Chamberlain didn't appease Hitler

[regent]

Britain had a "Rule of Ten" that prohibited Britain from arming for a war for ten years. In 1928 Churchill made the Rule of Ten permanent,

 

[harmonica]

even the German generals wanted Chamberlain to resist hitler
British Saved Hitler from German Army Coup in 1938

number 1 in this link:
10 Times We Could Have Easily Stopped Hitler (But Didn't) - Toptenz.net
if Chamberlain had not appeased hitler on Czechoslovakia, the generals would've probably taken out hitler

 

[harmonica]

Oh, and FRANCE was just trying to prepare themselves for war by Surrendering to THE Nazis.

France lost 350,000 men (almost as many as the US lost in all of WW2) in the battle for France.

And they were militarily defeated, their army was surrounded, and their government was captured.

France was defeated ''quickly''
but Germany had exhausted it's army in Poland and it's borders were not as well defended then
then was the time to strike--and France did not

...ok I went over this in another thread
...France had one of the largest armies in the world
and better tanks!!
...there are not too many recent examples [ ? ] of a country completely defeating another like Germany did to France
...there have been many examples of weak, smaller countries defending and/or defeating a much larger, invading country
Vietnam
Afghanistan--twice
Cambodia vs US
Greece vs Italy
Finnish-Russian war

and Israel vs the Arabs
the Arabs greatly outnumbered Isreal in ALL categories
Israel was at a HUGE disadvantage by being surrounded and having a narrow front
the Germans outclassed the French--greatly

 

[regent]

Did France depend too much on the wall? Both Germany and France had walls to prevent invasion, France's wall was the Maginot Line.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Chamberlain oversaw the largest buildup of military in UK history. Ismay, the supreme commander of Imperial defence stated that Chamberlain should give Germany Chechoslovakia, that war was coming, but that time was on Britain's side and that Britain needed at least 6 more months to get her air force ready for war, but that they needed maybe a whole year at the very least.

Chamberlain and Hitler - source 3 - The National Archives

I'm sorry to destroy conservative beliefs, but they need to be destroyed.

The entire purpose of what now Conservatives say was "appeasement" was to ensure that the UK wasn't wiped out in the opening salvo of the war by fighting a war too prematurely.

And it's odd that nobody says Russia or Stalin were appeasers when Stalin did exactly the same thing. He made a peace treaty with Hitler where Germany and Russia divided up Poland between them (secretly). Stalin also was buying time (and annexing half of another sovereign nation as well). It was absolutely appeasement if you look at it from that perspecitve.

Or both were pragmatic. Neither was ready to fight Germany head on, especially if they had to fight alone. Germany invaded Russia in June of 1941, nearly two years after WW2 started. Russia had all that time to build up and Germany still beat the Russians senseless for a year, with 20 million Russians dying.

In the end if Chamberlain had refused to sign a treaty with Hitler it really wouldn't have mattered as far as 'standing up to blah blah blah'. It did matter greatly that England had that extra year from September 1938 until September 1939 to build up it's airforce, which was the rock the Luftwaffe was smashed against.

On the face of it Chamberlain appears weak after the fact. But in that moment there was nothing anyone, not even the US who's military was about 100,000, could do. Buying time was the best option for all of the futures 'allies'.

 

[regent]

FDR had difficult time extending the draft and just a short time before Pearl Harbor.

 

[martybegan]

Chamberlain oversaw the largest buildup of military in UK history. Ismay, the supreme commander of Imperial defence stated that Chamberlain should give Germany Chechoslovakia, that war was coming, but that time was on Britain's side and that Britain needed at least 6 more months to get her air force ready for war, but that they needed maybe a whole year at the very least.

Chamberlain and Hitler - source 3 - The National Archives

I'm sorry to destroy conservative beliefs, but they need to be destroyed.

The entire purpose of what now Conservatives say was "appeasement" was to ensure that the UK wasn't wiped out in the opening salvo of the war by fighting a war too prematurely.

And it's odd that nobody says Russia or Stalin were appeasers when Stalin did exactly the same thing. He made a peace treaty with Hitler where Germany and Russia divided up Poland between them (secretly). Stalin also was buying time (and annexing half of another sovereign nation as well). It was absolutely appeasement if you look at it from that perspecitve.

Or both were pragmatic. Neither was ready to fight Germany head on, especially if they had to fight alone. Germany invaded Russia in June of 1941, nearly two years after WW2 started. Russia had all that time to build up and Germany still beat the Russians senseless for a year, with 20 million Russians dying.

In the end if Chamberlain had refused to sign a treaty with Hitler it really wouldn't have mattered as far as 'standing up to blah blah blah'. It did matter greatly that England had that extra year from September 1938 until September 1939 to build up it's airforce, which was the rock the Luftwaffe was smashed against.

On the face of it Chamberlain appears weak after the fact. But in that moment there was nothing anyone, not even the US who's military was about 100,000, could do. Buying time was the best option for all of the futures 'allies'.

Stalin was less an appeaser and more a collaborator when it came to Poland and the Baltic Countries.

And then he got stabbed in back when it suited Germany.

And if they would have invaded when he re-entered the Rhineland they would have crushed him, so waiting only became the only strategy after 2-3 years of doing NOTHING.

 

[martybegan]

Did France depend too much on the wall? Both Germany and France had walls to prevent invasion, France's wall was the Maginot Line.

Less relying on a wall and more thinking they would fight the last war all over again.

They had a plan to move their mobile forces into the low countries to meet the anticipated German "hook", and it was a good plan, in 1933.

By 1936 Belgium decided to go neutral, thus ending the coordination between the French/British and them. Belgium also thought their forts would hold, which they didn't.

Germany again hoped for the "short war" and at least in France, they got it.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Chamberlain oversaw the largest buildup of military in UK history. Ismay, the supreme commander of Imperial defence stated that Chamberlain should give Germany Chechoslovakia, that war was coming, but that time was on Britain's side and that Britain needed at least 6 more months to get her air force ready for war, but that they needed maybe a whole year at the very least.

Chamberlain and Hitler - source 3 - The National Archives

I'm sorry to destroy conservative beliefs, but they need to be destroyed.

The entire purpose of what now Conservatives say was "appeasement" was to ensure that the UK wasn't wiped out in the opening salvo of the war by fighting a war too prematurely.

And it's odd that nobody says Russia or Stalin were appeasers when Stalin did exactly the same thing. He made a peace treaty with Hitler where Germany and Russia divided up Poland between them (secretly). Stalin also was buying time (and annexing half of another sovereign nation as well). It was absolutely appeasement if you look at it from that perspecitve.

Or both were pragmatic. Neither was ready to fight Germany head on, especially if they had to fight alone. Germany invaded Russia in June of 1941, nearly two years after WW2 started. Russia had all that time to build up and Germany still beat the Russians senseless for a year, with 20 million Russians dying.

In the end if Chamberlain had refused to sign a treaty with Hitler it really wouldn't have mattered as far as 'standing up to blah blah blah'. It did matter greatly that England had that extra year from September 1938 until September 1939 to build up it's airforce, which was the rock the Luftwaffe was smashed against.

On the face of it Chamberlain appears weak after the fact. But in that moment there was nothing anyone, not even the US who's military was about 100,000, could do. Buying time was the best option for all of the futures 'allies'.

Stalin was less an appeaser and more a collaborator when it came to Poland and the Baltic Countries.

And then he got stabbed in back when it suited Germany.

And if they would have invaded when he re-entered the Rhineland they would have crushed him, so waiting only became the only strategy after 2-3 years of doing NOTHING.

Stalin knew what was up. He was buying time. Like Chamberlain and Roosevelt who also knew war was coming. Nobody was 'blindsided' by what Hitler did. If North Korea invaded the South, then Japan, the world would know what was up.

 

[martybegan]

Chamberlain oversaw the largest buildup of military in UK history. Ismay, the supreme commander of Imperial defence stated that Chamberlain should give Germany Chechoslovakia, that war was coming, but that time was on Britain's side and that Britain needed at least 6 more months to get her air force ready for war, but that they needed maybe a whole year at the very least.

Chamberlain and Hitler - source 3 - The National Archives

I'm sorry to destroy conservative beliefs, but they need to be destroyed.

The entire purpose of what now Conservatives say was "appeasement" was to ensure that the UK wasn't wiped out in the opening salvo of the war by fighting a war too prematurely.

And it's odd that nobody says Russia or Stalin were appeasers when Stalin did exactly the same thing. He made a peace treaty with Hitler where Germany and Russia divided up Poland between them (secretly). Stalin also was buying time (and annexing half of another sovereign nation as well). It was absolutely appeasement if you look at it from that perspecitve.

Or both were pragmatic. Neither was ready to fight Germany head on, especially if they had to fight alone. Germany invaded Russia in June of 1941, nearly two years after WW2 started. Russia had all that time to build up and Germany still beat the Russians senseless for a year, with 20 million Russians dying.

In the end if Chamberlain had refused to sign a treaty with Hitler it really wouldn't have mattered as far as 'standing up to blah blah blah'. It did matter greatly that England had that extra year from September 1938 until September 1939 to build up it's airforce, which was the rock the Luftwaffe was smashed against.

On the face of it Chamberlain appears weak after the fact. But in that moment there was nothing anyone, not even the US who's military was about 100,000, could do. Buying time was the best option for all of the futures 'allies'.

Stalin was less an appeaser and more a collaborator when it came to Poland and the Baltic Countries.

And then he got stabbed in back when it suited Germany.

And if they would have invaded when he re-entered the Rhineland they would have crushed him, so waiting only became the only strategy after 2-3 years of doing NOTHING.

Stalin knew what was up. He was buying time. Like Chamberlain and Roosevelt who also knew war was coming. Nobody was 'blindsided' by what Hitler did. If North Korea invaded the South, then Japan, the world would know what was up.

Stalin might have convinced himself that Hitler would be OK with taking out British and their colonies, and then heading into Africa.

He certainly wasn't expecting it when it happened.

 

[harmonica]

Did France depend too much on the wall? Both Germany and France had walls to prevent invasion, France's wall was the Maginot Line.

they went around it
the French did think of this--but were weak in that area ......the Germans went through--as the did also 1944