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. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    You're very skimpy on dates and details. When exactly did these Shermans get to Egypt? I can tell you, it wasn't in 1938...

    How much did Roosevelt support in 1938? Because that is the time you are asking the British to step up and invade Germany? How eager would the great armoury of democracy be to support that idea, I wonder.

    You still haven't indicated which individuals stated on what dates that they "weren't ready", and exactly what it was they weren't ready for (context is everything).
     
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Since I haven't seen anyone make that claim I'm confused as well or is it just a straw man? I think it's pretty clear that they weren't "completely REady for war" at that point in time. They were argueabmly in better shape then than they were earlier though and if they could have avoided war for another couple of years they would have been in even better shape, especially compared to Germany.
     
  3. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,300
    Likes Received:
    859
    Interesting graph indeed! Cash purchases roughly steady from June 1940 on, and Lend-Lease providing an increase - quite different from the usual narrative of LL kicking in when the British could no longer purchase what they needed.
     
  4. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,300
    Likes Received:
    859
    I don't think any of the major powers were completely ready for war when it came to them - the total of 311 PzIIIs and IVs in existence as of 9/1/39 comes to mind - it was more a question of who was more ready or less ready. It also illustrates the phenomenon that people are more aware of their own problems than the other fellow's.

    The 300 Shermans were transferred as noted, but that was in 1942 when the US was in the war, after the fall of Tobruk in June but in time to fight at El Alamein in October. Not the best example for the era of appeasement.
     
  5. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    I am in good company : Ronald Lindsay (British ambassador in the US) to Halifax :Roosevelt said : you may count on us for everything,except ...troops and loans .

    Source : Roosevelt :a rendezvous with destiny :note28.

    Thus,Roosevelt said : you may count on us for nothing .
     
  6. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    As usual replacing facts by chauvinism .
     
  7. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Actually, you are probably in no company as this quote is usually attributed to being said to a French visitor:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=-Q1tAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Roosevelt+said+:+you+may+count+on+us+for+everything,except+...troops+and+loans&source=bl&ots=pZCiw2oyt5&sig=-zbiW2DaCmdyUjRXe0vE6a_cZAg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jgJQVL68EbWPsQS_poAw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Roosevelt%20said%20%3A%20you%20may%20count%20on%20us%20for%20everything%2Cexcept%20...troops%20and%20loans&f=false
    http://books.google.com/books?id=xTKvo-cXv3EC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=Roosevelt+said+:+you+may+count+on+us+for+everything,except+...troops+and+loans&source=bl&ots=HOi6AUPPzD&sig=EuHekzKEoSiFmMq8ShlXSz_J4sY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jgJQVL68EbWPsQS_poAw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Roosevelt%20said%20%3A%20you%20may%20count%20on%20us%20for%20everything%2Cexcept%20...troops%20and%20loans&f=false

    Still a copy of Lindsay's letter to Halifax is online: http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box32/a304a04.html
    I have been unable to find such a quote here. However, FDR is noncommittal about offering Britain direct military or monetary support, and mentions that he doubts that the US would send troops even if war is declared, although FDR does mention that if England is invaded by Germany, he could probably ride the American wave of emotion to sending an American Army overseas.
     
  8. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Again, it was up to congress to fund such things and thus not in Roosevelts control. You obviously have no understanding of our government. Your bitterness over US help is laughable considering you said the same things to the Czechs and Poles. Explain why is it that there was no aid available to the Czechs and Poles when Germany was right next door to France, but sending aid to Finland was possible. Some even thought of the bright idea of bombing Baku.
     
  9. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    While that statement is "technically" true, Roosevelt did have and did exercise control over certain funding issues, didn't he...

    FDR essentially "championed" the Neutrality Act of November 4, 1939(Cash and Carry) as he also did for the Lend Lease Act. It is also worth mentioning that the votes for both essentially fell along party lines. So, Roosevelt did have "some "control" when it came to funding.

    If Roosevelt did not want either of these bills passed, would Congress have passed them?

    Edit: I would also add that FDR was probably one of the best men to know what measures would pass through Congress and what would not.
     
  10. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    YEs Roosevelt had some things he could do, but committing the US to aid Britain was not one of them
     
  11. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Well, he could commit the US to aid Britain if he knew he could get the votes in the House and Senate to pass any act/resolution. In '38 and early '39, FDR knew he could not get those votes, and that is what he basically told Lindsay.
     
  12. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    I think it was a matter of continuing to meet payments for stuff they had already ordered under cash and carry.
     
  13. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    You're not very clear who you are responding to, when you fail to quote.

    You're also attaching emotions to people's posts, that I'm not seeing here. Bitterness? Who's bitter?

    It's blatantly obvious why sending aid to Finland was possible: they actually made a go of it against the Soviet Union, and fought them for nearly 4 months. Poland had no chance once the Soviets stabbed her in the back, already on the 17th September, so the whole German campaign took around 5 weeks. Remind me, how long does it take the US to assemble a combat ready force for a campaign? That's right, the world's greatest military power, with all the modern means of transportation, and vast fleets of transport aircraft and a Navy the like of which no power on Earth has ever had, takes months to assemble the troops. It's been explained already, that the French army was defensive in mindset.

    Nevertheless, they did mobilize preemptively on the 26th August, and fully mobilized on the 1st September. French mobilization suffered from an inherently out of date system, which greatly affected their ability to swiftly deploy their forces on the field. It took time to transport and deploy the artillery. The defensive mindset, and slow mobilization, meant it could not assault unprepared as it was, the Siegfried line.

    Had Poland resisted for months, it too, would've received aide. But on that day in Abbeville (12th September), German forces were moving North of the San River, fighting around Lwów, and Kutno. Two days later, they were fighting in Brześć Litewski (Brest). Nothing the French could do in 2 or 3 weeks, would be moving at that speed. They did not have the doctrine, training, or mindset for it.

    [​IMG]

    Bombing is an "easy" response, and doesn't require quite the same amount of effort compared to a land campaign.
     
  14. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Despite the promises made, France an Britain made no efforts to be ready for an attack on Germany
     
  15. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    You need to ask yourself some questions.

    When?
    As in "When were the promises made, by whom, with what intent?"

    How?
    As in "How long does it take to prepare, given the reigning military doctrine, and expectations on the kind of war they'd be fighting?"

    What?
    As in "Given the political and economical constraints of the time, what efforts do you think would've been reasonable (disregarding doctrinal constraints for a moment)?"

    Sitting in an armchair today, and passing judgement on people that had to make life-and-death decisions not just for individuals, but whole nations, all while you have the benefit of hindsight, is easy. You don't have to concern yourself with finances, budget, parliament, public opinion, or other such whimsical realities.
     
  16. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Maybe when Chamberlain guaranteed help to Poland after the take over of the Czechs. Churchill, Chamberlain came back with neither peace nor honor, but heck until the bombs fell on London who cared how many people were sacrificed for the illusion of security for Britain
     
  17. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    You've not answered any of the questions posed to you, ever. There is no depth to any of your posts. It's all shallow one-liners, lacking dates, times, quotes, or references. There is no quality of individual thought, and you display no interest or effort to understand intricacies. There is, in all honesty, nothing to debate with you.



     
  18. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Munich was defencable and logical,unless

    1) there were valid grounds to deny the SD Germans the right on self-determination

    2) there was a possibility for the Allied armies to be in Berlin before Hitler would be in Prague


    About Roosevelt :there are watchers and doers;while the watchers have the right to watch,they have not the right to condemn the doers :remember :bachelor's wives and maiden's children are well trained .


    Those in the US who are whining about Munich,should remember Yalta (not that I condemn Yalta):at Yalta,the US took the (bi-partisan )decision to accept the fact that Stalin was the master of Eastern Europe (the responsability laid with Hitler).They also should remember the China visit of Nixon,which resulted in the recognition of the fact that the government of Peking was the government of China,not the government of Taiwan .

    Curiously enough,no one claimed that this was a new Munich .

    Curiously enough,Stimson and Forrestal did not label Yalta as a new Munich .

    Maybe,for some persons there are 2 types of Munich: the good one,which is done by the US,and the bad one,the one of 1938 .

    At Munich,B +F accepted the facts that the SD Germans had the right on self-determination and that they could not help CZ.

    At Yalta;B +US accepted the facts that Stalin was the ruler of Eastern Europe and that unless they started a war against the SU,there was nothing they could do about it .

    This was also the POV of the Republicans when they got power in 1953.even Foster Dulles accepted the proverb that a fact is stronger than a Lord Mayor .
     
  19. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Careful with that interpretation. The title says exports so it could have been that the "cash and carry" exports were from agreements considerably earlier. The dates of when the funds were obligated would be more defintive in this regard.
     
  20. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Not really. Just pointing out that in most cases your facts aren't really facts and even when or if they were they wouldn't support your conclusions.
     

Share This Page