Chamberlain, Versailles and Appeasement (Again)

Besides,all this does is irrelevant in the sense that the Third Reich was reality and that Britain had to face reality (a fact is stronger than a Lord Mayor),no one had any illusion about Hitler,but Adolf was there ,and saying :he is bad,would not make him disappear .

About Munich :

1)There were no negociations between Hitler and Benesj,because Hitler was afraid that Benesj would yield to his demands

2) Britain was afraid that if benesj said no,and Hitler attacked,France would declare war on Germany,which would make it impossible for Britain to remain neutral : Chamberlain was certain of his majority,but no French PM was certain on monday that on wednesday he still would have a majority.

3)The only solution for Britain was to put the spark out of the tinder before there was a crisis,while Hitler wanted to put the spark in the tinder .

 

The only problem with statement number 3 is that Britain only moved the spark to a even larger box of tinder, one they could not hope to douse.

Now your gonna say 'hindsight' aren't you?

But it is not.

Hitler had lighted any number of sparks that could have led to a conflict (Conscription, Occupation of Rhineland, Arms race, Spain, Austria) that Britain and France chose to ignore in the vain hope that each was the last.

 

This is not correct : they knew that after conscription would come the Rhineland,etc ..

There was nothing new,strange unexpected what Hitler did: it was the policy of Weimar,of Stresemann,of Seeckt:the difference wa that these were talking about conscription,etc,but that Hitler was executing these things .

 

If it was no concern of Britain that the Czechs and Poles were under German rule, then why pretend to save face and declare war???. Stalin signed the treaty with Hitler because he also though he would be better of letting Germany and the west fight it out for a few years. After bumbling at Munich its mop surprise that the west also bumbled the negotiations with Stalin over how to fight Hitler. The kicker was sending a negotiation team with no one with the power to actually make a decision and they took a boat. Instead of flying to Arica and then the middle east.

 

Because,and this has been said countless times,it was no concern of Britain that CZ and Poland became German satellites,as long as it happened without war,it there was a war,Britain's attitude would be different .And,such a war would not depend on what Britain could/would do,but on the possibility of an agreement between Germany and the states of Eastern Europe : IOW :if these states accepted Hitler's demands,there would be no war,if not,war was inevitable .

What some people still refuse to understand ,although it is the reality,is that Britain was powerless :the states of Central Europe were not British satellites,neither was Germany : Britain could warn,threaten,but this was all :in 1938,it was bringing pressure on Germany and on CZ to arrive at a compromis,and peace was saved,because Benesj accepted Hitler's demands . In 1939,it was obvious that Poland would not accept Hitler's demands,thus Britain was bringing pressure on Germany to diminish its demands(the guarantee),but Hitler was convinced that Britain was bluffing and war was inevitable .

Britain could not start a war to prevent a war,it only could join a war who had broken out .

Chamberlain was damned : if there was war,he would be blamed because he did not prevent the war;if there was no war,he would be blamed because he did bot stop Hitler . On British side,the blame was with the voters : they wanted Hitler to be stopped,to be put in his place,but : conscription : never,more taxes for defense ut of the question .

Not for the first time,the electors wanted government to do something,but refused to give government the means to do it .

 

It's also been stated many times and with a great more validity that repeating your opinions does not make them facts. Of course it was of conern to Britain how powerful Germany got. The question was how much concern and what they were willing to do about it.

In the short term perhaps but Hitlers intermediate to long term plans clearly included demads in the West as well as the East.

Perhaps they refuse to understand it because it is not a reality and is indeed quite false. What prevented Britain from supporting the Checks and or declaring war on Germany in 1938? while one can debate the wisdom of it certainly it was within the power of the British government to do so.

 

Sigh,sigh,sigh

1)NO ONE could prevent a German invasion of CZ.

If you know that some country could do this and how ,you are welcome .

2)HOW could Britain support CZ ? Could it send troops to Prague ? Could it invade Germany ?Why should a British DOW support CZ ?

3)The only country that theoretically could help CZ was France, not Britain.It seems, no,it is the reality,that you think that Britain was the headmaster of the continent,and that one stern gaze of HMG was sufficient to keep every one calm .

Theoretically,France could help CZ,but,we have seen that a year later,France was unable to help Poland,thus ....

 

1)Strawman : you have first to prove that a German domination of Eastern Europe would,not make Germany stronger: this is irrelevant, but that this would result in a big danger for Britain .The British POV was that a German domination of eastern Europe was no danger for Britain

2)Proof that German long term plans included demands in the West ?

3)has already been answered .

 

No it's not a strawman. Nor do I have to prove it. Indeed it might not have but at the time gaining territory, population, and resources would have at least suggested that it was the case.

??? the above is incoherent.

That is an extremely bold statement and one without any factual support. While some in Britain may have thought that it would be of minimal or acceptable danger that's an entirely different matter.

Mein Kampf. Reclamation of "lost German lands". History.

Not really at least that I have seen. Here's a hint there's a difference between not being able to do something and deciding not to do it. The British could have supported the Checks and or declared war on Germany. For various reasons they chose not to. That does not mean that they couldn't have.

 

I like to see the proof that Britain could have supported CZ :could Britain send forces to Prague? Could the RN sail via the Speer to Berlin ? Could the RAF destroy Berlin ?

 

1)Following the French,France was saved because of the Maginot Line.Thus,if France was save,Britain was save .Besides, in november 1937,Halifax went to Germany at the order of Chamberlain and told Hitler that Britain had no objections against a German domination of Eastern Europe,as long as it happend peacefully .

2)In the same MK,Hitler attacked harshly the German Imperial government,because it started a war in the West .

 

Shortly after Versailles, Britain took the decision not to intervene in Eastern Europe;the reasons were:

a)Britain had not the means to do it

b)the British public opinion was opposed to an intervention

c)the region was not essential for Britain .

A few years later (between Versailles and Locarno) Britain took the decision that it would,unwillingly,intervene on the continent,if some one started an unprovoked war .

These 2 decisions determined Britain's policy till 1 september 1939,but,they also limited Britain's freedom of action .Eastern Europe was a minefield :all countries were on bad terms with their neighbours .
Exemple : war is starting between Poland and CZ about Teschen,Germany supports Poland,the SU attacks Poland,Hungary invades CZ but is attacked by Romania,which is attacked bty Bulgary,that is attacked by Greece.At the same time,Italy invades Yugoslavia an Austria ,but Austria also invades CZ .

What should do Britain ? Follow the decision of 1919 and say :not our business (the region is not essential) or execute the Locarno decision : Britain must defend the international order against some one who started a war of aggression ?

Britain did nothing because it could do nothing : it could not eliminate all the mistakes of Versailles : it could not order Poland to not object to the return of Dantzig,neither could it force CZ to let the SD Germans go,neither could it decide in the quarrel between Hungary and Romenia about Transsylvania .

It could only hope that someone else would do it,without creating a war .
And,who was demining the minefield,who was doing what Britain should have done (but for which it had not the means) ?
It was Germany,not the weak Germany of Weimar,but the strong Germany of Hitler .Of course,the danger was that the interventions of Germany would result in a war,and that Britain would be forced,unwillingly,to intervene in a such war .

Versailles had created a minefield;Britain was to weak to demine it,only a strong Germany could try to do it,but even a strong Germany was unable to do it without creating a war ne country was enough :if one country refused to yield to Hitler's demands,war was inevitable .

With hindsight,one can say that WWII was created by Versailles,or by the dissolution of the Hapsburg and Russian empires .
The only thing that's surprising,is that it took 20 years before WWII was arriving .

 

1A) Assumes facts not in evidence. A united front by a Anglo-French-Czech bloc stating that any attempt to enter Czech territory would trigger a alliance response might have forced Hitler back down. Hitler wanted war with Czechoslovakia, not with France or Britain. The Czech's knowing they were not alone, may have been able to stave off a German Invasion factoring in her military and defenses.

1B) Thank goodness a Anglo-French were able to prevent a invasion of Poland, oh wait they couldn't.

2) See 1A.

3) Apparently HMG did see themselves as a European Headmaster, otherwise why did they need to prevent France from mistakenly offering support to Czechoslovakia, or deciding the fate of people southern and eastern Europe? By participating in Munich they went from bystander to full partner with Germany.

 

1 A is a fallacy : if Hitler was not impressioned by the British and French warnings (he was not in 1939) and still invaded CZ,what could do Britain to help CZ ? :the answer is : NOTHING .Britain had no army that could invade Germany and advance to Berlin .Neither had France .Hitler knew it ,and,that's why he was not impressioned in 1938,as he was not impressioned in 1939.
The truth is that CZ and Poland were doomed .No one could prevent Hitler from parading in Prague or Warsaw,the only thing B+F could do was to start a war of revengesomething that would not help the Czechs,neither the Poles .

 

Hitler was not impressed by Anglo-French warnings in 1939 because of their conduct in 1938 at Munich.

What could they do? The same NOTHING they did do in 1939.

The only difference is that Hitler must attack a more difficult target (Czechoslovakia), with a weaker Wehrmacht, later in the year (October 1938 vs. September 1939) AND worry that Poland may declare war upon him while distracted with the Czech's.

Historically they did go to war with Germany for revenge since they could do NOTHING to prevent a Polish defeat. Adding insult to injury, after going to war with Germany for revenge, they loudly claim to be fighting for the Czech liberty they casually discarded in Munich.

It isn't all that difficult to comprehend.

 

If it was no concern that Poland and Czechoslovakia were under German control then why fight at all. If Germany could destroy London in 1938 why not 1939. What you ignore is that fact that it made a difference to France in 1940 that Poland and the Czechs were no longer available as allies. It made a difference that Germany was able to complete enough ships in 1939 to invade Norway. It made a difference that Germany had bases in France and the planes to be able to bomb Britain as well as bases for subs.

 

Germany could have been stopped before 1938 as it's rearmament was far from complete, after that, and with Austrian and Czech weapon stocks and troops the German army was slightly superior to what France and Britain could put in the field but inferior if fighting a two front war and on a rough parity if Belgian and Dutch forces are taken into account (not taking them into account puts the Maginot in play so on paper rules out a successful offensive, reality in 1940 proved different but there the Germans did almost everything right and the Allies almost everything wrong, you cannot make plans with that sort of assumption). Without the Me 109 the Luftwaffe is outclassed, and the Me 109 started coming off the production line in numbers in late 1938, the Kriegsmarine in 1938 is no threat to anybody (no Hipper class, the twins are still working up and just a handful of ocean capable U-Boats).

 

Regarding Danzig and the Corridor,Masaryk told Stresemann the following in 1927:

"Anyone who looks at the map of Europe must realize that things cannot remain as they are...........Poland also knows quite well that it must give way ."

Source: The München Crisis 1938 note 13 P 75.



Implicitly, Masaryk admitted that CZ also had to give way .

 

And,why should any one have stopped Germany ?

 

????
A rather classic strawman. Britain could have supported the Checks in a number of ways. Diplomatic warnings would probably have been the easiest but a wealth of others were available.

??? Of course that's not what happened is it? The Germans weren't the only ones by the way that noticed that the Maginot Line could be flanked.

The first three sources I looked up on this had a significantly different interpretation. Your tendency to only see the extremes really damages your ability to understand things and this represents a very good illustration of that. It s hould also be noted that just how comfortable Britain was with German activities in general and on the part of Chamberlain and Halifax did change over time.

Which on it's surface is rather irrelevant. Did he also for instance attack the Imperial government of a few decades earlier for its war on France? Clearly it wasn't an attack related to a generic war in the West but one due to the circumstances of the time which makes it rather less relevant to his future plans doesn't it?

Statements like this continue to amaze me. The lack of understanding on so many levels is almost beyond belief. Or perhaps the almost is being to generous.