Occupation of the Rheinland

....do you realize you just earned the award of the most childish comment of the year?

Year ain't over yet

 

True....Give me time....Now I know theres a competition.

 

With 20/20 hindsight the standing French army had more than enough strength to face up the still reorganizing Germans. 19 infantry batallions is about a couple of "triangular" divisions, the French had a lot more than that in the peacetime army even without bringing back the troops in NA while the Germans had started open rearmament just 3 years before and were far from ready, I wouldn't be surprised if those 19 batallions were a significant percentage of the combat ready troops. IMO the international bashing the French got after their earlier occupation of the Rhineland had a lot to do with their reluctance to act in 1936, it was far from obvious they would get support if it actually got down to fighting.

 

Thanks for bringing this back on topic again.

 

Wasnt off topic. Volga implied the French surrender went some way to defeating the Germans in ww2. IE. Overconfidence. My response although not serious was a response to what I believe was a daft assumption. Volga doesnt mind me stating that. I still do. France surrendering was not in any way a stratagem for the defeat of Germany. That was carried out by Pilots and ground crew in the battle of Britain. By sailors in the Atlantic, By infantry storming French and African beaches. By Free French in the desert and own French Beaches by Russian Blood by American blood, by British, Canadian, French blood, Danish and Dutch, Belgian, et al. Not by surrender. Thats not an insult to France. It happened as it did to most of Europe and Norway too, Greece and more. But the act of surrender did not in any shape or form lead to the Germans being defeated. The second world war was won by all allied nations in battle. What a daft Idea Volga. I'll never disparage the French, my history of posts on here will never find anything but support or standing firm with and behind the French in ww2 Not one post will find me lacking in that area. I wont though agree with a daft assumption. Take that how you will. I'll stick with Churchill and his quote after Dunkirk on British defeat. Illuminating. And true.

 

"We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. War's are not won by evacuations

Winston Churchill

And Neither are they won by an act of surrender

Urqh

 

I didn't say you were off topic Urgh , nor that you insulted France and post 24 was adressed to members in general. This thread is about Rhineland however so the Battle of France comments are de facto off topic, especially when they reflect clichés , even second hand or referring to other members. The fact that I usually agree with your comments does not mean it has to be systematic. Differences make us complentary.

 

Too many big words old chap. But I'll agree. End of. And apologies to any one I may have offended...Except you Volga. No you too....

 

My complete and utter lack of credibilty remains intact! (music! storms of applause!)

 

I'm glad I could start such a lively thread.

 

The one thing we do colhessler....Is lively. No one ever gets harmed though, right back to the topic...I have a question....If the French had indeed responded and gone into the Rhineland....What do we think the reaction of UK and American statesmen would have been?

 

How would Britain and America react to the French marching against Hitler in the Rheinland? I'm sure the Brits would have been all right with it. Churchill would likely have stood up in the House of Commons to speak favorably of the French move. As for the U.S., most people were still trying to figure out where their next meal would come from. My Dad was a child in that time. In fact, March 7th is his birthday. He turned four years old in 1936. Most Americans would have just shrugged. "Silly Europe." The U.S. statesmen would likely have said that. I think that's how it would have been anyway.

:mourn:9/11/2001-9/11/2011

 

What the US would thinking was of course irrelevant :the US was an isolationist,far away and military insignificant country ,in 1936
What Britain WAS thinking (not Churchill,he was an outsider,distrusted by every one),was of course not much relevant :Britain was an isolationist and military insignificant country,in 1936
But,what was the attitude of Britain?
The Times (mouth-piece of the government) did write that the Germans were walking into their own backyard.
And,High Dalton(labour politician who supported resistance to Germany) said the following:
Public opinion in this country would not support,and certainly the Labour Party would not support,the taking of military sanctions or even of economic sanctions against Germany at this time.
Thus,IMHO,we can assume that Britain would condemn and oppose any French military reaction .

 

A good source is :
The German occupation of the Rhineland The National Archives

 

ljhd, I agree with your synopsis in general. I do though think back to the French occupation before this time and the reaction of British and US opinion makers or whatever we wish to call them. Especially their use of foreign troops once the violence started. It was not pretty and neither was the international reaction.

 

Occupation of the Ruhr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The US was mired in the Great Depression, Prohibition, the Dust Bowl, enforcing the Smoot-Hawley Tarrifs, arms embargoing the participants in the Spanish Civil War, FDRs re-election process and the Ziegfeld Follies in 1936. We had bigger fish to fry right here in the US of A to concern ourselves with WW1 (part 2). We couldn't even afford to pay attention.

 

But the US was involved thru the Dawes plan in the earlier occupation and The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich book shows us how concerned they were then. Why would it be different for the Rheinland? Its just a pet theory of mine. For years France has been lambasted over the Rheinland. As if it was of no concern for the rest of the world. Its something some use today still to flog the French with as if it was no ones problem but theirs. When they did move into Germany earlier in the Rhur, the reaction from the rest of us including the USA was not supportive. So the question remains or the implication....why should they bother again. Once they are safe behind the Maginot. Why do the worlds dirty work for which they will only be castigated as they were over the Rhur? WW2 is not France's fault. Rather the prevention of it. Versailles maybe. America was around for Versailles, before withdrawing. We cannot now blame France for everything that followed. If France had stopped Hitler in Rheinland is something that needs to be put to bed...France had good reason not to go into Rheinland. The rest of us didnt either. For other reasons, be they withdrawal from Versailles principles rightly or wrongly or in UK case, not having a continental force to play with anyway, Brittania only ruled the waves after all. Someone else could look after Europe. UK and US absolved themselves here, lets not just blame the French.

 

The Dawes Plan helped Germany make the huge reparation payments to the Allies after WW1. When it became apparent that Germany couldn't make good on the loans to the US, the Young Plan replaced the Dawes plan by softening the re-payment to the US. Then comes the Great Depression and everything goes to sh1t over night. I don't see how the two issues are similar (the Dawes/Young Plans and the re-militarization of the Rhineland).

I can only say that the US was not an official member of the Allies, only an "associated power" who didn't want to get tied up in Europe's squabbles anymore. We didn't sign on with the Versailles Plan because it was too strict on Germany and sure to insure hard feelings. We didn't sign up with the League of Nations because we wanted to avoid European entanglements in the future. Twenty years later it all happened again and why? I say it was because of lack of a better term, a lack of backbone by France during the Rhineland incident in 1936, and the "Appeasement in Our Time/Western Betrayal" bit over Czechoslovakia in 1938. War on the massive scale of WW2 could have been avoided if a little more effort would have been exercised in both of those affairs. Of course there are many other things that complicate the issue as well out there, but I believe inaction on the Allies part gave the Germans a sense of boldness that led to the invasion of Poland in 1939.

 

Well,this is a convential,but,IMHO,wrong POV,because,it is essentially resting on hindsight.
First,you should ask yourself:why should France intervene ?
Second,whould a French intervention resulting in a better situation for France ?
Third,what should be the aim of a French intervention?
Fourth,had France the means to achieve its purpose ?