Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Chamberlain, Versailles and Appeasement (Again)

Discussion in 'Prelude to War & Poland 1939' started by LJAd, Sep 30, 2014.

  1. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    This quote is from some one who was speaking with a double tong,and had 2 faces, something of which we one can not accuse Chamberlain .

    May I remember you that this man was congratulating Chamberlain for Munich .
     
  2. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ive never seen congratulations. For a guy who saved Britain from capitulation, two faced is not a word I would used
     
  3. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Churchill, Chamberlain bragged about how he had peace with honor only to discover he had neither.
     
  4. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,104
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Roosevelt never had to "fear" bombs falling on any major US cities, even if the British Isles were defeated. Further, the equipment sent by Roosevelt under Lend-Lease only started flowing once Britain had turned that critical corner of invasion. before that, Roosevelt was not sending anything that the British did not already pay for...Hence the sobriquet "Cash and Carry."


    Endurance would have helped, but it was not a war winner, the Germans were still fighting mostly over unfriendly territory and any pilot forced to bailout, was, for the most part, lost - either by becoming a POW or drowned in the Channel.

    The German surface vs submarine fleet is often debated, however, the "pro-sub" bandwagon neglects to mention, or even consider, how the British would have reacted. If the Germans were building submarines and not battleships, would the British have built the KGVs or begun the Lions? Or would they have begun producing more and more escort warships sooner than historically. Not to mention investing heavily in other ASW aspects of warfare, such as better ASW detection electronics and ASW weapons.
     
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,104
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Roosevelt

    Boston, Mass. October 30, 1940
     
  6. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    When Germany declared war on the US it was no longer a foreign war.
    I will admit how ever that the British army was about as useful as a blind man at a shooting range, but Germany in 1938 and 1939 was not capable of defeating France. But Chamberlain was ever so compliant in giving Germany the time it needed to build up an effective force, unlike Britain which really did nothing to improve its army. Even though Britain paid for those arms, it was over the protest of Marshal who wanted them for the US army.
     
  7. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237

    Telegram from Roosevelt to Chamberlain :" Good man ."
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,104
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    When Germany declared war on the US, Roosevelt had already won reelection to his third term as President. He campaigned for that third term by wooing the isolationist faction in the United States, and upon reelection quickly began to wage an economic war( a war that almost certainly would move from a "cold" war to a "hot" one given time) with Germany by moving to support Britain.


    There were few who thought Germany capable of defeating France during the "Phoney War" in 1940-41, and we saw how that ended.

    Chamberlain was also giving Britain time to build up an effective force. However, Britain military priorities were not those of Germany. The British, first and foremost relied on her colonies, so the Royal Navy, to maintain the sea lanes to those colonies, got it's fair share of the rearmament pie, as opposed to Germany, which had a small navy that received the smallest share of German rearmament effort. The air forces of both nations received a good bit to build up their fighting strength. The British Army came in a poor third due to her low priority as opposed to the other services, as opposed to the Germany Army which received a good deal of Germany's rearmament effort.


    There was always grumbling by the US Army with regards to Lend-Lease. The salient fact however, is that "Cash and Carry" and "Lend-Lease" provided the needed strengthening of the American industrial base from which America's rapid wartime rearmament would grow. It also ignores the fact that the Lend-Lease Act required that the British coordinate their armaments orders through the War Department, so as to ease any conflicts within. Thus was Marshall's "love/hate" relationship with LL, it was needed, although it did, at times, seem to hinder his efforts at rebuilding the US Army.
     
  9. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    ITs so strange, France kept winning about how they couldn't beat the German army for two years and yet every one seems so shocked German actually did beat the French army. I am still pointing out that lend lease did delay the build up of the American army.
     
  10. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Did it? And if so by a significant amount? What was the critical path? Training, weapons production, logistics, or other factors or some mix?
     
  11. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    About Roosevelt,the man with 2 faces : between october and december 1935, Hoare (British Foreign Secretary) several times asked Washington to collaboarate with the League in the sanctions against Italy .

    The answer was

    1) negative : the US did increase their oil deliveries to Italy (the money of Il Duce was as good as the money of Hirohito):first face

    2)the usual patronising,moralising and lecturing :Britain should do this and that,but do not expect any help from the US :the usual : listen to what I am saying,but don't look on what I am doing :second face .

    Thus, why should anyone follow the advice from FDR ?
     
  12. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Wrong. The US governement in general and FDR in particular did not have control over oil exports (that took an acto of congress in 1941 along with a rather extreme interpretation on the part of a beurocrat. So in this case oil exports have nothing at all to do with the US diplomatic position with respect to Italy.

    Ranting unsupported by any facts or details is simply ranting and proves nothing.

    In the absence of relevant contrary facts or logic why shouldn't they? Given his positon and the relative wealth and power of the US on its face its certainly something some (most?) should consider.
     
  13. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    Sorry lad.

    But I think you mean "whining" and not winning, there's a world of difference.

    You seem very willing to totally ignore historic experiences, which most politicians of the time do not have the luxury. Hindsight is glorious like that.

    The outstanding lesson of pre World War 2, that stuck in the minds of the democracies was the vertible force of industrialised warfare, the long-static battlelines, and the massive casualties when on the offensive. The apparent preeminence of defence, and the years of sacrifice needed to defeat Germany in WW1. This is why, a strong defence (France's wall) together with an economic embargo was believed by many to be the reasonable way forward. Fighting another bloody stalemate for 4 years until a shortage of men and materials makes the German cost of continuing the war an impossibility doesn't really count as "beating" the German army.
     
    lwd likes this.
  14. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    I can't imagine it was a very significant negative effect at all.

    But it'd be interesting to hear, what if any.

    Considering the Cash-Carry boost to sales, and clearing of old stock, it provided a massive opportunity for producers to invest in future production; something mostly of benefit to the US.
     
  15. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Cash and Carry also provided funds to upgrade and or build factories and hire and train more workers. Once you start considering things like that it may actually have had a positive impact on the build up of US miitary strength. As for the army the critical path as far as I can tell to actually bringing it to bear was logistical and that was really dependent on ship building kicking into full gear.
     
  16. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    The position of someone who deliberately remained aloof,who refused to spend money on defense ,who exhorted the others to take risk,giving them useless moral support and was distributing moral indignation at those who did not follow his recommendations. No wonder that some people were saying that Wilsonianism was only an other word for hypocrisy .
     
  17. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    Found this interesting graph, showing the effect of Lend Lease, and the contribution of Cash Carry up to Dec '41.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    From "The Origins of the Second World War" PP 164/165


    1) About Japan and the conference of Brussels :The Americans wanted the moral satisfaction of non-recognition and the material satisfaction of their profitable trade with Japan ......The Americans would express the indignation;the British would provide the opposition .


    2)About Europe :all the US had to offer was moral disapproval(no men,money,weapons:LJADW ) and this was turned less against the Dictators than against the Powers who failed to resist them .
    B +F were condemned for their failure to save Abyssinia;for their timidity over the Spanish civil war;for their general cravenness towards Hitler.
    Yet in none of these cases had the US done anything at all,except to maintain an even-handed neutrality which usually benefited the aggressor .

    3) P 215 : on 8 september 1938 FDR told in his press conference that it was 100 percent incorrect to associate the US with B +F in a front of resistance to Hitler .


    Thus : I am asking again : why should anyone in London/Paris listen to the advices that were coming from the Potomac ?

    Hoare was asking if the US would collaborate with the League in the sanctions against Italy : the answer was : NO .

    Thus : nothing could be expected from the White House,except : words and,words would not deter Mussolini or Hitler .
     
  19. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    If the above were accurate you might have a point. It isn't and you don't.

    I hope you enjoy playing comic relief for those engaged in serious discussions.
     
  20. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Roosevelt wanted to be involved, but he had to listen to public opinion, which was clearly against any involvement. Roosevelt took great political risk in sending what he did, considering that congress prohibited the export of any arms to countries at war. FDR had to finagle the cash for arms, which was approved because he did bring in money and then the idea of lend lease came about when Britain ran out of money to buy arms. An example of the delay of equipping the US army came when Roosevelt sent 300 Shermans to Egypt when they were suppose to equip Patton unit. Im totally confused by your insistence that France and England were completely ready for war in 1940 when they had just spent 2 years telling how they were not ready. It really wasn't a matter of readiness, its just there was no one left to sacrifice after the Soviets turned the tables.
     

Share This Page