Chamberlain, Versailles and Appeasement (Again)

You said that one should have listen to the advice of FDR,because he was the ruler of a wealthy country :as this weathy country was unwilling/unable to intervene in European affairs, why should B +F listen to the POV of FDR?

Britain and France were on their own:they could not expect help from the US,neither from the SU,who both preferred to remain on the sideline .a defendable position,but a position which forfeited them the right to judge and condemn those who were faced by the problems and who had to solve them .

The Kremlin and the White House were protected by General Distance,they could choose not to be involved and ignore the problems and give unwelcomed advice.

Britain and France had not this luxury :they had to solve the problems .

In 1919,the US had chosen not to be a member of the League and to follow again the path of isolationism.Thus,how should one qualify the messages full of moral indignation originating from the White House ?

 

Cherry picking on your part. The fact that he was the leader (not ruler) of a wealthy country is certainly a consideration but it wasn't the only one nor did I imply it was. Furthermore the US in general and FDR in particular were not "unwilling/unable" to intervene indeed it was pretty clear to most that the US would eventually be in the war. However even if they weren't that doesn't mean that FDRs advice wasn't worth listening to.

On the contrary Both Britain and France were recieving help from the US. It may have been more limited than they hoped fore but help it was. Furthermore their was the potential of even more help which was pretty clear at the time, especially to the leaders in question.

The USSR was hardly a huge distance from Germany as latter events demonstrated quite accurately. While they did indeed limit their involvement they were hardly uninvolved (although the Soviet involvment was rather pro than anti German in 39). That does not mean by the way that they were ignoreing the problems indeed the evidence is quite to the contrary. As for advice one can give that in any case. The question is how good is it whether or not it's welcomed is irrelevant for the most part.

I don't really see that there is any correlation between your statement and your conclusion. Not that that is unusual.

Your posts do remind me of a quote form Shakespear though.

 

What in the world are you talking about?

The British and the French were not on their own, the had the Soviets...However the British and French decided against using them. The Soviets were in this up to their necks as a result of the Czechloslovak-Soviet Treaty of 1935 and the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance of 1935. In Article II of the Czech Treaty, the Soviets agreed to come to the armed defense of Czechoslovakia, with the given stipulation that the French would do the same. Indeed, it does seem that the Soviet Union was intentionally left out of Munich, because their inclusion may have led the Czechs to chose to resist the Germans, also their was an undercurrent of Western fear that the Czech nation was already in the Soviet "hip pocket", and it was to serve as a springboard for a Soviet leap into Europe.

Worth a read: Stalin's Diplomatic Maneuvers During the 1938 Czechoslovak Crisis https://www.bu.edu/iscip/pubseries/pubseries2lukes.pdf

 

You are forgetting that the SU had NO common frontier with CZ and that for obvious reasons,Poland and Romania were not willing to let the Soviets in .
Besides,why should Stalin intervene in a capitalist civil war ? If Poland was not willing to fight for CZ,why should Stalin do it ?

Hitler wanted to change the borders in Eastern Europe,and Stalin would not fight to prevent this .Stalin did not care about the SD,or about Prague .The Treaty of 1935 was only window-dressing.

The SU was left out of Munich,because the change of the borders of CZ was not the business of the SU .

 

The CZ-Soviet Treaty was mentioning the usual meaningless "aid and assistance",Benesj,living ,as diplomats are doing,in a Wolkenkukukshheim,was gathering such things.But,there was no military treaty,nothing about the number of divisions/aircraft the SU would send,and,most important,Poland nor Romania were consulted,and,without the consent of these countries,not one soldier,not one aircraft would land in CZ.

 

1)Who is cherry picking ? In the long run (=eventually),we are all dead . B +F were faced by problems that demanded an immediate solution,not an eventual one

2)If one is following the path of isolationism,one has lost the right to patronize other countries .

If one is saying in a press conference of 9 september 1938 that the impression abroad "that the US is allied morally with the democracies in Europe in a sort "stop Hitler" movement," is an interpretation that is 100% wrong,one has lost the right to say that Chamberlain was not to be trusted under any circumstances .

 

I am not forgetting it, as neither France nor Britain nor the United States had common borders with CZ or Poland.

The change of borders of the CZ was neither the business of Britain or France, and it was the "business" of Czechoslovakia, but they were not invited either. Therefore, your "hypothesis" in this regards falls flat on it's face.

You really know nothing about nothing don't you?

Let me clue you in...

Both the Czechs and the Soviet Union were members of the League of Nations, as such this Treaty had to abide by the League's rules...which it did.

There will be no mentioning of the number of divisions/aircraft the SU would send...Because as per Article 1 of the Czech-Soviet Treaty, they are to observe the Provisions of Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which states:

Further Article 3 of the Czech-Soviet Treaty spells out that the two will apply Article 16 of the covenant which states

Finally, given that both Poland and Romania are Members of the League of Nations, they really do not have much choice, but to abide by the League or face expulsion.

 

You obviously. And thanks for following up with a sentance that illustrates that.

Really? I'm not sure anyone was patronizeing anyone else but I don't see how one can loose the right to do so in any case.

You do realize that is incoherent don't you? Who by the way said that

Other than you that is. Or was that just another straw man of yours?

 

Don't give me this BS of the Covenant of the League :the Covenant of the League was window-dressing,something no one had the intention to abide by.
Poland and Romania were independent states,and the League had no authority on states.The League was dependent on the WILLINGNESS of the members to abide its Covenant .

Already Germany,Japan and Italy had left the League;the League could not afford that other countries would leave .

The League was something as the UNO and treated as the UNO=as something for under the bus .The League had lost all remaining prestige when the SU became a member .

During the prewar crises,the League was conspiciously absent .

 

That will shut him up .

 

Odd how everything you don't agree with is "window dressing" this and "window dressing" that? Seems to me that those not abiding by the League were the fascist states, who were going to do what they please anyway.

The League was nothing to the UNO, as the UNO has something that the League didn't, a Security Council to back it up. I doubt the South Koreans see the UNO as something for "under the bus".

 

Still haven't learned how to use the quote function I see.

Care to produce the actual quote? Given your track record the odds of you getting something wrong or misinterpreting something are astronomical.
http://books.google.com/books?id=OEebi0J0pUQC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=%22roosevelt%22+%22chamberlain%22+%22trust%22&source=bl&ots=Hp9gIXnBrp&sig=Jk2kpHBpaf2FgOzJqGsvntFPM6A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Lk9RVPCOFIWegwTm84GAAg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=trust&f=false
Page 252 does indicate a lack of trust between the two administrations.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1VDYI6IzbSgC&pg=PA395&lpg=PA395&dq=%22roosevelt%22+%22chamberlain%22+%22trust%22&source=bl&ots=0dfYPEJxG3&sig=vYidMLptL8FNUunEk4ybPduJ4jU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Tk9RVOf1EoiggwSrr4HoAQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22roosevelt%22%20%22chamberlain%22%20%22trust%22&f=false
Page 395 also states that FDR didn't have much trust in Chaimberlain.
But I can't find anything quite as extreme as your quote and I would expect something like that to be on the web.

Keep trying eventually you'll get something right even if it is just by accident.

 

That's a nice one : Do you say that the UNO was coming to the rescue of South Korea? It were the US,later joined by its allies .And,even if the Security Council was not doing blahblah,US would come to the rescue of SK .

Before the war,in a lot of European capitals,a lot of people were cursing Wilson and his toy(the League),which was only making things difficult .The US were a non European power,they arrived in 1917 and were leaving Europe as soon as possible after 11 november 1918.Wilson had saddled Europe with the League,his country refused to be a member,and Wilson ended as a blowed balloon that was pricked,not at a great disappointment in Europe .There was a lot of Schadenfreude in some European capitals .

But,alas,20 years later,an other Wilson arrived,as the first one full of pompous blahblah(not that the Europeans were blaming him for this:it was a part of the job),but also moralising,lecturing,saying:you should do this,and you:that.But asked:and you ? The answer was :my job is to patronise and moralise,not to do anything .
One should not be surprised that a lot of people in Europe were not happy in november 1936.

 

Actually, the September 9 quote is genuine
pg 200 cite 51: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51112786/Roosevelt-and-Neville-Chamberlain-Two-Appeasers

However, a few months later, in December, FDR is calling France "America's first line of defense."
http://books.google.com/books?id=7BOe6NR-9BsC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=France,+%22America%27s+first+line+of+defense%22&source=bl&ots=s5lMWWRByc&sig=LZE5nS3VZuhwgJD96GVm2hvE3pk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A1RRVP_MG9WOsQSl8IIo&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=France%2C%20%22America%27s%20first%20line%20of%20defense%22&f=false

I'd have to say that the Sept. 9th quote was meant for "public consumption", while privately his words and actions were completely different.

 

Seems to me that there was also a country that refused to be a member of the League.

 

Should one not label some one who was saying white in public and black privately as someone with 2 faces and 2 tongues ?

 

He is a politician/diplomat after all, it is part of the job's requirements.

 

Refusal to join is one thing - and the Republican controlled Senate had several issues - the first being partisan politics. Joining and later saying "I can't have my way, so I quit!" is another.

 

Both admirers and non-admirers of FDR agreeed on one point = that one should not expect any tangible assistance from the US,but only words.

An admirer (Conrad Black) ::Flight of the Eagle P 364:

"The British and the French rightly pointed out that all Roosevelt could supply was exhortations to a strong and hazardous policy by them,not tangible assistance ............."
"As always,geography which put America far from any possible rival,was as friendly to it as it was unfriendly to the comparatively gentle countries that were proximate to Germany and Russia."

A non-admirer(Chamberlain) :FDR and the Spanish Civil War P31 Note 26

"December 1937;It is always best and safest to count on nothinh from the Americans but words."