or Chamberlain a coward, when the Czechs in 1938 allowed the Germans to take away their fortifications and armaments works without a fight. A few months later, they would let the Germans march bloodlessly into their capital.

Sure their country would have promptly fallen apart. The Slovak, German, and Ukrainian minorities would no doubt have deserted the Czechs forthwith. But why didn't at least the Czechs go to war?

But some Czechs did fought-in exile.Those in the country had no longer any means to fight.
And the Western leaders were not only cowards they were traitors of everything they stood for in the inter-war period.
Heck,they did not even allowed the Czechoslovak delegation to enter negociations at Munich;they had to wait outside.

Originally Posted by zraver

Assuming the Czechs somehow avoided breaking under the bombs of the Luftwaffe then maybe. But the nature of the terrain makes counter attacks as difficult as the attack. At least the Germans had the Luftwaffe to bomb strong points and the 88mm to reach across valley floors.

German recon troops might have taken a beating, but its hard to see how the Czech tankers could have gathered enough mass in one spot to matter. There were few tanks and under enemy skies.

The Czechs don't really have to counter-attack.They have to defend in depth in areas not protected by fortifications.Of course that's a bit early to have such a concept(in the Kursk style),but some of their deployment suggest they probably thought of that.Use the fortified line for economy of force and maneuver the central reserves including the armor on the interior lines once the schwerpunkt is identified.They have enough numbers and quality to hurt bad at least one German thrust.They'll be themselves bloodied,but maybe they'll buy enough time for bad weather to arrive.That gives them a rest until spring.A lot can happen in meantime.

Of course,willpower is required for that kind of stuff.

p.s Maneuver can be done during night.The distances are small enough.

[QUOTE=Mihais;696417]

Since you gave what I consider good examples ,I'll work on them.Re. the US a rational case for ''Germany first'' can be easily constructed as cape royds said and yourself agreed.But John and Jane on the street don't get strategy;for them killing Japs is primordial and they might not fully support such a move-hence the implementation in the public of the idea of a threat to ''Western civilization''.

Yes, wars do have to be 'sold', but in this case the people arguing the 'threat to Western Civilization' were doing so before America was at war. They were also doing so both in public and private. Some of them may have been cynically constructing a narrative to justify war, but to write them all off in this manner is very unfair.

In this case I'm talking about manipulation(reinforced by the stupid,nasty things the Nazi did)to support an otherwise correct but potentially unpopular strategy.Very successful implementation.

Yes, but look at the things that were being talked about. It wasn't the holocaust or the war of annihalation in Russia, it was the invasion & occupation of most of Europe, the bombing of Britain & the torpedoing of ships in the Atlantic. There was no 'manipulation' required to get the average American to see the evil in this. Japanese atrocities were at least as widely publicized, and some of these were happening to Americans themselves.

Singapore is the reverse;a wrong decision taken under ''emotional'' impulse,with full popular support.Easy to make justifications a posteriori.Result-one of the worst British and Commonwealth disasters,a long campaign to recover the lost ground,people killed and ultimately an empire lost.
We had a similar situation in 1916(that turned out in our favor by chance) so I really hate that kind of stuff and despise the leaders who go this way.But dare criticise this.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at here or how it relates to what I wrote.

I'm not ignoring that people fighting have all sorts of reasons from the CINC to the lowest grunt or the women working in aircraft factory;that is part of the ''grey'' history and is as ''real'' as it gets.But the small part that I consider to be the one that really matters is the motivations of a very small elite-the ones at the top.Most of the times their reasons have nothing to do wth what the common folk think .If their interests happen to coincide they usually arrive to the same conclusion in different ways.

I'm afraid this view just doesn't fit the facts of the interwar period for Britain & France at least. Re-armament, especially during the depression, was not popular. This is one of the reasons why Britain & France were unprepared in 1938 to confront Hitler. In fact, at Munich the leaders of Britain & France took the popular course. Britons had been terrified by lurid tales of the impending destruction of London by the Luftwaffe. Frenchmen remembered the trenches only too well. Remember the cheering crowds when Chamberlain landed back in Britain? They were real, as were the ones that greeted Daladier. They weren't acting in spite of people's opinions, they were acting because of them.

Ever wonder why Britain & France didn't make the obvious move & form an alliance with Stalin before Hitler did? Not only would it have made sense, it would most likely have stopped Hitler in his tracks. One of the reasons was that it would have been very unpopular. Details of Stalin's crimes had been reported in the West & there was a wariness to become associated with his regime. When Russia invaded Finland it was public opinion that pushed british & French leaders to prepare an attack on Russia. Despite the numerous realpolitik reasons not to do so, Britain & France actually assembled a taskforce, but diverted it to Norway when Hitler invaded there. French PM Daladier actually resigned over the failure to support Finland.

These 'elites' didn't have to manipulate anyone into supporting war when Hitler invaded Poland - people in both nations had seen that he was a man who did not keep his word & was bent on continuing expansion of Germany. They may not have wanted war but they accepted that it was necessary to stop a dangerous dictator in charge of a powerful nation (obviously some people still opposed war, but a minority now).

'Elites' can & do manipulate public opinion, but not nearly as often or to the extent that some people imagine. People are smarter than you might give them credit for. I think you are viewing Western democracies through your experiences in Romania.

I would also be careful about slipping into easy moral equivalence. Nations & their leaders can & do act in the 'national interest', but there are moral differences. There is a moral difference between a free society declaring war to stop a dictator extending his power & a dictator declaring war in order to extend that power. Making an alliance with one dictator in order to stop another is not the moral equivalent of making an alliance with a dictator in order to carve up one or more countries. Not everything the Western Allies did before & during WW2 was good or moral, but for the most part they were the moral superiors of their opponents. This was true before the first einzatzgruppen unit began massacring Jews or the first death camp began its work.

Yes, but look at the things that were being talked about. It wasn't the holocaust or the war of annihalation in Russia, it was the invasion & occupation of most of Europe, the bombing of Britain & the torpedoing of ships in the Atlantic. There was no 'manipulation' required to get the average American to see the evil in this. Japanese atrocities were at least as widely publicized, and some of these were happening to Americans themselves.

I had rather the feeling that in the US (I guess also in Australia and New Zealand) Japan was seen as "worse" as Nazi Germany. The Nazis were evil, but the Japanese were evil and animals in the propaganda. (There was once a great blog that collected all the propaganda movies from all sides form the war, sadly it is long gone)

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

I had rather the feeling that in the US (I guess also in Australia and New Zealand) Japan was seen as "worse" as Nazi Germany. The Nazis were evil, but the Japanese were evil and animals in the propaganda. (There was once a great blog that collected all the propaganda movies from all sides form the war, sadly it is long gone)

As far as the Western Allies were concerned the Japanese behaved worse toward them than the Germans did. With a few exceptions German soldiers played by the 'rules' when it came to Western soldiers. They rarely tortured or killed Western prisoners & they generally treated POWs according to the rules. The allowed Russians to die in their millions, but that was little known & not of much concern to us.

The japanese did not play by the 'rules'. They fought fanatically. They pretended to surrender & then attacked their would be captors. They often killed surrendering prisoners & tortured those who they did take. They raped & murdered female prisoners. They treated POWs & civilian internees abominably. All of this was known during the war & widely publicized.

The worst crimes of both the Germans & Japanese were largely unreported (in detail at least) in the West during the war because thay happened to people & in places that were either hard to report on or difficult to relate to. Thus, the 'barbarism of the Hun' tended to focus on things like the Blitz & the bombing of Rotterdam at first. The crimes of the 'Japs' against westerners, on the other hand, were more personal, more horrific, more immediately visible & more 'outside' acceptable standards.

Hope that is an answer.

Thanks that pretty much fits with the picture I had.