|
| Thread: WWII : Who Saved The World |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV |
|
Pitsu
Adventuring Hero
|
posted November 23, 2004 05:06 PM |
|
|
It has been very interesting to follow this debate. I think PH performed slightly better than Svarog.  . Independently of arguments posted I do not think that we should honour or dishonour german soldiers way differently than others. Every soldier who has done his/her best to reduce the casualities and horror of a war should be respected. Additionally: forgive the mistakes to them who can not forgive themselves (i.e who do their best to redeem troubles previously caused by them). Continuous pointig at the one (or his/her children) who has done a mistake isn't the best way to secure that we do not do the same mistake and, finally, dead should rest in peace.
I wonder if there is a correlation with Molotov-Rippendorp pact: contries that were first occupied by germans hate germans more than russians and vice versa or not. Anyway, the post that gave impression like russians were more welcome in Eastern Europe was pain to read for me. Nazism and despotism/stalinism were equally disastrous in my opinion. Therefore, I hope not to miss the post where Svarog reveals the differences in Soviet and Nazi brutalities.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 23, 2004 05:49 PM |
|
|
Forgive me for interloping after having read only a few posts.
I know a man who served in the SS under Hitler. He was seventeen when he was "conscripted" (persuaded to volunteer along with a truck of other young boys from his village).
He followed orders.
He is about eighty some years old now. He talks about that time of his life and how young and stupid he was. Seems like he told us he deserted and escaped to America. Can't remember if it was during or after the war. But he lives here now with his wife and son, who is a friend of my husband's. The son has a brain injury from a car accident that happened about tweny five years ago and his father (the ex-Nazi) and mother take very good care of him.
He is also now a Democrat who believes in peace.
It is important to remember that many of those who tried to defect were murdered as traitors. Many others decided to stick it out because of that. Of those who decided not to stick it out but instead try to escape, my friend is one of the very few lucky ones.
Just thought you might find that interesting.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted November 24, 2004 01:06 AM |
|
|
Oh and by the way,
PrivateHudson: 10
Svarog: big fat goose egg still.
It's not your fault Svarog. You see, Ph was soundly thumped a few years ago by this cat who went by the name of Abazagaroth. He was able to cut his teeth in those exchanges and learned some really sound debating techniques.
Ever since then, he's been a much more provocative writer. In essence, he's doing to you what was done to him. So you really shouldn't feel too bad.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 24, 2004 02:21 AM |
|
|
Damn, there's a blast from the past, I barely even rememberd that guy...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2004 03:29 AM |
|
|
A few things occurred to me in reading over this thread. One is, the general population of a country is always tainted or blessed by the actions of their leader(s). If you are an American, you have to admit the actions of Bush reflect on you whether or not you voted for him.
Therefore, all Germans have something reflected upon them by WWII and what happened there. The intelligent ones learn from mistakes and change. There is always room to grow. And if the people are smart , they become vigilant enough to never let it happen again.
When it comes to honoring German troops, the losing side will never get the same respect, nor will the winning side be prosecuted for war crimes. It may be argued that all war is a crime, in which case anybody that participates is a criminal. I find it wierd that nerve gas is illegal, but a fuel bomb, or any bomb isn't. Still, when a nation is attacked, that is when it gains the most moral of positions to go to war, to defend itself. That, however, doesn't detract from the fact that it is a tragedy.
As to who saved the world, lets face it, it was a team game and team work won the war from the US to Russia, England, Canada, Australia and what ever partisans in what ever country contributed. You can't diminish anyones effort by saying a bigger country with more resources did more. So, in fact, I say it wasn't any country that saved the world, but the actions of all those individual soldiers who fought, all those scientists who produced viable technology for weapons, all those factory workers that produced the goods needed to keep fighting wherever they were. The real question to me is who will save the world now.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 24, 2004 04:06 AM |
|
|
Hiding behind Russia’s skirt whenever you had to explain your arguments, PH, me thinks is not a good way of debating. Especially because you took advantage of something I decided not to touch for the time being.
A comment to Peacemaker here. Couldn’t resist it
Quote:
He is about eighty some years old now. He talks about that time of his life and how young and stupid he was.
He doesn’t think he should be honored?! You mean, he actually admits his own responsibility (as tiny as it was)?! Unbelievable guy. Tell him, if he took more pride in that, HC might give him a medal.
Angelito,
Quote:
But if they will ALL fall down a cliff now, can u blame them ALL?
And who’s else to blame!? Their blind belief that they’re going in the right direction lead them there. We can naively pretend that the leaders bear the entire responsibility, but that’s just not my way of thinking.
Quote:
So, how many "dictators" we will find in history which were "defeated" by their OWN people WITHOUT help from other nations?
We’re seeing things from different perspectives. I claim that the strongest tyrants in history were in a passionate love relationship with their people.
Quote:
And to stay a bit more on the actualities....do we all blame the WHOLE american nation coz of the (in most of the europeans eyes) fault of the invasion into the Iraq, only because u voted for the leader who decided this?
No, we’ll just pay respect to those that did support him, because we don’t want to blame the majority of Americans for their mental handicap now, do we? That would be generalizing and blaming an entire nation for something they were fooled to believe in. Totally not their fault. Contrary, they should be remembered with respect because they filled the ballots with Bush votes in a civilized and democratic manner.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 24, 2004 07:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hiding behind Russia’s skirt whenever you had to explain your arguments, PH, me thinks is not a good way of debating.
Since you ignored or dismissed out of hand, reworded to suit, or were proven wrong on others there isn't really a good deal left. Nor is hiding behind a weak and unprovn case of support either though to be fair.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 26, 2004 06:11 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 26 Nov 2004
|
Better Than I Could Say It
Sir_Stiven wrote something that I feel strongly about.
Quote:
"Free will" is a very relative term.
A kids family hates mexicans, every day they talk about how mexicans ruins their world in every possible way. When the kid is 20 a mexican starts working in the same place as him, do you think the kid will greet him with open arms?
All of a 22 year olds boys friends likes to go extreme sporting, the boys mother hates this as she concideres it dangerous but every day the boys friends tells him about how cool it is and that all the friends are going to a place this weekend... do you think the boy will stay home playing scrabbles with his mother?
During WW 2, how many germans do you think was against what Adolf Hitler did in the beginning of his leadership? Do you think they would have thought the same today and is it possible that they were under the influence of some kind of propaganda during the hitler days?
Point is, free will can be very relative depending on which context you put it in. By saying that you know exactly what to do when you are old enough and is able to see it all from an outside perspective is just plain stupid.
There are many factors involved in decisions like this, and i dont know this boy or the circumstances around it, and to be honest i dont even think svarog does as these things are usually very complicated.
To once again refer to 9/11 movie (even if i do think much of it is pure crap there are some lessons i took from it which they couldnt make so very obvious so it got boring) is how the recruiters for the army worked. They didnt exactly go for the confident looking ones now did they? No they went for the ones that looked like having a low selfesteem and told them that now there is a way for them to feel important basically and be able to make a difference!
For a person that has had a rough time going through life that far i can imagine that sounding like heaven.
Talk about "free will" all you want but when it all comes down to it the will isnt free at all usually, but it is a will thats been under a influence of propaganda from for example goverment/friends/family and such for a long time.
I feel like the world hasn't yet clearly discovered the understanding of a person coming of age old enough to fight in a war. The reason I feel this is important is because of what we've been discussing here.
After WWII, many of Hitler's soldiers were to be held accountable for their actions. The question lies in: to what extent exactly? If someone is a horrible pathological murderer then this person should easily receive a very hardline death penalty. And if a person has merely trespassed on private property then he/she should walk away with nothing more than a warning or a proverbial slap on the wrist.
The problem we found ourselves with immediately after the war and even today, is what to do with each soldier. Back then, some soldiers were slave torturers and mass murdering lackeys while others were barely out of the house with no more than a five-o-clock shadow for what looked to be the start of facial hair.
My argument for then and today is that I think we should gather as much of the facts as possible before passing judgment on a soldier. I think we shouldn't simply give equal punishment because I don't think they were equally responsible. Officers, for example, should be held with more accountability because the soldiers must follow their orders. I also think soldiers who commit acts/crimes against humanity should be held accountable even if ordered to do so.
But as for the young man who is no more than a teenager, we must not simply group this person in the same category. As Sir_Stiven points out, how much do we really know about someone so young? Do they really know the consequences of their actions yet? Do they really know what they are fighting for yet?
I submit to you all that the world has not yet successfully and appropriately addressed this issue. I say this because many people(such as Svarog has posted) still, even today, grossly generalize and wrongly label equal responsibility through an insidious philosophy called, 'death by association'. I suggest that until these questions have been extensively addressed through philosophy and the will of man/woman kind(ie a discernable worldwide vote), we should judge such individuals with less severity while looking to more harshly prosecute their superiors. That to me would be a more logical message to send to the world.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 11, 2005 11:21 PM |
|
|
Soviet "Gulags"
 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/11/gulag.report/index.html
Quote:
The Soviet gulag system remained strong until the death of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in 1953. But some camps remained in existence for years afterward. Soviet authorities imprisoned millions who were considered "enemies of the state" and forced them to perform hard labor in the network of camps in remote areas of the country.
The publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" in the early '70s brought about even greater western civilization attention on the camps.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted February 12, 2005 04:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/11/gulag.report/index.html
Quote:
The Soviet gulag system remained strong until the death of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in 1953. But some camps remained in existence for years afterward. Soviet authorities imprisoned millions who were considered "enemies of the state" and forced them to perform hard labor in the network of camps in remote areas of the country.
The publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" in the early '70s brought about even greater western civilization attention on the camps.
Damn right. I have a good friend who was born and raised in such a Gulag, in the Ural mountains. His mother was involved in the war (I think in the translation business) and upon returning to the USSR she was not welcomed as a hero for helping her country but sent to the Gulag as a potential spy.
____________
|
|
BountyHunter97
Famous Hero
King of all that is Chicken
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 08:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Poland/6,123,000/17.2%/123,000/6,000,000
If you will notice, from the above statistics, Poland lost the most of its people(17.2%)
I havent had time to read through the whole the thread, not sure if its been posted but,
How many of you have heard of the warsaw uprising?
Okay, back in '44 When Polond was still occupation and the Red Army was near the Banks of Vistula, the river that goes through the city of Warsaw (capital of Polond) the polish underground army if u want 2 call it, created a city wide uprising. So on August 1 on V-Hour (victory hour) the Uprising commenced. Out of the 10,000 actual combat participants only about 25% had weapons  This uprising was meant to help the Red Army liberate Warsaw. Now of course if the Red Army helped, and warsaw was won back, this would mean Polond was a free nation, and they didnt want that. Nope and becuase of that Polond became communist for 40 years, but back 2 the story. So after a few days, the German regiment was beaten back, only 2 be strenghted by a panzer division so you've got a city of 2 mil of which there are about enof weapons for abt 5% against about i think 20,000 crack German troops with tanks and heavy weaponry. Well, for 63 days (longer than Stalingrad! although not as bloody) of heavy fighting, and the city was reduced to ruins... only about 10% was left standing. Well, those 63 days of waiting hoping for the Red Army to move in, to help, the rebillion was defeated. 250,000 dead.
Well, had the Russians tried to help, perhaps we could of avioded this, but what shocks me the most if this:
The Polish resistance were sending out calls for help to Britain, Russia, US via phone or radio. The allies actually denied and or tried to keep this news away from media attention. Churchill wished to help send supplies through Russia, but Stalin would not allow British RAF bombers carrying supplies to land to refuel. After about a month Stalin gave the okay, but the 70% of the drops fell into german hands, so it wasnt much help. Furthermore, the Allies had not informed Poland that they had already decided the verdict of Polond future at Yalta. Near the end of those bloody 63 days, the commanding general was informed, betrayed by Russia 1st, then soldout by the US and UK in yalta and ultimatly saw no cause for continued fighting, and surreneded.
CNN did an hour special on this last summer during the 60th annerversity of the event, also a book "Rising '44" by Norman Davis was published (excellent book. I just think this event is so unknown it scares me...
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 12:14 PM |
|
|
A minor point, Stalingrad lasted from September 1942 to February 1943, which is obviously more than the 63 days Warsaw lasted. It's true to say though that due to agreements with Stalin and Russia's reluctance to lend her support to the cause, the allies in effect abbandonned Poland and Warsaw. More than a few members of Sosaboski's (sp?) Airborne Brigade that fought at Arnhem felt they should have been used to support the uprising.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 03:29 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 14 Feb 2005
|
I Concur
I agree with PrivateHudson. It is true what BountyHunter97 says. It is also true that this is the darkest act of President Roosevelt. Prime Minister Churchill was enraged with the Soviets as the reports came in that the Soviets were refusing to cross the river when the Polish fought in the "Uprising". Churchill knew that Stalin wasn't going to order the Red army across the river without pressure from Roosevelt. He strongly urged Roosevelt to put pressure on Stalin but Roosevelt decided against it. At the time of the uprising, Roosevelt thought he needed Stalin to stay an ally at the cost of the Polish lives lost in the "uprising". The americans were heavily supplying the Soviets with supplies as well. But Roosevelt did not want to make an enemy of Stalin. To this day, there is no darker time of the Roosevelt presidency than this. It was a decision that he would have to live with for the rest of his life. You see, here in America the underground Polish army were called "resistance fighters". This is a tactically political move and great disservice to the Polish people. By calling them "resistance fighters", they donot become freedom fighters or martyrs in the american peoples' minds. But in fact these brave Polish fighters, who had almost nothing, fought with great courage. All Roosevelt had to do was liken the Polish fighters to the historic American battle at the Alamo. If he had so much as mentioned the Alamo even once then the American people would have rallied behind the Polish people forcing Roosevelt to play his political cards against Stalin! But he would not heed the words of Churchill and thus the darkest time of Roosevelt came to be.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 03:45 PM |
|
|
Roosevelt had a rather niave trust of Stalin and his promises whereas Churchill pretty much had him sussed. (he was just coldly pragmatic about things like freedom for E. Europe) Another example would be in the final stages of the war when Stalin persuaded Roosevelt that the main soviet drive would not be against Berlin but to the south!
IIRC some Polish formations in the Soviet army crossed the river under their own initiative and tried to reach Warsaw, but failed. Stalin claimed the soviet summer offensive had drained Russia of her supplies and time was needed before they could push on. Doesn't excuse his initial refusal to allow the western allies to provide support though.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
BountyHunter97
Famous Hero
King of all that is Chicken
|
|
posted February 15, 2005 07:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A minor point, Stalingrad lasted from September 1942 to February 1943, which is obviously more than the 63 days Warsaw lasted. It's true to say though that due to agreements with Stalin and Russia's reluctance to lend her support to the cause, the allies in effect abbandonned Poland and Warsaw. More than a few members of Sosaboski's (sp?) Airborne Brigade that fought at Arnhem felt they should have been used to support the uprising.
hmm i know i read somewhere Stalingrad was like 59-60, i just checked and u were right Hudson
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 18, 2005 03:52 PM |
|
|
Poland
Polish independence has long been contested by Russian rulers. Poland has historically been seen as the "natural border"(as stated by Napoleon) between Russia and western Europe. Tzar Alexander I and Napoleon knew this well. It was also then that Russia(Tzar Alexander I) felt much the same as Stalin did: an independent Poland does not coincide with Russian interests. Allowing the Nazis to massacre the Polish would support this theory. It would have made the Polish easier to dominate after the war should Stalin decide to absorb Poland into the Soviet Union.
Strategically speaking, Russian control of Poland represents a great threat to (modern-day) Turkey. This is one of the reasons why the U.S. was so enthusiastic to trade nuclear missiles to Turkey. I would argue that post-cold war Turkey has now returned to the historical doorway/crossroads of europe that it has always been. hamsi128 once said that if Russia ever invaded Turkey today then this would be world war 3. I agree based on his country's strategic significance in the world. No modern superpower could ignore Russian(or any other country) control of this region.
Well....this is all in my opinion of course. Some people might not agree. I respect that.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 08, 2005 07:57 PM |
|
|
Japanese War Crimes
Quote:
As for your comment about the Japanese murdering people, the only instance that comes to mind is that they attacked before they declared war. Because of this very minor detail, we call Pearl Harbor a massacre. Old timers will likely want to kill me for such an attitude but I believe in war, all is fair if war is upon you. To me war becomes survival of the fittest, not the most justified. I know this because we literally obliterated Japan's people more so than any other country. Of all the blows dealt by the americans, this was our most gruesome act.
You said that the Japanese enslaved and murdered people. I disagree because I think the Japanese were behaving like a historic empirical country. I think the term "empire" is a more closely related term when describing the Japan of prior WWII. If you look at other empires you will see that they too would have questionable military engagements in which the world at large would question their motives while the people being attacked would call them only the most harsh of words. My point is that I find the Japanese (of prior WWII) no more "murdering & enslaving"(as you say) than that of many other historic countries expanding their empires as well. There are many exceptions in which a country can and should be labeled as atrocious. Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Nazi Germany, and Ghengis Khan's Mongolian people of the step are good examples of true countries embracing the harshest of behaviors.
I said this. I am ashamed that I would write such garbage. I was wrong and I am sorry. The Japanese of this time were every bit as ruthless as the punishment they received. This ruthlessness was carried all the way down to the common farmer whom would conduct public death-beatings of downed pilots. Once again I was very wrong in saying what I did. I am sorry and I now know better.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2005 01:25 AM |
|
|
I would just like to talk a little bit about the involvement of CzechoSlovakia in WWII...
It's role and part in this conflict may seem pointless to some but I may asure you that it wasn't.
From the Nazi rise to power in 1933 we felt ourselves threatened and tried to do our best to defenend against a possible attack.
German offensive foreing policy never hid it's intentions to add Czechoslovakia, atleast the Czech part of it, to it's Riech. No world powers, except for the USSR backed us, showing thier lack fo interest and companionship.
The alliance signed with the USSR was to be later shown only a formal one, but at first it didn't seem so. It atleast gave hope and strenght to the armies.
With war nearing the Germans were begining to crate havoc. Henleyns German Minoroty party was stirring trouble in the country and pressuring the goverment. All the time it was acting as Hitlers right hand here.
The goverement let itself get underpressure and only complied with their demands.
But not only that was being done.
At the final stages befor Munchen 1938 the Czechoslovak army had the second most modern and best defensive perimeters on the borders with the Reich, especialy on the Czech border, but also in Slovakia, on the border with Austria. These defensive lines were second only to the Maginot Line in France. The Army at the state of part mobilization number 400`000 men.
But soon we were forgoten by the powers once again.
The appeasemtn policy came to it's first big task. As they said in Brittain "No proper English gentelman is going to go to war for Czechoslovakia." And thats exactly what happened. I wonder why Poland was good enough then, no offense ment ofcourse.
Munchen, the meeting of powers. The French, Italinans, Gemrans and English all represented by their actual heads of goverment and state met and disscused the German demands in Czechoslovakia.
The world powers left us alone once again. IT was decided that Czechoslovak borders be amended to meet Hitlers demands.
At this time the Nazi supported slovak Clero-Fasists, the catholic fasist-populist party, began to cleanly start declaring their goal of independet Slovakia. And it happened.
Though it wasn't before the final step to breaking Czechoslovakia came. Hitler after occuping the Border lands declared the Czech lands as a Protectorate and order their occupation. Unfourtunaltely the CS authorities were so dull and afraid they didn't give the order of armed resistance. And so 400'000 men were surrendered to the enemy. Many fled. First to Poland then tu USSR and GB where, in GB they served as Pilots, but also fought, especialy in Africa. Many took part in D-Day and the Italian Camapaing.
Slovakia was finaly "independent" . The puppet goverment ruled by the Catholic priest Jozef Tiso became a German toy.
For example, there were only two countries who declared war on Poland. The Reich and the Slovak State.
Slovak soldiers took place in the Invasion of USSR, but the Germans did not trust them enough so they ended up as auxilliaries in Belarus.
Meanwhile local resistance was stirring. In both SLovakia and the Czech part resistance groups were founded. The killing of Heynrich was one of the goals accomplsihed, for example. But Czechoslovaks served in other resistance groups, especialy in the French resistance.
But the biggest resistance action was only to come.
The Slovak National Uprising began on the 28 of August 1944. It was a revolt of the Slovak army under the command of the Generals Viest and Golian. The upprising had many planed scenarios.
The best possible was to free the country by their on force and then open the Capratinan paths to the Red Army who would face the oncoming Germans.
But it was not to be so. It began with one of the worst scenarios. Thanks to Russian partizan attacks, which sutpidly provoked the Germans the Germans Invaded on th 28th of August. And that day the upprisng began.
But chaos could not be overcome. Many local officers int he quick comming of events did not know as to how to act so many were soon captured by the comming Germans.
That happend to two key divisions in Eastern Slovakia. their officers did not act too quickly and soon they were surrounded by germans and gave up without firing a shot.
And so the uprising shrunk to the Central part of Slovakia. Even throug US and USSR military aid after two months the rebel Capitol Banska Bystrica fell and the rebels headed to the mountans to fight a guerilla war.
The main caprathian pass Dukla was won by the Red Army after heavy fighting but their aid came to late.
In the Red Army served a special division made entirely of Czechoslovak soldiers.
C-S soldier fought in many battles and on many fronts and though became a part of the Allied side.
It just goes to show that everycountry that went and made an effort to defeat the Nazis played a very important role that should by honoured by all of us.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 23, 2005 01:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
German offensive foreing policy never hid it's intentions to add Czechoslovakia, atleast the Czech part of it, to it's Riech. No world powers, except for the USSR backed us, showing thier lack fo interest and companionship.
The alliance signed with the USSR was to be later shown only a formal one, but at first it didn't seem so. It atleast gave hope and strenght to the armies.
Strictly speaking it is not true that only Russia supported the Czechs. The French had a mutual protection agreement with you prior to Munich. This is one of the reasons why it is unfair to place the bulk of the blame for Munich on Chamberlin and the British. We may not have been doing the morally right thing at Munich, but the French were betraying the spirit of an agreement on top of doing a morally bad thing. Technically since the Czechs were not "attacked" in a formal war France had no legal obligation to defend her, but that's a very pedantic argument.
Quote:
The appeasemtn policy came to it's first big task. As they said in Brittain "No proper English gentelman is going to go to war for Czechoslovakia." And thats exactly what happened. I wonder why Poland was good enough then, no offense ment ofcourse.
I'd argue that appeasement had already had a couple of important tests and failed both, showing the likely future of any movement Hitler made on the Czechs. Britain had already proved willing to placate Germany/Hitler over the naval balance of power and Austria, both in direct opposition to versailles.
However the arguments as to why Czechslovakia was allowed to fall show distinct whiff of bias against Britain. Britain was not the sole architect of appeasement after all, France was a major element to the policy, and frankly France was in a much better position to take action against Germany in the event of war. However most criticism of appeasement is directed straight at the British and Chamberlin.
As to why Poland mattered more, I personally think Chamberlin believed that the British and French were unprepared for war in 1938 and would loose or be dragged into a long drawn out war that was not winnable. His advisors and most of his government told him that the armed forces and industry needed at least another year to be on a war footing. I do though think that Germany was not in a much better state in 1938 herself, and that war then might well have favoured Britain and her allies rather than Germany. I just don't think Chamberlin and his allies realised this.
Had war broke out over CzechoSlovakia in 38 though, I still don't think CzechoSlovakia would have held off the Germans (though they would have been mauled). Neither France nor Britain could have intervened in the conflict, and unless Poland or Russia threw her hand in I'm afraid CzechoSlovakia would almost certainly have fallen anyway.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
