tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post3422391349449624554..comments2024-03-18T23:52:19.552+02:00Comments on A Political Refugee From The Global Village : Chamberlain, Churchill and the End of GloryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-91754009796965316712017-03-16T11:23:58.112+02:002017-03-16T11:23:58.112+02:00It is a complete Canard to suggest that we gained ...It is a complete Canard to suggest that we gained time to produce Spitfires between Munich and Sept. 1939. This is a propaganda overhang from as far back as WW2. Where is your evidence that the production was increased during that period, or that the Air Ministry placed more and larger orders, than they had already planned do to do? Now of course, there were more front line squadrons equipped with, mainly Hurricanes in Sept. 39 than autumn 38; this was simply because the modernising and re-arming process was further advanced. In addition, and more importantly, the world's first intranet (Radar, visual observation, analysis, and vectoring of fighter squadrons to intercept) was nearly ready. This concept that Munich gained us a vital year in which extra re-armament took place is frankly a fantasy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-21781832278980779392017-03-15T22:02:29.405+02:002017-03-15T22:02:29.405+02:00As to the overall topic, a better question is &quo...As to the overall topic, a better question is "why not a fight over Czechoslovakia"? Anyone knowledgeable about Hitler's war aims (undeniable now since we have all the documentation) would know that Hitler was determined to reach for war aims incompatible with 'English' or even American interests. The Czechs probably could have put up stiffer resistance than the Poles.<br /><br />Moreover, insofar as even Poland was concerned, stiffing the Soviets' offer of help to defend Poland was rather stupid. Western intransigence over working with the Soviets was a big reason why the early war period went as badly as it did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-52033218684309802052017-03-15T22:01:43.541+02:002017-03-15T22:01:43.541+02:00"Britain declared war to save Poland and East..."Britain declared war to save Poland and Eastern Europe from invasion by a brutal totalitarian dictatorship and ended up handing Poland and Eastern Europe over to a brutal totalitarian dictatorship. "<br /><br />That has more to do with Britain's conduct of the war...it was Churchill's fixation on the 'soft underbelly of Europe' (that wasn't soft) and his reluctance to engage in a cross-Channel invasion that held back D-Day until June 1944. If the British had been more willing to take their lumps and invade, say, in the summer of 1943, when the German front line was still deep in the Ukraine and Belorussia, then the Western Allies might have me the Soviets on the Vistula, not the Elbe. (See John Grigg's "1943: The Victory that Never Was").<br /><br />Stewart M.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-41582449714767622712017-03-14T07:58:03.862+02:002017-03-14T07:58:03.862+02:00In late summer 1938 the Wehrmacht was just complet...In late summer 1938 the Wehrmacht was just completing the first stages of its rearmament programs. It had just three armoured divisions which were only equipped with light tanks, obsolete even by standards of the time. One year later, it would possess six panzer divisions supplemented by Mark III and IV medium tanks.<br /><br />The Germans found the Czech tanks they seized in March 1939 very useful. Three of the ten panzer divisions that invaded France in May 1940, including Rommel’s 7th Division, were equipped with Czech tanks. Those ten panzer divisions would just manage to break through the French defences in the Ardennes so it is hard to envisage how the three divisions of light tanks could have achieved that quick victory in either autumn 1938 or spring 1939.<br /><br />While in a strategic sense the Czechoslovak position seemed hopeless their country was far more defensible than Poland would prove the following year, surrounded as Czechoslovakia was by major mountain chains. Moreover, Czech equipment was much more up-to-date than that of the Poles, while, as pointed out, the German army was smaller and less robust than it would be the following year. In 1938, the Germans would have had barely enough divisions to launch a major campaign against Czechoslovakia with only a handful available to defend against a likely French offensive, and the Poles might also have intervened. Czech defence industries such as the Skoda Works, and Czech stockpiles of raw materials and foreign exchange, would significantly aid the Germans in their continued armament efforts.<br /><br />The Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine were even less prepared for war in 1938.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-19595514185597869642017-03-13T00:47:46.286+02:002017-03-13T00:47:46.286+02:00"Great Britain really had no choice ultimatel..."Great Britain really had no choice ultimately due to Hitler's determination to dominate continental Europe which was a goal that would inevitably lead to British resistance."<br /><br />Well yes they did. They could have chosen not to follow their own stupid made-up rule of having resist any country that tried to dominate continental Europe. <br /><br />Hitler actually had no interest in dominating the whole of Europe, or taking over any country in Western Europe. At the most he wanted only part of Eastern Europe. The ones who wanted to dominate Europe were the Bolsheviks and the rise of Hitler was a response to the realisation that Bolsheviks wanted to impose their own murderous misery on the rest of Europe. Churchill, before he realised that another pointless war with Germany could revive his dead career understood this too. Read Zionism vs Bolshevism. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-77366843936178082542017-03-12T11:46:16.793+02:002017-03-12T11:46:16.793+02:00Stalin's response to his unloved son attemptin...Stalin's response to his unloved son attempting suicide by shooting himself was to say "Hah! You can't even shoot straight." Dominic Johnson Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-4356970502970549922017-03-09T23:17:28.520+02:002017-03-09T23:17:28.520+02:00The world order that Germany sought to preserve wa...The world order that Germany sought to preserve was one dominated by the British Empire. Nothing could be more clear from Hitler's recorded statements that he wanted the British empire preserved and strengthened. The USA and the USSR on the other hand wanted it gone. <br /><br />Britain's behaviour was a bit like the woman who continually turns down the rich handsome suitor who offers her everything, in favour of the thug who steals all her money leaving her pumped and dumped, in hospital. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-7473185111900141192017-03-09T10:06:32.500+02:002017-03-09T10:06:32.500+02:00Yes indeed. You might like this by Peter Hitchens ...Yes indeed. You might like this by Peter Hitchens who agrees with you. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560700/Was-World-War-Two-just-pointless-self-defeating-Iraq-asks-Peter-Hitchens.htmlPolitical Refugee from the Global Villagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523068770529814044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-65947735773026988292017-03-09T08:31:08.000+02:002017-03-09T08:31:08.000+02:00Britain may not have IMMEDIATELY aided Poland (dur...<em>Britain may not have IMMEDIATELY aided Poland (during the "Phony war"), but who can argue that mutual war support became real over the course of the larger war?</em><br /><br />So during the war what actual assistance did Britain give to Poland? <br /><br />Britain declared war to save Poland from a brutal totalitarian dictatorship and ended up handing Poland over to a brutal totalitarian dictatorship.dfordoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02306293859869179118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-9265046757802874922017-03-09T08:21:43.064+02:002017-03-09T08:21:43.064+02:00Undoubtedly you are right.Undoubtedly you are right.Political Refugee from the Global Villagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523068770529814044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-4850570427536916402017-03-09T07:37:36.989+02:002017-03-09T07:37:36.989+02:00Britain's "unwise pledge to defend Poland...Britain's "unwise pledge to defend Poland... unwise in the sense that they had no means by which to come to Poland's aid."<br /><br />I see your point, but think the perspective is a bit narrow. <br /><br />Why is an alliance or a declaration of war only "wise" IF you have the immediate means to act on it?<br /><br />Britain may not have IMMEDIATELY aided Poland (during the "Phony war"), but who can argue that mutual war support became real over the course of the larger war?<br /><br />A relevant example and trivia question: What is the last country that the U.S. FORMALLY declared war on?<br /><br />Believe it or not: Romania 1942. <br /><br />Now, did the U.S. have the "means" to pursue that declaration of war? Not directly. But so what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-12432720051996151192017-03-08T20:25:26.950+02:002017-03-08T20:25:26.950+02:00Great Britain really had no choice ultimately due ...Great Britain really had no choice ultimately due to Hitler's determination to dominate continental Europe which was a goal that would inevitably lead to British resistance. The only real error was probably the timing which was forced upon Great Britain due to their unwise pledge to defend Poland. It was unwise in the sense that they had no means by which to come to Poland's aid being primarily a naval power as Britain always had been historically. It would take quite a while to muster a land force of any significance. Victor Keith Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-22218327249934431292017-03-08T17:50:12.545+02:002017-03-08T17:50:12.545+02:00Mr. Wood
I mean 1935!
Because it was in 1935 tha...Mr. Wood<br /><br />I mean 1935!<br /><br />Because it was in 1935 that Germany reintroduced conscription, formed the Luftwaffe and declared it's intention to start building U-Boats. All of which was in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Which was still International law, but instead of enforcing International law the Allied countries instead rewarded Germany for breaking it's word. <br /><br />Everything that happened afterwards was due to this, often forgotten, failure.<br /><br />France in 1939 had suffered 3 years of a Popular Front Government. It would have been much better if war had started before that defeatist and divisive Government had come to power. Maybe France would have done as badly as it did in 1940, but I tend to think that 3 years made a big deference.<br /><br />As for Spitfires, in 1935 Germany didn't have any warplanes, nor panzers, nor U-Boats, nor any pocket-battleships.. The 4 years between 1935-39 meant that Germany was allowed to rearm and was in fact encouraged to do so.<br /><br />Imagine WWII were Germany has no Messerschmitt's, Heinkels, Dorniers, Bismarcks, U-Boats or Panzers!<br /><br />If Germany had sort to renegotiate the Treaty of Versailles it would have gotten a sympathetic hearing, but it did not seek to do that. Because what it sort was to break the International order not to preserve it. WWII broke out because of the 7 great states in the world in 1939, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union, Japan and the USA. Only Britain and France wanted to preserve the International Order, Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union and Japan wanted to overthrow it and the USA thought it lived on a separate planet.<br /><br />Mark Moncrieff<br />Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future Mark Moncrieffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07988061141727262837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-46106563002730439332017-03-07T20:40:31.649+02:002017-03-07T20:40:31.649+02:00I think you mean in 1936 when Germany occupied the...I think you mean in 1936 when Germany occupied the Rhineland. As Prof. Charmley points out in his Chamberlain book, even Churchill thought the Germans justified on that one. <br /><br />But you are absolutely right - we should certainly have acted then. Hitler thought he would have been overthrown had we done so. But public opinion had been persuaded that the Versailles settlement was unjust to Germany. Bad understanding of history is to blame for so much. As Andrew Roberts and I said the peace settlement was not nearly harsh enough on Germany which should have been split into several states as before 1870.<br /><br />Had we done nothing about Poland the next target might have been Communist Russia. And Russia might have defeated Germany, as happened in reality. In any case the fall of France was the result of going to war. <br /><br />The Allies won in the end only because Russia and America entered the war when Hitler attacked Russia and declared war on the USA. Had he not done so Germany would have continued to rule or dominate the continent, though we would have remained independent.<br /><br />Things are not as simple as you and many others think.Political Refugee from the Global Villagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523068770529814044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-72458638219733433892017-03-07T20:01:18.039+02:002017-03-07T20:01:18.039+02:00I sympathise with your view but, as I said in my a...I sympathise with your view but, as I said in my article, we had no Spitfires. Munich gave us a year to continue re-arming. And I do not believe that France would have gone to war in 1938. But had Britain and France done so what would have been the result? France falling in the autumn of 1938 perhaps? A Battle of Britain in which we had no Spitfires? How would that have helped Western Europe or Czechoslovakia or Poland?<br />And the British hoped that Hitler would not have further demands - of course he did. But remember people expected a world war to mean the destruction of British cities - to a much greater extent than in fact happened. Baldwin had said 'the bomber always gets through'. Political Refugee from the Global Villagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523068770529814044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-50895210781273230922017-03-07T19:48:12.213+02:002017-03-07T19:48:12.213+02:00Mr. Man with a name
1. Even if Czechoslovakia was...Mr. Man with a name<br /><br />1. Even if Czechoslovakia was a fake country it still wasn't Germanys right to destroy it.<br /><br />2. Poland should not have done so, nor should Hungary, but neither of these states destroyed Czechoslovakia. <br /><br />3. You must have secret knowledge know to noone else as I have never heard anything like this before at all, and nor do I believe it.<br /><br />4. It was reasonable for Germany to renegotiate the Treaty of Versailles, but it was not reasonable for Germany to do that by destroying other nations. Further, with or without the naval blockade Germany had no choice but to sign whatever was put in front of them in 1919, they had lost and were totally exhausted.<br /><br />5. Ohhh yes how lucky Britain and France would have been when Hitler controlled Germany, Eastern Europe and Russia! And the idea that Hitler would have been satisfied with Poland goes against every scrap of eveidence of his actions before 1939 and all of his afters after.<br /><br />"The non-white, non-Christian world was the victor."<br /><br />Your entire last paragraph shows that while you don't even understand our current enemy. And you think it could have been avoided, but our fate, the one both you and I want to avoid was written by Liberalism centuries before WWII.<br /><br />Mark Moncrieff<br />Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative FutureMark Moncrieffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07988061141727262837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-16002300774722113912017-03-07T19:34:44.369+02:002017-03-07T19:34:44.369+02:00Mr. Wood
As I said, Britain and France should hav...Mr. Wood<br /><br />As I said, Britain and France should have gone to war in 1935 when Germany through the Treaty of Versailles out. <br /><br />And did throwing Czechoslovakia under the bus stop war? No it lead to an even bigger one. And if they had done nothing about Poland would that have ended it? Of course no, it is simply bizarre that anyone can think there is a way of war....unless they intend for Britain and France to always agree with nazi Germany.<br /><br />Mark Moncrieff<br />Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative FutureMark Moncrieffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07988061141727262837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-2744974363339176782017-03-06T12:46:02.889+02:002017-03-06T12:46:02.889+02:00And is Putin a threat to the West? As a geopolitic...<em>And is Putin a threat to the West? As a geopolitical leader, somewhat; as a safe harbor for anti-liberal (Western/Enlightenment) thinking? Yes.</em><br /><br />If Putin has made Russia a safe harbour for anti-liberal (Western/Enlightenment) thinking then that's a reason to admire him. dfordoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02306293859869179118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-68531718242981591732017-03-06T12:06:40.615+02:002017-03-06T12:06:40.615+02:00“And is Putin a threat to the West? As a geopoliti...“And is Putin a threat to the West? As a geopolitical leader, somewhat; as a safe harbor for anti-liberal (Western/Enlightenment) thinking? Yes.”<br /><br />I was delighted when the Baltic States joined NATO but now I wonder. However they are in the EU so being in Nato arguably makes sense. Putin might be a threat to the Baltic states and the evidence that he recently tried to kill the Montenegrin Prime Minister is very alarming. The EU and the US are certainly right to impose sanctions on Russia for her invasion of Ukraine but still I see no reason why Russia is a grave threat to the UK, the US or the EU.<br /><br />Mass migrations of people into Europe are a much bigger problem - the large influx of refugees from Libya Syria etc should be seen, in my opinion, as a serious defence threat. <br /><br />You remind me of the right-wing people who see Putin as a Christian conservative, a sort of Franco-light. I am not convinced. I see him as a red and a kleptocrat not a white. <br /><br />What do you mean when you say he rejects liberal/Enlightenment thinking? Some modern liberal thinking should be rejected. But his or any other leader’s ideology is not a reason for seeing them as a threat so long as they remain within their borders. Salazar and Franco rejected enlightenment and liberal values but posed no threat to the West, were thoroughly part of the West. The same was true of the Catholic Church until the Second Vatican Council.<br /><br />Anne Applebaum hit the nail on the head when she said the trouble is not that Trump likes Putin but that he thinks like him.Political Refugee from the Global Villagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523068770529814044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-36205334152558896952017-03-06T08:57:46.042+02:002017-03-06T08:57:46.042+02:00So many books so little time. "Of making many...So many books so little time. "Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh."Political Refugee from the Global Villagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523068770529814044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-25080470071129005862017-03-06T08:54:24.495+02:002017-03-06T08:54:24.495+02:00Truly excellent article. I've long thought Cha...Truly excellent article. I've long thought Chamberlain lambasted with the benefit of hindsight and wondered why (answered in your article) we had a treaty with Poland. Something else hard for 21st century Brits to appreciate is that in 1938/9 Europe had been subject to a thousand years of regular wars and alliances, so despite the proximity of WWI, I doubt many people imagined what was going to happen. Dominic JohnsonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-77049839709081766822017-03-06T02:26:23.056+02:002017-03-06T02:26:23.056+02:00Charmley's Churchill’s Grand Alliance: The Ang...Charmley's <em>Churchill’s Grand Alliance: The Anglo-American Special Relationship 1940-57</em> is also a must-read.dfordoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02306293859869179118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-7998705099181990222017-03-05T21:38:52.812+02:002017-03-05T21:38:52.812+02:00Isn't that true of many great men?Isn't that true of many great men?Political Refugee from the Global Villagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523068770529814044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-30381167708512344502017-03-05T20:17:10.963+02:002017-03-05T20:17:10.963+02:00There's much that I agree with here, but not t...There's much that I agree with here, but not that Churchill was a great man. I'd say he was a lucky opportunist who managed to be in the right place (or to some degree constructed it) at the right time. Andrew F. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891289711377156224.post-38702143140344240542017-03-05T17:54:07.069+02:002017-03-05T17:54:07.069+02:00Yes, I've always been in favour of destroying ...Yes, I've always been in favour of destroying Germany as a country at Versailles. Far from it being a Carthaginian peace, it wasn't tough enoughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com