Current Affairs Auschwitz-Birkenau.......

[tsubaki]

I'm not going to say that some of what you're saying is not true because it is, however I would argue that you are quite overtly overstating it for whatever reason.

The four primary reasons for appeasement were:

• A desire to prevent war because of memories of the slaughter in 1914-1918,
• Early on, a fairly large consensus within the population that Versailles had been too extensive in its punishment and this was a natural correction,
• Financially, an Empire that was already overstretched and simply couldn't in the short-term afford to counter German by a military rearmament programme,
• Significant deficiencies in military strategy: Belgian neutrality in 1937 et al.

Like I said earlier, with hindsight it is quite easy to place the blame on certain people, classes or parties even though in reality it is far from that simple or linear.

The Tory party cannot be exempt from blame, far from it, but in reality some of the arguments here come across as subjective and as political point scoring.

This is the substance of the revisionist stance over appeasement, but there is an awful lot questionable with it:

A desire to prevent war because of memories of the slaughter in 1914-1918 - this is the basis of much of the argument, but it would probably be more correct to say "a desire to prevent war because of what the government thought happened in 1914-18". One of the remarkable things about the appeasement government was that many of the senior ministers hadn't actually fought in the first world war. Chamberlain didn't, neither did Hoare or Hailsham, Hore-Belisha was in the RASC and although Halifax did serve at the front line he was an MP at the time and was largely kept out of the way. Of the senior ministers, only Eden had a creditable record in the first war - and he resigned. There was a contrast with the pre-war anti-appeasment crowd, most of whom had war experience and those too young to have served went on to serve in the second war (where some were killed).

People did not want a war, and the government strove really, really hard to make sure they didn't - using its control of society and much of the media to drive home how horrible it was going to be, how reckless the anti-appeasement crowd were ("warmonger" was often used as a slur), how many people were going to die if war started. The fact that people also wanted Hitler stopped was forgotten, sacrificed so that there wouldn't be a conflict. Obviously this failed.

Early on, a fairly large consensus within the population that Versailles had been too extensive in its punishment and this was a natural correction - this is an argument that was made at the time, often by the people who had sympathy with what they thought the Nazi regime was about (nationalist, anti-communist). Versailles as a treaty was, when viewed against 1945 and what the Germans had done in 1871 (and to the Russians in 1917), remarkably lenient given that Germany had started the war, repeatedly breached international law even as it existed at the time and most importantly had lost the war on the battlefield. They had killed hundreds of thousands of British men, tens of thousands of British civilians, used chemical weapons, ruined most of north-eastern France and bombed London repeatedly.

Financially, an Empire that was already overstretched and simply couldn't in the short-term afford to counter German by a military rearmament programme - this is wrong on two counts. Firstly, its largely based on a myth that developed after the German victories of 1939-40 about the Wehrmacht being invincible, which was probably brought about by the people who had created the circumstances for those victories to take place to try and avoid the blame for their inaction. Germany between 1935 and 1940 had fewer tanks (with less armour and weaker guns) than the French and the British, less artillery, less fortified areas and fewer men. Rearmament had not been given the priority that it deserved (and they could definately have done a lot more than they did), but it should have been enough even with that handicap to not lose as terribly as they did in 1940. Of course, the Germans steamrollered everyone in 1940 because despite their equipment handicaps they had worked out a way of fighting - ironically largely based on British theory and practice - whilst everyone else hadn't. The failure of the British in particular to develop an equivalent was unforgiveable, given they'd had a couple of decades head start, and this is something that can firmly be laid at the door of the government.

Secondly, German rearmament came from a really low base (almost nothing in the case of the air and sea, and only slighly more in terms of the land forces). Up until 1939 (and probably until the invasion of the Soviet Union) the Germans were (in quantative terms) behind the Allies.

Significant deficiencies in military strategy: Belgian neutrality in 1937 et al - that really isn't an argument that could be used to defend the then government's policy though; the deficiencies in strategy are their deficiencies.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Of course you are bleating, you’re doing it in the post above by pretending that people are trying to make political points. If you’d bothered to read the whole of the thread you’d see my points earlier, all I was doing on this bit of it was to say that daves criticism of the pre-war Tory party has a lot to back it up.

Also it’s a bit mad that you seem to think they can’t be criticised on a thread about the Holocaust when that horror was a direct consequence of the failure to challenge the Hitler regime when it would have been possible to do it. They were in government at the time, with one of the biggest majorities on record, and it isn’t as if the Nazis didn’t openly advertise what they were doing and wanted to do to the Jews of Germany, Austria and the world. I not saying they were to blame for the Holocaust, but it’s really difficult to argue they weren’t at fault for not stopping him.

Threads like these are to also mull over the causes of the holocaust, and it does the memories of those people no service at all t fail to keep on analysing it and keep on calling out the historical mistakes made by ruling elites across Europe that allowed it to happen.

Stop being so prissy.

I have no issue with people making factual posts trying to explain how the holocaust came about and your first post falls into that category. But practically all of Dave's posts in here have been about making political gain. Certainly his first 3 posts unashamedly were.

But the overall reaction to me calling him out on this just highlights the double standards and occasional hypocrisy on this forum. I mentioned the Lyra McKee thread in a previous post because it was the first example that came to mind of a thread similar to this. Although the circumstances are different both were set up as memorial threads.

@peteblue was quite rightly pulled up for attempting to politicise that thread by making it about the perpetrators rather than the victim. Many people called him out and, if I'm not mistaken, he also received some sort of censure from the mods. I try to do the same in this thread and I'm bleating. being prissy and a divvy. When I tried to report it to the mods as inappropriate to politicise a memorial thread , it was rejected on the basis that GOT doesn't support fascism. What are they trying to imply?. That I DO support fascism?

 

[davek]

I have no issue with people making factual posts trying to explain how the holocaust came about and your first post falls into that category. But practically all of Dave's posts in here have been about making political gain. Certainly his first 3 posts unashamedly were.

But the overall reaction to me calling him out on this just highlights the double standards and occasional hypocrisy on this forum. I mentioned the Lyra McKee thread in a previous post because it was the first example that came to mind of a thread similar to this. Although the circumstances are different both were set up as memorial threads.

@peteblue was quite rightly pulled up for attempting to politicise that thread by making it about the perpetrators rather than the victim. Many people called him out and, if I'm not mistaken, he also received some sort of censure from the mods. I try to do the same in this thread and I'm bleating. being prissy and a divvy. When I tried to report it to the mods as inappropriate to politicise a memorial thread , it was rejected on the basis that GOT doesn't support fascism. What are they trying to imply?. That I DO support fascism?

No, of course they're not saying that. My guess is that they're (reasonably) telling you that you caused the friction in a thread that was both a memorial and a historical discussion of how the holocaust occurred up until that point.

 

[Khalekan]

I can think of several prominent Tories of the 1940s who were quite implacably opposed to Mosely and Fascism in general. And you seem to have forgotten which party he represented in his final stint in parliament.

1940s maybe....by that time you had to be seen to oppose Mosely and Fascism, even if secretly you supported them.

But in the 1930s there was widespread support for Fascism among the Conservative rank and file.

 

[Khalekan]

The Irish were neutral. There were no Irish POWs.

And you think, or you have evidence?

I am sure there must have been Irish P.O.W.

There were over 20,000 vulunteers from the then Irish Free State whom enlisted in the British Army to fight the Nazis.

One would think some of them would have ended up being captured.

 

[PhilM]

This is the substance of the revisionist stance over appeasement, but there is an awful lot questionable with it:

A desire to prevent war because of memories of the slaughter in 1914-1918 - this is the basis of much of the argument, but it would probably be more correct to say "a desire to prevent war because of what the government thought happened in 1914-18". One of the remarkable things about the appeasement government was that many of the senior ministers hadn't actually fought in the first world war. Chamberlain didn't, neither did Hoare or Hailsham, Hore-Belisha was in the RASC and although Halifax did serve at the front line he was an MP at the time and was largely kept out of the way. Of the senior ministers, only Eden had a creditable record in the first war - and he resigned. There was a contrast with the pre-war anti-appeasment crowd, most of whom had war experience and those too young to have served went on to serve in the second war (where some were killed).

People did not want a war, and the government strove really, really hard to make sure they didn't - using its control of society and much of the media to drive home how horrible it was going to be, how reckless the anti-appeasement crowd were ("warmonger" was often used as a slur), how many people were going to die if war started. The fact that people also wanted Hitler stopped was forgotten, sacrificed so that there wouldn't be a conflict. Obviously this failed.

Early on, a fairly large consensus within the population that Versailles had been too extensive in its punishment and this was a natural correction - this is an argument that was made at the time, often by the people who had sympathy with what they thought the Nazi regime was about (nationalist, anti-communist). Versailles as a treaty was, when viewed against 1945 and what the Germans had done in 1871 (and to the Russians in 1917), remarkably lenient given that Germany had started the war, repeatedly breached international law even as it existed at the time and most importantly had lost the war on the battlefield. They had killed hundreds of thousands of British men, tens of thousands of British civilians, used chemical weapons, ruined most of north-eastern France and bombed London repeatedly.

Financially, an Empire that was already overstretched and simply couldn't in the short-term afford to counter German by a military rearmament programme - this is wrong on two counts. Firstly, its largely based on a myth that developed after the German victories of 1939-40 about the Wehrmacht being invincible, which was probably brought about by the people who had created the circumstances for those victories to take place to try and avoid the blame for their inaction. Germany between 1935 and 1940 had fewer tanks (with less armour and weaker guns) than the French and the British, less artillery, less fortified areas and fewer men. Rearmament had not been given the priority that it deserved (and they could definately have done a lot more than they did), but it should have been enough even with that handicap to not lose as terribly as they did in 1940. Of course, the Germans steamrollered everyone in 1940 because despite their equipment handicaps they had worked out a way of fighting - ironically largely based on British theory and practice - whilst everyone else hadn't. The failure of the British in particular to develop an equivalent was unforgiveable, given they'd had a couple of decades head start, and this is something that can firmly be laid at the door of the government.

Secondly, German rearmament came from a really low base (almost nothing in the case of the air and sea, and only slighly more in terms of the land forces). Up until 1939 (and probably until the invasion of the Soviet Union) the Germans were (in quantative terms) behind the Allies.

Significant deficiencies in military strategy: Belgian neutrality in 1937 et al - that really isn't an argument that could be used to defend the then government's policy though; the deficiencies in strategy are their deficiencies.

I'll start with the last point and work backwards.

Belgium's unexpected decision to opt for neutrality can't be simply disregarded as a point for why appeasement was maintained, especially in '37 and '38.

The plan had been to confront German aggression either on German soil, with the Maginot Line to fall back on, or on Belgian soil with the line as an interleave.

With Belgian neutrality, this plan became instantly defunct and the strategies in place needed to be adapted, with the Maginot line hurriedly becoming extended.

This would take to 1942 at the earliest, with greater costs (water table and other issues) and to a lower standard than the additional line - all well known to the gov.

Observers weren't even allowed within side Belgium and as such temporary appeasement was an answer by both governments to aid mobilisation et al.

You then mention the ol' quantitative advantage, which totally ignores the mass qualitative deficiencies in both equipment, doctrine and interaction been branches.

While you rightly mention German tactical advantages being a pivotal factor for success, this was well known by British observes (at least) way before 1939.

Yes German tanks had weaker guns and less armour, but their high top speed was a key part to their doctrine as mentioned in Guderian's Panzer - Achtung.

They were centralised in divisional/brigade structures, whereas British and French with their heavier cruiser tanks or low-speed infantry tanks were spread thing.

Infantry divisions/brigades were in turn were far better equipped than their British and French counterparts: number of MG, artillery, mortars, infantry vehicles etc.

We went to battle in '39/40 with the 18 pounder and 4.5inch howizter, which were all pre-1914: great in their day, but not so good when it came to the late 30s.

Now, not all the German artillery weapons were new, however there was a much better mix of new and antiquated heavy weapons, again all tied into their doctrine.

I could go on and on here, with the Luftwaffe having higher numbers of quality aircraft versus our own, or how the Kriegsmarine's ignorance of the WNT giving help.

Where we did have numerical advantage, the quality of aircraft was questionable at best: look at the Blenheim. Importantly, they had a sizeable fighter advantage.

While being much larger in actual manpower, the French army was a shell of its once brilliant self, with poor discipline, training, equipment and mobility.

Yes they started from a lower base, however their blatant disregard for treaties and limitation gave a great advantage: they were building the Bismark vs. our KGV.

Tactically, it isn't as simple as making a mass change and the advancements that were started again would not come to fruition until 1941-43 at the earliest.

Could or should we have done better to stop the Germans in 1940? Could or should be have rearmed quicker and ensured our doctrine was better?

Yes, however that doesn't negate the understanding that pre-war we were behind them, which we knew it and they knew. In 19490, this was still the clear case.

Therefore, an option was to use our considerable resources to try and match their strength over time, as we couldn't afford it quickly. Here comes appeasement.

With regards to the leniency, I recommend you read Catherine Cline or Maynard Keyne's views of the treaty. Woodrow Wilson publicly declared it was so.

Appeasement did not work, that's clear to see and we could have done a lot more as well; but, the logic behind it had many, many merits and it still does.

 

[Khalekan]

I'll start with the last point and work backwards.

Belgium's unexpected decision to opt for neutrality can't be simply disregarded as a point for why appeasement was maintained, especially in '37 and '38.

The plan had been to confront German aggression either on German soil, with the Maginot Line to fall back on, or on Belgian soil with the line as an interleave.

With Belgian neutrality, this plan became instantly defunct and the strategies in place needed to be adapted, with the Maginot line hurriedly becoming extended.

This would take to 1942 at the earliest, with greater costs (water table and other issues) and to a lower standard than the additional line - all well known to the gov.

Observers weren't even allowed within side Belgium and as such temporary appeasement was an answer by both governments to aid mobilisation et al.

You then mention the ol' quantitative advantage, which totally ignores the mass qualitative deficiencies in both equipment, doctrine and interaction been branches.

While you rightly mention German tactical advantages being a pivotal factor for success, this was well known by British observes (at least) way before 1939.

Yes German tanks had weaker guns and less armour, but their high top speed was a key part to their doctrine as mentioned in Guderian's Panzer - Achtung.

They were centralised in divisional/brigade structures, whereas British and French with their heavier cruiser tanks or low-speed infantry tanks were spread thing.

Infantry divisions/brigades were in turn were far better equipped than their British and French counterparts: number of MG, artillery, mortars, infantry vehicles etc.

We went to battle in '39/40 with the 18 pounder and 4.5inch howizter, which were all pre-1914: great in their day, but not so good when it came to the late 30s.

Now, not all the German artillery weapons were new, however there was a much better mix of new and antiquated heavy weapons, again all tied into their doctrine.

I could go on and on here, with the Luftwaffe having higher numbers of quality aircraft versus our own, or how the Kriegsmarine's ignorance of the WNT giving help.

Where we did have numerical advantage, the quality of aircraft was questionable at best: look at the Blenheim. Importantly, they had a sizeable fighter advantage.

While being much larger in actual manpower, the French army was a shell of its once brilliant self, with poor discipline, training, equipment and mobility.

Yes they started from a lower base, however their blatant disregard for treaties and limitation gave a great advantage: they were building the Bismark vs. our KGV.

Tactically, it isn't as simple as making a mass change and the advancements that were started again would not come to fruition until 1941-43 at the earliest.

Could or should we have done better to stop the Germans in 1940? Could or should be have rearmed quicker and ensured our doctrine was better?

Yes, however that doesn't negate the understanding that pre-war we were behind them, which we knew it and they knew. In 19490, this was still the clear case.

Therefore, an option was to use our considerable resources to try and match their strength over time, as we couldn't afford it quickly. Here comes appeasement.

With regards to the leniency, I recommend you read Catherine Cline or Maynard Keyne's views of the treaty. Woodrow Wilson publicly declared it was so.

Appeasement did not work, that's clear to see and we could have done a lot more as well; but, the logic behind it had many, many merits and it still does.

Great post, Phil.

Very informative.

My own view is that WW2 would have happened anyway, with or without Appeasement.

 

[Khalekan]

What it teaches us is that the wiping out and / or marginalisation/ghettoisation of whole people's within any nation state should not be tolerated.

A lesson which sadly hasn’t been learned.

Even as we debate this, both Netanyahu and the Israeli Opposition leader are at the White House rubber stamping Trump‘s “deal of the century” which is further going to ghettoise Palestinian people living in the Occupied Territories as another massive Israeli land grab is undertaken to build further settlements, all with American support and underwritten with America dollars.

 

[Khalekan]

Yes, but you have to also address the fact that there were many in the British Establishment who saw Hitler as someone who could do their dirty work for them in the sense that he had shown a strong hand against the organised working class movements in Germany and presented a threat to Soviet Russia. They were also petrified of a strong working class and the ideolgy of communism becoming embedded in Britain. And it wasn't only on that level, Hitler had his admirers in the British ruling elite. His racial policies were in synch with their own views on social order (many of them were influenced by scientific racism and eugenics).

THAT was a telling factor in appeasement too.

Dave....if I am not mistaken there was a quote from Churchill after WW2 was over that “we have defeated the wrong enemy”.

 

[PhilM]

Dave....if I am not mistaken there was a quote from Churchill after WW2 was over that “we have defeated the wrong enemy”.

It was reported that it was Gen. Patton who made that quote, not Churchill. Whether the former actually made the quote himself is another question entirely.

Regardless of that, Patton clearly had a dislike (or distrust) for the Russians, and it was evident that he had misgivings regarding allowing them to reach Berlin first.

 

[Khalekan]

It was reported that it was Gen. Patton who made that quote, not Churchill. Whether the former actually made the quote himself is another question entirely.

Regardless of that, Patton clearly had a dislike (or distrust) for the Russians, and it was evident that he had misgivings regarding allowing them to reach Berlin first.

Ah, okay.

 

[PhilM]

My own view is that WW2 would have happened anyway, with or without Appeasement.

Although I like everyone else wish there had been a peaceful compromise, I hold a very similar view that at some point a war was nigh on inevitable.

The period of peace from 1919-1938 was merely a relieve because ultimately how the first war ended, partly due to Versailles, meant that issues weren't resolved.

The Germany Army in 1919 as a tactical force was far from defeated. While we made great gains during the hundred day offensive, it was far from clear cut.

Disillusionment was one of the main causes for the movement towards armistice, but the majority of soldiers felt that (in the typical sense) they hadn't been defeated.

Perhaps, we should have dealt with it then back in 1918-1918, but we didn't. Perhaps, we shouldn't have allowed appeasement for so long, but again we didn't.

Perhaps, we should have pushed on the with Saar Offensive in '39 where there was literally nothing standing in our way, but again we didn't.

That's the wonder of hindsight and it brings me great sorrow to know that so many millions and millions died, with even more suffering, due to these choices.

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Simply a top quality thread this some very well read posters giving analysis I wasn't aware of and from varied political angles. Well done all it's been a great read

 

[Jebus_lives]

Its only sensible, when you discuss something as horrific and inhumane as the work/death camps, to look beyond what they were and debate why they happened in the first place and what political climate enabled that to happen.

 

[davek]

A lesson which sadly hasn’t been learned.

Even as we debate this, both Netanyahu and the Israeli Opposition leader are at the White House rubber stamping Trump‘s “deal of the century” which is further going to ghettoise Palestinian people living in the Occupied Territories as another massive Israeli land grab is undertaken to build further settlements, all with American support and underwritten with America dollars.

Yes, it's sickening that the very people who should have learned the most from that genocide have sought to make the lives of a whole people a nightmare.