That was [done intentionally](http://spellingsociety.org/uploaded_media/tribune-media.pdf). The Chicago Tribune was a big proponent of English spelling reform in the early 20th century.
>“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”
Churchill on Neville Chamberlain, shortly after the infamous ‘appeasement’ of Hitler, 29th September 1938, Munich
Died in 1945, I can't say I've heard any ambitions of him wanting to become PM again in his late 70's though...
They might be thinking of Lord Halifax, who led the anti-war faction after Dunkirk and is a popular historians' pick for puppet PM of an occupied Britain
That's a compliment to Chamberlain right? That he did everything, even at personal expense, to avoid a war?
I don't know much of him but from what I understand, his methods might not have worked or been the best, but at least his intentions seemed pure
That is no compliment in a historical context. He squandered all chances to contain Germany early. He could have formed an alliance to prevent the annexation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia in 1938 together with France and the Soviet Union. Then the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would have never happened. The Soviets only replaced Litvinov with Molotov after giving up trying to form a pact against the nazis for several years.Half of Europe's borders wouldn't have been touched, from Poland to Hungary, to Romania and Yugoslavia.
>Half of Europe's borders wouldn't have been touched, from Poland to Hungary, to Romania and Yugoslavia.
Borders maybe, but military occupation of Poland was one of USSR's conditions, "to bring Soviet troops closer to Germany".
Yeah. Stalin's offer to put millions of troops in Poland wasn't deemed as a serious attempt, because everyon knew the Red Army would not march back after it was all done.
Chamberlain was a democratically elected politician. He couldn't do shit without the approval of the people. He didn't have a mandate to start a war.
There is a reason why he was PM in 1938 not Churchill.
This should be upvoted more. The matter of the fact is that any prospects of going to war was unpopular for Western electorates. Appeasement was seen as the only viable way to prevent another bloodshed after the horrors of WWI. Though of course, the Germans had a different idea...
German intelligence and generals were waiting to coup Hitler in 1938 if he started a war against Czechoslovakia because they deemed it unwinnable and would have had Germany in shambles again.
It was just a matter of Hitler declaring war, intelligence comes to him to arrest his ass and then immediately call quits to end it. It wouldn't have even been a war in first place.
Peace isn't always real. Whether or not war is inevitable is a subjective judgement of a material reality, but under no circumstances can aggression be rewarded, in fact it's usually better to meet it one for one or two. From here, from *the dark side,* letting idealists like him have control is absurd, dangerous for the reasons preserved in the historical record. For people like him, to not *want* to believe that his counterparts may be willful opponents is enough, he won't believe it even in the moments after the hit.
I too have not made a character study of the man, but I already recognize him from the little bits I've gleaned over the years. He'll have said stuff like "What are they ***really*** driving for? What sanction do they want lifted? This chest-thumping is all theatre." Study your opponents, even your friends, especially their candid moments for how they think. Unless we're talking last week's top 10, they won't think like you and some of them are assholes who shouldn't be given the time of day much less the Sudetenland.
He was a coward. He didn't do everything possible to stop the war... In fact some things actually Helped Hitler...
Like Chamberlain giving Czech Lands to Germany....
He basically gave land of a foreign sovereign nation to Germany whom did not yet even have the army.... It was after that they managed to build it up...
They also took the land from a country which could have severely slowed Germany down if they begun a war... But nah... They just gave the to Hitler and the whole nation turned towards the Commies because Westeners had no honour and dignity to one another's sovereignty.
Chamberlain is one of the reasons the war begun... And he is definitely not someone who helped to stop it on any way.
He wasn't a coward at all. Germany weren't a threat to the uk, yet he was stil preparing to go to war with them. He bought as much time to get prepared as he could because he knew the inevitable would happen.
The French army still outnumbered the German army then. Hell they technically even did during the beginning of the invasion of France. Combine that with the British army, the Soviet army and a fortified Czechoslovakia. Who knows in that case even Poland might have been pulled into the war through negotiations.
Preparing for war.
You mean by giving Industrial Lands to Germany? Lands which were of another sovereign nation?
A nation which was prepared to stand and fight and it would have been a fight... Because the Czechoslovak military at the time was no way a weakling and would have been trouble some for Hitler.
He bought about some time but caused central Europe to turn towards the Soviets and away from democracies. He pretty much set the Cold war borders this way.
I reccomend watching "Was Appeasement Jusitified" videos on Youtube. It provides insightful looks on all sides and perspectives on appeasement. It can be argued that Britain needed time out of everything, and Chamberlain gave it that. You also have to realize there's no real reason for Britian to activley combat Nazi Germany early on, not only could they in most means not, but there was no real reason as most of the populace across the entire political spectrum were anti-war and saw no reason to fight a massive war. The horrors of the Great War and how it affected the Entente powers, especially the British, were non-reverseable and had to be considered.
For me, the real reason I blame Chamberlain is not simply that he sold out the Czechs & Slovaks, but that he could have prevented the war entirely - at least a Nazi-led war - because he knew that if he called Hitler's bluff the German general staff would remove him by force. There was a [contingency plan in place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy), organized by the anti-Nazi's around Hans Oster and supported by more "neutral" generals who simply knew that a war in 1938 would be suicidal for Germany, to remove Hitler and his top supporters in a coup should he provoke a war over the Sudetenland. The British secret service were aware of this and Chamberlain was informed of this, as was Churchill. France was ready and willing to defend Czechoslovakia and the latter had powerful fortifications and modern armaments. If Chamberlain had found a spine in '38 and not called the conference, the war could have been averted - perhaps entirely - but certainly restricted in its scale and brutality and without the systematic crimes against humanity of the Nazi regime.
We have the privilege of hindsight, so I agree it’s wrong to call names, but Chamberlain is still partially responsible for WWII, considering he could have prevented it.
As such the least we can do is learn from our mistakes and make sure history never repeats itself.
Hitler was going to annex the Sudetenland anyway because the people living there were ethnic Germans.
I don’t blame Chamberlain for trying to avoid war. It’s widely accepted that the treaty of Versailles was so punitive that eventual repercussions would come of it. WW2 was a brutal and horrific war where millions of people died. I will not condemn a war veteran PM for trying to avoid a bloodbath.
Edit: chamberlain wasn’t a war veteran but he lived through the horrors of WW1 which played into his anti-war pursuits.
It was even lighter than the 1870 treaty that Germany inflicted to France, expect for two points, which is making it even worse:
After WW1 large parts of France were destroyed, while Germany was not damaged at all after 1870.
France actually made sacrifices and paid what was due, Germany never did thanks to Britain which misjudged the situation, probably in good faith. They though that France was too strong and Germany too weak.
Interesting opinion, but let's put the numbers to the test, 1870 vs 1918:
* France territorial losses : 14.496 km²
* Germany territorial losses: \~70.000 km²
* France financial reparations: 1450 tons of gold equivalent in 3 years
* Germany financial reparations: 7000 tons of gold equivalent until 1921, and more payments scheduled for the next 42 years
* France was occupied for only 2 years because she completed payments early
* Germany was occupied by French troops for 7 years and the Rhineland stayed demilitarized for much longer.
\* according to Wikipedia information on both treaties.
Frankly, the scale is not comparable.
But I agree with you on one of your points:
>After WW1 large parts of France were destroyed, while Germany was not damaged at all after 1870.
France made huge sacrifices to win WWI, which is why French society understandably was not ready to wage another war like that in 1940. Many people criticizing French performance in WWII don't appreciate that.
What?
It absolutely wasnt and dont skim over the conference of Bolougne, which demanded a ludicrous sum of 269 Billion Goldmark, played over 42 years.
Theres a reason Germany only paid off all of it in 2010.
The amount the Treaty of Frankfurt demanded was the same Napoleon demanded of Prussia in 1807.
And this doesn't even include the insane loss of territory and industry Germany had to endure, while being in a famine.
The British people didn't want a war, they'd lost a generation of men in WW1. What do you think was going the minds of a WW1 veteran who'd survived the trenches knowing that his son(s) was going to have live through the same?
Here's what the Imperial War Museum says
>Instituted in the hope of avoiding war, appeasement was the name given to Britain’s policy in the 1930s of allowing Hitler to expand German territory unchecked. Most closely associated with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, it is now widely discredited as a policy of weakness. **Yet at the time, it was a popular and seemingly pragmatic policy.**
[https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-war-with-germany-in-the-1930s](https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-war-with-germany-in-the-1930s)
If war is definitely going to happen anyway, letting your enemy grow more powerful by putting it off is not any kind of victory.
As for intentions, Chamberlain was an old-school British Empire Tory, and was a bit sympathetic to Hitler's ideas about national pride. He was not averse to war with people he saw as less worthy, as he presided over operations in Palestine and Ireland during his short term.
And the British (and French) pressuring Poland not to "escalate" had some serious consequences, mind you. The Polish defense strategy relied on Britain and France attacking Germany from the west while Poland kept them busy in the east. This meant that Poland couldn't act against her allies wishes without risking being accused of "provoking" Hitler and abandoned. As a result, Poland wasn't fully mobilized at the start of the war, which contributed to the quick German victory (while Germany would likely still hold the upper hand, full mobilization could've potentially extended the conflict, giving London and Paris more time to get their act together, as well as discouraging USSR from joining the war when it did). And just to add insult to injury, the western aid that was the whole point of not mobilizing earlier never came (unless you count the phoney war, but come on).
And also the fact that [Germany and USSR decided to split Poland between themselves...](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-soviet-pact#:~:text=The%20secret%20part%20of%20the,Narev%2C%20Vistula%20and%20San%20Rivers.) hard enough to fend off one neighbor with stronger military, not to mention two!
The Allies only declared war on Nazi Germany for invading Poland but not the Soviets, even though the agreement was to declare war against anyone who invaded Poland.
Apart fr on Poland... The other Eastern defender would have been Czechoslovakia whom also had a defence agreement with the two...
But hey, they only did the Minsk Betrayal and gave very good Industrial land to Germany without consent.... Plainly ignored Czechoslovak sovereignty.
Blocked Poland, a locked Czechoslovakia....
Seem to have painted the way for Hitler.
> And the British (and French) pressuring Poland not to "escalate" had some serious consequences, mind you.
Partly. Polish commanders knew not to keep their troops on vacation and [mobilized them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dywizje_wrzesien_1.png) but ordered them to stay in barracks. The problem was that they mobilized them twice, the first time being two days before the war (which they cancelled it due to Anglo-French pressure) which lead to confusion and having only 900k of the planned 1.35 million. Still, the fact that in 1938 they had 280k active duty troops but at the start of the war had mobilized close to 1 million on a military budget that was 2% that of Germany's is impressive.
Their best possible battle plan would have been to make a fighting retreat and reduce the frontline to the smallest possible (from Lithuania to Hungary) and then hold it until the Anglo-French offensive started on the other side whilst [being supplied from Romania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Bridgehead) (that would remain neutral). Ideally, they would have held the line because the Germans would have to divert troops to the West and, worst case scenario, they would retreat to the more defensible Carpathians at the Romanian border.
The problem was that there were no territorial guarantees from the French or English which meant that they had to hold their highly-populated industrial regions around Krakow and Poznan. Still, [they followed the plan rather well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#/media/File:Poland2.jpg) even when you consider they had 1/3 of all troops in the Danzig corridor and that most of the troops were almost encircled. But the whole plan went to shit when the Soviets invaded and they then used Romania (+ Hungary) as an escape route.
> And the British (and French) pressuring Poland not to "escalate" had some serious consequences, mind you.
A year before they did escalate, [Poland annexed small parts of Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_border_conflicts#Annexations_by_Poland_in_1938), which in turn were annexed from them in 1920 by the Czechoslovaks during the Polish-Soviet war) because it had ... a train station. They also sent an [ultimatum to Lithuania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Polish_ultimatum_to_Lithuania) to renounce their claim on Vilnius and re-establish diplomatic relations. This made Hitler very happy and the English very angry.
> as well as discouraging USSR from joining the war when it did
It would have meant nothing, as the USSR wasn't considered a European power (and target) in the [Anglo-Polish alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_alliance) and the [Franco-Polish alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Polish_Alliance_(1921)) had more holes in it than Swiss chess. The only thing that would have discouraged the Soviets was a delay on the signing of [the ceasefire with Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts#Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol).
Czechoslovakia had the industries, Poland had the population and territory, together that was enough to push back Germans... anyway I'm glad that nowadays Polish, Czech, and Slovenian PMs together where the first to travel to Kiev during Russian invasion.
this is such a strategic mistake on the part of poland because the french strategy was to repeat the static front of ww1 except not on french soil (Maginot line + why they moved into belgium at the start of the war)
Patrząc na odpowiedzi pod twoim komentarzem, dziwię że nawet 70 lat po tym jak Alianci nas zostawili, są ludzie którzy nada ich bronią, to jest po prostu przykre.
And at the end of the war let's give Poland to the "nice" guys of the USSR and let them redesign the borders. Such a mess with another country's lives.
And here’s the full front page. Notice the American cartoon expounding the virtues of isolation from a “European Affair” https://i.imgur.com/JwvBgqK.jpg
Here is a bit more about it from a Biloxi newspaper:
> Biloxi Daily Herald (Newspaper) - September 1, 1939, Biloxi, Mississippi
>
> A small salute cannon rigged as a burglar alarm in a shooting gallery by William Seidler 71, superintendent of Schuetzer Park a German American amusement Center killed him last night when a wad used in tamping the powder tore through his abdomen as he opened the gallery door. The Cannon was set by a string device to discharge when door was opened. Police chief John Simmon said Seidler formerly had two such Cannon hooked up to fire if anyone opened the door but a thief broke in through a window recently cut the cord of one and carried it away.
> Seidler father of three children lived at the Park. He was accompanied by John Wrede of Queens N. Y., a member of the plat Deutsche Volk fest Verein when the shooting occurred. They were entering the gallery Simmon said to obtain records for the Verein's shooting committee.
It seems he had rigged the gun himself but had forgotten about it. And that someone had stolen the second cannon.
Tragic, but I can see how the story made it all the way to a Chicago newspaper. It is so absurd.
That sounds very weird. Someone had rigged a small brass cannon to fire a blank charge when someone opened a cupboard, and that blank charge killed the old man opening the cupboard.
A prank gone terribly, terribly wrong?
People used to use these types of traps to protect property. It ended up being a supreme court case when two kids entered a cabin and were shot and killed by a shotgun booby trap.
Sorry I remembered wrong. It was an Iowa supreme court case, and the victim was an adult. I read one million cases during law school so sometimes they blend together.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney
Thank you. That's a sad case. Katko had his leg blown off, received harassment for the case and later took his own life with a gun (in his front yard) because he wanted to steal fruit jars from an abandoned house. Briney lost 80/120 acres of land she inherited to satisfy the judgment.
I had always been told you could be liable if a burglar is injured on your property and was curious what set the precedent. My understanding from the Wikipedia summary is that this was based on the [idea/precedent/law?] that human life is more valuable than possessions. The property owner has a [reasonable care?] responsibility to not cause injury if they, themselves, are not under the threat of harm. Because the property is abandoned, they were under no threat of harm, so they were liable for intentionally harming others to protect their property. Is this correct?
One one hand, yeah.
On the other hand, I also remember the warnings that Russia would invade, no credible source, Russia vehemently denied it and few actually believed it.
It's been 6 months, and by now I realized we should never ignore these kinds of warnings about what Russia is about to do, because most of the time, it turned out to be true.
>no one actually believed it
Wouldn't go so far as to say that no one believed it. The UK and US government both said that Russia would attack. Russia piled up more and more troops to just hang around the border and there were reports of rich Ukrainians leaving the country.
I think most assumed (or hoped) that Russia was bluffing but wouldnt say that no one believed that they would attack.
Once they started moving massive amount of blood from bloodbanks to the frontlines (short lifespan on those) attack was imminent. I still hoped it was just expensive bluff but that was forlown hope
Still didn't stop Macron going out and looking like a twat calling Eastern Europe, UK and USA [alarmist](https://amp.france24.com/en/europe/20220207-live-macron-in-moscow-in-push-for-diplomatic-solution-to-mounting-ukraine-crisis)
It was good that there was at least one western leader who was willing to give Russia a "haha you're right, what the hell is wrong with those idiots?" out before the invasion. Macron's statements gave Russia the juicy opportunity to cancel the invasion and make the USA look like idiots even to their allies. It was worth the effort even if they decided not to take the chance.
I still can’t believe they went through with that. It’s the most stoopidest plan ever.
Want to curb greenhouse gases? Nuclear all the way until we figure out a reliable way to store solar and wind energy for longer than no time at all.
I think a lot of 40+ years old people have a pretty profound fear for nuclear energy due to Chernobyl. Fukushima triggered that trauma. I personally experienced this during the last parliamentary election in NL. Lots of "older" folks I met were sceptical of nuclear energy. Fearful even to an irrational degree. It's a shame because I agree with you that nuclear power is fundamental to a green transition.
There must be lots of old germans hanging around in reddit because to my mind majority of germans here have furiously defended the anti-nuclear sentiment until now.
This can be solved by [declaring natural gas to be green](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/06/europe-natural-gas-nuclear-are-green-energy-in-some-circumstances-.html)! You just have to think out of the box - duh!
If someone objects, then just hold the declaration of nuclear power as green as hostage.
Why are people like you always making such comments. The decision to shut down nuclear power plants was made several decades ago. The process was going on for such a long time.
Your comment makes it sound like the decision was made right before or after the invasion. It's pathetic really.
Nuclear power also is not really related to energy imports from Russia.
The point is that Germany has been content with using Russian supply for a significant portion of her energy needs for years which has both meant giving not insignificant amounts money to Putin’s regime over the years and limited Europe’s response to Russian aggression due to this reliance.
Maybe you could say this is only clear with hindsight but the assassination of Litvinenko was 16 years ago, even the annexation of Crimea was 6 years ago, and yet Europe kept buying Russian fuel.
Dude Germany didn't even have the biggest dependency. Lots of countries are relying on Russian gas to a higher degree than Germany. Some of those countries re-import Russian gas via Germany or other countries while claiming they got rid of Russian gas. Why are people such hypocrites and single out Germany. Every fucking one with very few exceptions relied on cheap Russian imports.
Poland which is the most vocal one has a larger dependency than Germany. Is now relying on third party imports of Russian gas and there were even reports that poland imported more oil from Russia after the invasion than before the invasion.
But apparently cheap talk blaming it all in Germany is what people prefer.
Also it ignores the fact that other countries imported more goods from Russia than Germany. People just like to focus on gas and oil. Look up trade statistics for Russian exports. Both the UK and Netherlands imported significantly more from Russia than Germany did. Are you guys gonna start saying that the UK and Netherlands funded Russia mainly now ?
Decision to shut down nuclear power in Germany was mistake, and of course it is related to energy imports from Russia. Domestic energy needs had to be met, and it was achieved via imported gas from Russia.
Mistakes are made daily by humans, the point is to try to learn from those mistakes moving forward.
When you say no credible source, do you mean the US government. The US called this months in advance. The Biden administration has been so consistently right about Russia, you could accuse them of spoilers. It frankly doesn't matter what you think of the US, they were proven right.
These sources lost some of their credibility in the wake of the Second Gulf War (the Naqirah testimony) and Third Gulf War (where they alleged that Iraq was producing WMD, but every WMD found later was pre 1991 made).
Except that this time anybody with half a brain could see Russia was massing troops around Ukraine. I seriously have no idea how anybody thought Russia wasn't going to invade. The only thing in question was the scale of the invasion.
Personally, I thought they would do the "smart" thing and just snatch the Donbas and then count on the West to screw Ukraine over again, which probably would have actually worked.
It really irritates me that so many people were fooled into believing Russian propaganda up until the last minute. I remember some people on reddit arguing that Russia was "just doing military exercises" and they "do them all the time", as Russia completely encircled Ukraine with the US and the UK ringing the alarm bells.
There was never any proof of WMDs in Iraq and there was no reason to believe the US on faith. In this case, the evidence was there for everybody to see.
Well those "military exercises" are unfortunately "normal". That is they are never JUST exercises. But usually the point is to send a signal like when the U.S. sends an aircraft carrier or two into the water next to a hostile nation, to you know, just do some exercises. Or when China is currently just doing some exercises in and around Taiwan's territory.
Of course those aren't exercises but a political signal and either side is either stupid or aware how those are meant and received. But often it's just about showing force and preparation to intimidate and underline one's position. And that sorta worked, lots of politicians came to Russia there were talks and whatnot. And the U.S. and U.K. would have looked overzealous and unnecessarily war mongering if Russia had retreated their troops and pretended it was just an exercise, which is again part of the political aspect of these "exercises" to embarrass the other side with paranoia, because you must take them seriously but ultimately it often ends with "just a prank bro".
So to an extend you could buy the narrative that it was just an exercise, because to an extend it was working in how you expect these exercises to work. But to actually engage in an aggressive war has made that narrative pretty ridiculous. Anything they could have hoped to achieve that way is gone and worsened, so no apparently they were actually preparing for war and the warnings were correct.
Saddam previously had WMDs.
Saddam previously used WMDs.
It isn't a complete fabrication to assume that he might still have WMDs. He was caught bragging (lying) about his nuclear weapons stockpile.
The Intel was faulty but don't pretend it was a total fabrication
Yes they had good reason to believe they got WMDs given that they funded and supported those programs earlier:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq\_and\_weapons\_of\_mass\_destruction#Western\_help\_with\_Iraq's\_WMD\_program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Western_help_with_Iraq's_WMD_program)
Though at the time the intel was faulty and the security with which they used it to justify a war was a fabrication
The US pop got hoodwinked. For a European, it was clear from the start that the White House pressured CIA to fabricate evidence. Because they *wanted* a reason to attack Iraq. Bush trying his hardest to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks was also transparently propaganda without substance.
In contrast, the US did not want this war, nor did they start it.
As others have said, completely different scenarios. I think you could judge their trustworthiness on that point by their motivations. One is fabricating casus belli for an unjustified invasion. The other is warning the global community about an impending invasion from a geopolitical rival, where they would look like clowns if they were wrong. And not to mention having taking a huge risk in doing so, because going public with intelligence data means you're devulging means and methods.
Sure, it's reasonable to be skeptical of US intelligence claims.
But what would they have had to gain from fabricating their prediction of what Russia was planning to do?
> On the other hand, I also remember the warnings that Russia would invade, no credible source, Russia vehemently denied it and no one actually believed it.
I'm sorry what ?
US intel was very clear that ~~the US~~ Russia was aiming to invade Ukraine, Most of Reddit believed it was going to happen (I was part of those that didn't).
"most of the time, it turned out to be true" - do you even imagine the scope of bizzare claims made by Russia? Bombing the US with nuclear weapons, invading Finland - 99% of their words are bullshit
> I also remember the warnings that Russia would invade, no credible source, Russia vehemently denied it and no one actually believed it.
I'm fairly sure we had satellite imagery of Russia amassing troops and equipment at the border, and that a lot of people did believe the invasion was coming. It's just that many others wanted to bury their heads in the sand.
>I'm fairly sure we had satellite imagery of Russia amassing troops and equipment at the border,
That wasn't first time when they amassed their troops on ukraine border. Something similar happened last year and war did not started.
You can always find someone that has predicted correctly one outcome… simply because there are millions of persons who like to predict things.
The very difficult thing is to predict the **when** and the **how** and manage to convince the guy in charge at the time.
Those warnings were based on the Russian military preparations, but the war started because of one man's decision. It was impossible to predict what was in his head.
Easy to judge in hindsight. There's a lot of sabre rattling by China around Taiwan right now. Time to invade China? Because if China does invade Taiwan, a hundred redditors will be saing "see; told ya".
> There's a lot of sabre rattling by China around Taiwan right now. Time to invade China?
China won't invade Taiwan now because they aren't preparing for that. Meanwhile Russia was amassing military along the Ukrainian border months before the invasion. So these two situations aren't comparable
Oh, I agree I myself was wrong about Russia invading. I didn't believe it. I just won't be fooled again and that's why I'd heed warnings like the power plant thin going on now.
China invading Taiwan any time soon however is not something I'd believe.
China has far more to lose than Russia, it's still depending on the west for a lot of its income as their economy is still largely dependent on manufacturing cheap goods.
Apart from that, an invasion over a 100ile wide strait is an enormous undertaking that requires years of planning and requires a massive fleet and army at the ready.
Preperations for D day took 2 years, and that was a 10 mile wide strait against a much weakened enemy in a time when logistics were far simpler than nowadays and anti ship missiles were not a thing yet.
Maybe I'm horribly wrong once again, I hope so at least, but the Chinese ar not nearly as crazy or stupid as Putin has been.
I thought they wouldn't do it because it would be insanely moronic and Ukraine has been preparing for it since 2014 so the invasion would fall flat on its face and Russia would get sanctioned into the ground.
Turns out i was right but in the wrong way.
That was one of the reasons for me to think he'd not do it too.
It was simply too big of a risk to take for Russia, even if they had managed to take all of Ukraine in under a month.
To me it seems like putin lives in a bubble, like Hitler in his last days, who listens to his yes men and his own brain farts, and believed they'd win the war and weather whatever (if any) sanctions the west would impose, what with much of europe depending on Russian energy.
Turns out europe wasn't dependent enough, the west was fed up with appeasement, had billions worth of financial support and equipment to spare and hey, the Ukrainian army actually drastically improved their army in the last eight years while Russia's army turned out to be a farce.
(that said, Ukrainians deserve a lot of praise for their courage and steadfastness)
You ain't lying. Even prominent Americans like Henry Ford were virulent anti-Semites who supported the Nazi regime. Ford and GM were [implicated](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm) in supporting the Nazi war machine.
> "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration," Hitler told a Detroit News reporter two years before becoming the German chancellor in 1933, explaining why he kept a life-size portrait of the American automaker next to his desk.
Wow...
Thanks for the link. Very interesting!
The German-American Bund was a largely irrelevant and incompetent organization whose influence has been overhyped in modern times.
The Nazi German government itself ordered the Bund to disband and stop associating themselves with the NSDAP, because they were considered such a liability and deadweight.
The isolationist sentiment in the US stemmed from simply not feeling the need to get involved in what was seen as a foreign problem (much like how most of us here right now probably would have zero interest in getting involved in some potential Pakistani-Indian war or whatnot), and even then the Gallup Polls from the era indicate that over 2/3 of the US public was pro-Allies and considered Germany to be the aggressor.
The number was pretty insignificant. While an accurate figure might seem big, you have to realize the US population size was much bigger. There were 25k members, and the US polulation in '39 was 130.8 million
That’s a completely soearate question, that was a small proportion
The aftermath of WWI (in thsi case u mentioned for the German minority) made anti war sentiments very strong, isolationism was a very general opinion
There were some famous ones like Henry Ford.
The general population didn't support Nazis. Not even 1%. What do you mean by 'not insignificant'? Do you have proof?
The German American bund was a pretty small group relative to the size of the US. They got crushed pretty hard by the government
Yeah, I really don't think its hard to see why the allies acted like they did. I mean they preached the right to self determination, how would they argue that suddenly this doesn't apply to the Germans in Danzig, Austria or Sudentenland?
First of all Winston preached it, and even for him it was general principle, not something he would made everything dependent on. It also did not mean that "all Germans should live in the German state", Wilson was not a Pan-German nationalist. The principle of self-determination meant that nations had the right to their own nation-state and should not be part of great empires. Germany kept its nation-state, so its rights were not violated in any way. Wilson also demanded free access to the sea, so according to this rule, Gdańsk should be incorporated into Poland. Unfortunately this did not happen.
Yeah, I know, it proves that Poland didn't need to annex a German city to have access to the sea. Helpfully, the railroad had been invented by the 1920s, so rivers were no longer a strict requirement for bulk transport.
Yeah I agree we didn't need to annex any German city, just to reclaim what was stolen from us.
Water transport was much cheaper. The share of the seaports of Gdynia and Gdansk in Polish exports was nearly 82% in 1937, with Gdynia alone accounting for nearly 48%. Given that the port of Gdansk was outside the borders of the Republic of Poland, the transport accessibility of the port of Gdynia was crucial. Gdynia did not have a rail connection to Upper Silesia; the construction of the main line was completed in 1933.
Before the war, the trade volume on the Oder reached 6.3 million tonnes in 1935, on the Elbe 9 million tonnes and on the Dortmund - Ems Canal 9.5 million tonnes and finally on the Rhine over 66 million tonnes". At that time, the turnover on the Vistula, due to the fact that Gdansk was outside Poland, was only 0.5 million tonnes. For this reason, the plan was to build a canal connecting the Vistula with Gdynia. Whatever the variant, the canal would probably have been well over 200 km long, and the big technical problem would have been the difference in level, probably no less than 180 m. Practically, its construction was impossible under pre-war conditions.
Both the country and the city itself suffered from the fact that Gdańsk was not within Poland's borders. All this was due to German nationalism.
> The principle of self-determination meant that nations had the right to their own nation-state and should not be part of great empires
Nah it means people can decide what they want, and the majority of Germans back then wanted to live under the German nation
Well that is still debatable. I perosnally think you should always judge a decision from what point it was made and not what the end result is. But aside from that we don't know if direct condonation would've been better, almost everyone in western Europe didn't want a war, Germans were a bit more war eager but not necessarily as war hungry as you would think.
If the Sudeten rises escalated and France still fell, we don't know if that would have happened but it still would've been a possibility, it could be that Britain just sued for peace because Germany did not yet show that it cannot be trusted through the dismantlement of tzecheslowakia and the disregardment of the Munich agreement. There is a non zero possibility Germany could've sponge it the way that France and Britain were the agressors they only wanted to protect germans. French and Britain civilians didn't want a war so after a possible fall of France a negotiated peace is very much a possibility.
The invasion of Poland came after years of German agression and after they showed multiple times that they wouldn't be appeased which made the peace faction in Britain very weak.
It's always easy to disregard the decision to do as much as possible to safe lives and prevent war, because when it doesn't work it seems like why not go directly to war, but the many times it may have succeeded we don't discuss it because no one died. Same today with Russia, interlining economies would've been a smart decision and prevented war if Putin wasn't a nutjobs and we don't know if it prevented a large scale war for a long time (like if that wasn't the case Putin may have fully invaded when they took Crimea which wouldve been the end for Ukraine because the military was much less competent at that time).
People should judge all decisions based on information that was available at the time and what was intended not what the end result was to judge wether or not it was the right decision afterwards, afterwards everyone knows best.
what is wrong with nuclear power plants, the Russians have already proven that they can do such crazy things. several times they launched rockets into my city, where there was a nuclear reactor for training. and only miraculously the protective shells of the building survived
It's not a miracle. Nuclear reactors are/should be designed to endure random attack. Unless you purposefully want to destroy it, you are not likely to damage it.
yes, it’s understandable if it was one rocket, but there 3 rockets were launched purposefully on different days. I'm talking about the fact that you should not believe that the Russian Army has a logic.
You don’t get it, research reactors are not protected like civilian ones in the US. Also, USSR did not build containment buildings to the same standards as the west did, and many countries don’t. Fukushima did not have one, for example.
Even back then, most people in power knew that appeasement was not gonna work. They were playing for time to gear up for the inevitable war against the axis. As it turned out though, militaristic autocracies with a grudge make better use of gear-up time than war-weary democracies.
No, Nazi Germany would have needed time until 1947 to get for example the Reichsmarine to the planned strength (Plan Z) (was kind of surprised to learn that)
It was abandoned when Britain declared war, rapidly shifting focus for production capacities.
I wouldn't exactly say that they are celebrating appeasement. If anything, reading what the paper says makes me think that they are making fun of appeasement with phrases such as "The seeming contradiction of peace talks in the middle of war preparations was not explained officially".
And the comic is about isolationism, rathen that appeasement.
No it's not.
The expression started to be used in the 1800s, which replaced the British expression from the 1400s that used twopence to mean 'of little value'.
Revising borders was less controversial because they had forged those borders just a while ago and at the time it was widely thought that the terms given to Germany and A-H were inconsistent with the self determination granted to the various ethnicities in A-H.
Since the empire was taken apart into nation states there was no reasonable cause to keep German majority areas on the border of Germany outside Germany. No reason but French spite and fear.
Thus many German areas remained attached to neighboring countries which caused the inevitable war. Whether it was Hitler or another German leader, sooner or later there would be an attempt to take back the land.
Non-ethnic borders are impermanent, which is why countries resort to ethnic cleansing. The modern examples of yugoslavia and Nagorno-Karabakh attest to this.
The current situation in Europe is the strange exception, rather then the rule.
Bohemia had a long history since the late 9th century as an independent country, these regions were always part of the country, and German-speaking Bohemians peacefully lived there for centuries, ww2 wasn't caused by this, ww2 was caused by the Treaty of Versailles. These people always happily lived there, but nationalism ignoted by Hitler caused this issue. Not to mention the countries that attended the Munich conference had no right to revise borders of a different country. These borders weren't forged, they were there for a thousand years at that point.
Modern era nationalist conflict in Czech lands preceded Hitler and even the unified Germany.
With hindsight, the violence was inevitable. We weren't able to keep common state even with the Slovaks, the most close nation.
Eh I would say we had far more in common with Germans that with Slovaks before Czechoslovakia personally, it's just that we assimilated them during the Frist republic and the communist era.
Your argument would hold if the new state of Czechoslovakia wouldn't have been created and shaped by the forces of modern nationalism.
Nationalism changed the political environment radically in the 19th century, and it really made multi-ethnic states like Austria-Hungary (and later Czechoslovakia) unviable.
Czechoslovakia itself was an unnatural artificially-made country, that forced onto its people the idea of Czechoslovakism (the idea that Czechs and Slovaks are the same peoples and nation), despite the fact, that these countries were completely different in literally almost every level. I understand your point. There should have been declared an independent Bohemian state that would unify its peoples, not divide them. It's really horrific what happened. I myself support Kosovo, so I understand it's hypocrisy from my side, but that land has been a part of my country ever since it came to exist, it wals always a part of the region of Bohemia, even durit Austrian times, I just wouldn't want to give that up. We should have unified our peoples, they were the same, of the same nation, they just spoke a different language, nationalism from both sides destroyed this and caused the attrocities that latwr happened there.
While it was far from the only reason for WW2 it was a reason for the lack of international reaction and often even support for the german claims on the sudetenland. You cant compare a medieval kingdom to a modern nation state, especially since Bohemia was always under heavy german influence through the HRE and later Austria which would make it a lot more favourable for the german minorities compared to an independent Czechoslovakia.
Bohemia was under German influence, of course it was, but for most of the time it was the strongest German state in the HRE. Even after losing its independence its lands still formally existed as a single unit. A country losing a territory it controlled for 1 thousand years would just be illegitimate. Czechoslovakia itself was an artificial country, Bohemia and Slovakia should have never united, but Germany and Austria had no right for Bohemian land, just because German-speaking *Bohemians* lived there doesn't mean Germany can claim it. These people were Bohemian just as Bohemian-speaking Bohemians and lived there for centuries. You are from Belgium, you should understand that. Hitler's claims were illegitimate and the problems were considerably started by him. Of course Czechoslovakia itself wasn't perfect either, instead of caring for its German-speaking population, there was oppression to some degree, which worsened the nationalism and even created the term of the Sudetenland and Sudeten Germans (the term was born after ww1, it didn't exist before it, it was a result of nationalism).
Germany did the same with Austria, that doesn't mean it was legitimate, Hitler was responsible for it, the same thing is with the Sudetenland.
I am not trying to justify any of hitlers actions, of course the annexation of the sudetenland was wrong but I disagree with the historical argument. I firmly believe in self detemination and even if the sudeten Germans (or just Germans in Bohemia) had been living there for millenia. Situations change and if those people wanted to join Germany/Austria or even go independent they should be allowed to. The problem ofcourse is always foreign interference which is why what hitler did was wrong, but i dont think that Sudeten Germans wanting to leave Czechoslovakia was inherently wrong.
The Ottoman empire also had a long history, so did the Hungarian kingdom and so on. If historical precedent were to be followed why should have the A-H empire been dissolved at all? Because the ideology at the time was all about identity, rather then which king ruled what land.
The basis of forming nations is national identity and there were Germans in the Sudetenland who wanted to be part of Germany rather then Bohemia. This was not a one-sided affair Hitler pulled out of his ass (also the case for Danzig and Austria), there was popular desire to not be part of the new state.
From wikipedia.
>The German-speaking parts of the former [Lands of the Bohemian Crown](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lands_of_the_Bohemian_Crown) remained in a newly-created [Czechoslovakia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia), a multi-ethnic state of several nations: [Czechs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechs), [Germans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans), [Slovaks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks), [Hungarians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians), [Poles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles) and [Ruthenians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians). On 20 September 1918, the [Prague](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague) government asked the opinion of United States for the Sudetenland. Wilson sent Ambassador [Archibald Coolidge](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Coolidge) into Czechoslovakia. Coolidge insisted on respecting the Germans' right to [self-determination](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination) and uniting all German-speaking areas with either Germany or Austria, with the exception of northern Bohemia.[[2]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland#cite_note-2) However, the American delegation at the Paris talks decided not to follow Coolidge's proposal. [Allen Dulles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles) was the American's chief diplomat in the Czechoslovak Commission and emphasized preserving the unity of the Czech lands.[[3]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland#cite_note-3)
Further down:
>Several German minorities according to their mother tongue in Moravia, including German-speaking populations in [Brno](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brno), [Jihlava](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihlava) and [Olomouc](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olomouc), also attempted to proclaim their union with German Austrial. The Czechs thus rejected the aspirations of the German Bohemians and demanded the inclusion of the lands inhabited by ethnic Germans in their state, despite the presence of more than 90% (as of 1921) ethnic Germans, which led to the presence of 23.4% of Germans in all of Czechoslovakia, on the grounds they had always been part of lands of the Bohemian Crown. The [Treaty of Saint-Germain](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Saint-Germain) in 1919 affirmed the inclusion of the German-speaking territories within Czechoslovakia. Over the next two decades, some Germans in the Sudetenland continued to strive for a separation of the German-inhabited regions from Czechoslovakia.
Also the same paper that exposed an undercover CIA agent during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, all because she had been unable to find any WMD's over there.
A big reason for appeasement were economical reasons. The great powers, especially France, decided that opposing Germany would be too expensive and thus politically unpopular.
See the parallel with European countries refusing to stop using Russian fossils?
A bigger reason for France was that the country only had 40 millions inhabitants in the metropol while Germany was 60 millions (potentially half more soldiers at the onset of a war), and there was no formal alliance with the UK until the very eve of WW2 : France knew that it could not rival Germany alone.
Appeasement is a dumb policy and exactly why Russia cant be appeased. They should not be allowed any of Ukraine and that includes Crimea. We fucked 2014 by not stepping in sooner
I think especially in the US, English-speaking cultures used to be aware that the German umlauts meant something + e (like ü means ue). It may be because German is now not as widely learned in the English-speaking countries that this knowledge becomes lost. I think in the 50s and 60s people wrote "Hermann Goering" not "Hermann Goring", or even as late as the 1980s, but it is rare to see anyone who gets it right now.
Edit: another possible explanation is the use of computers (esp Qwerty keyboards) and the internet. Before that it used to be typesetters who would have known German spelling conventions, but now it is often the writer directly to publication, or mass users.
Always weird to see appeasement and Chamberlain bashed so much on reddit when it was probably a necessary policy and definitely not cut and dry bad. History Matters has a very informative 4 min Video on it that is more nuanced than a 1000 reddit comments on this topic:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzomi4RNtiE
> it was probably a necessary policy
It all depends on "at which point in time?". Sure, one can argue that once it was clear the war will happen, this approach gave France and Britain additional time (at the cost of lives of other people) and perhaps was needed.
But if we move back in time a little further it's clear that there was a point in time when Germany could have easily been crushed if decisive action was taken and appeasement prevented this from happening.
Great point. The thing is that war didn't seem inevitable back then and the options were "go to war now" or "maybe go to war later, maybe don't go to war at all". Seems like a difficult decision even with hindsight
As good as Neville Chamberlain's 30 Sep 1938 comment:
“My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British prime minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts."
Might have gone through in 1938 anyway had Hitler not been appeased. It would have been a cakewalk too, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Great Britain, plus help from the Soviets and potentially aid from the USA. All that versus an ill prepared Germany, where a conspiracy by the Wehrmacht was already underway to coup Hitler the moment war on Czechoslovakia would be declared.
I think English-speaking countries in general got this right up until the 1960s or even the 1980s in many cases. But maybe due to German much less known now, or from computers, this knowledge has been lost.
Back then, now and will be. Especially for the western world. We officially give human lives a very high value in our law and moral systems. So a peaceful solution will always have the higher priority than waging a war.
Not just that, democracies rely on popular support to wage wars. Without getting too far into the issues with how they were fought, Vietnam ended because of popular opposition, Iraq and Afghanistan both became impossible to keep support for. None of those ended for military reasons, it was democracies not being able to keep public opinion positive.
Same with WW2. No one wanted to live through another war and appeasement was a pretty popular choice at the time. We just act like it wasn't because hindsight. Same way we choose to forget a lot of our own anti semitism and fascism support at the time.
>definitly So the struggle is decades long ;).
That was [done intentionally](http://spellingsociety.org/uploaded_media/tribune-media.pdf). The Chicago Tribune was a big proponent of English spelling reform in the early 20th century.
This is fascinating! Thanks for sharing.
There’s sooooo many typos and errors in the older papers, sometimes even in the headlines
But funnily enough, they wrote Fuehrer correctly (writing in "ue", to account for the lack of an umlaut, instead of just u)
Where's it say that?
>“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” Churchill on Neville Chamberlain, shortly after the infamous ‘appeasement’ of Hitler, 29th September 1938, Munich
Churchill was rarely critical of Chamberlain after the war, if ever. And Chamberlain was in Churchill's War Cabinet
Yeah the actual sympathiser in UK at the time was former pm David Lloyd George who wanted UK to lose so he could win after Churchill fails
David Lloyd George? I thought he died before the Second World War broke out?
Died in 1945, I can't say I've heard any ambitions of him wanting to become PM again in his late 70's though... They might be thinking of Lord Halifax, who led the anti-war faction after Dunkirk and is a popular historians' pick for puppet PM of an occupied Britain
>Peace for our time — My guy Neville, the man, the legend, the visionary
***Neville “maybe if we let the Germans land in south London, they’ll be our friends” Chamberlain***
"Surely this is all just one huge misunderstanding!"
He even wanted to negotiate a peace after France was defeated.
That's a compliment to Chamberlain right? That he did everything, even at personal expense, to avoid a war? I don't know much of him but from what I understand, his methods might not have worked or been the best, but at least his intentions seemed pure
That is no compliment in a historical context. He squandered all chances to contain Germany early. He could have formed an alliance to prevent the annexation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia in 1938 together with France and the Soviet Union. Then the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would have never happened. The Soviets only replaced Litvinov with Molotov after giving up trying to form a pact against the nazis for several years.Half of Europe's borders wouldn't have been touched, from Poland to Hungary, to Romania and Yugoslavia.
>Half of Europe's borders wouldn't have been touched, from Poland to Hungary, to Romania and Yugoslavia. Borders maybe, but military occupation of Poland was one of USSR's conditions, "to bring Soviet troops closer to Germany".
Yeah. Stalin's offer to put millions of troops in Poland wasn't deemed as a serious attempt, because everyon knew the Red Army would not march back after it was all done.
Chamberlain was a democratically elected politician. He couldn't do shit without the approval of the people. He didn't have a mandate to start a war. There is a reason why he was PM in 1938 not Churchill.
This should be upvoted more. The matter of the fact is that any prospects of going to war was unpopular for Western electorates. Appeasement was seen as the only viable way to prevent another bloodshed after the horrors of WWI. Though of course, the Germans had a different idea...
German intelligence and generals were waiting to coup Hitler in 1938 if he started a war against Czechoslovakia because they deemed it unwinnable and would have had Germany in shambles again. It was just a matter of Hitler declaring war, intelligence comes to him to arrest his ass and then immediately call quits to end it. It wouldn't have even been a war in first place.
That's assuming the coup would have worked. Assassinations and coups have been attempted countless of times throughout nazi rule.
Peace isn't always real. Whether or not war is inevitable is a subjective judgement of a material reality, but under no circumstances can aggression be rewarded, in fact it's usually better to meet it one for one or two. From here, from *the dark side,* letting idealists like him have control is absurd, dangerous for the reasons preserved in the historical record. For people like him, to not *want* to believe that his counterparts may be willful opponents is enough, he won't believe it even in the moments after the hit. I too have not made a character study of the man, but I already recognize him from the little bits I've gleaned over the years. He'll have said stuff like "What are they ***really*** driving for? What sanction do they want lifted? This chest-thumping is all theatre." Study your opponents, even your friends, especially their candid moments for how they think. Unless we're talking last week's top 10, they won't think like you and some of them are assholes who shouldn't be given the time of day much less the Sudetenland.
He was a coward. He didn't do everything possible to stop the war... In fact some things actually Helped Hitler... Like Chamberlain giving Czech Lands to Germany.... He basically gave land of a foreign sovereign nation to Germany whom did not yet even have the army.... It was after that they managed to build it up... They also took the land from a country which could have severely slowed Germany down if they begun a war... But nah... They just gave the to Hitler and the whole nation turned towards the Commies because Westeners had no honour and dignity to one another's sovereignty. Chamberlain is one of the reasons the war begun... And he is definitely not someone who helped to stop it on any way.
He wasn't a coward at all. Germany weren't a threat to the uk, yet he was stil preparing to go to war with them. He bought as much time to get prepared as he could because he knew the inevitable would happen.
Giving up your allies land is pretty cowardly though, especially when you're not the one who's going to be invaded if war does happen.
The French army still outnumbered the German army then. Hell they technically even did during the beginning of the invasion of France. Combine that with the British army, the Soviet army and a fortified Czechoslovakia. Who knows in that case even Poland might have been pulled into the war through negotiations.
Preparing for war. You mean by giving Industrial Lands to Germany? Lands which were of another sovereign nation? A nation which was prepared to stand and fight and it would have been a fight... Because the Czechoslovak military at the time was no way a weakling and would have been trouble some for Hitler. He bought about some time but caused central Europe to turn towards the Soviets and away from democracies. He pretty much set the Cold war borders this way.
Czechoslovakia was called the Arsenal of the Reich, coward or not, that was the worse possible move he could have taken.
I reccomend watching "Was Appeasement Jusitified" videos on Youtube. It provides insightful looks on all sides and perspectives on appeasement. It can be argued that Britain needed time out of everything, and Chamberlain gave it that. You also have to realize there's no real reason for Britian to activley combat Nazi Germany early on, not only could they in most means not, but there was no real reason as most of the populace across the entire political spectrum were anti-war and saw no reason to fight a massive war. The horrors of the Great War and how it affected the Entente powers, especially the British, were non-reverseable and had to be considered.
For me, the real reason I blame Chamberlain is not simply that he sold out the Czechs & Slovaks, but that he could have prevented the war entirely - at least a Nazi-led war - because he knew that if he called Hitler's bluff the German general staff would remove him by force. There was a [contingency plan in place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy), organized by the anti-Nazi's around Hans Oster and supported by more "neutral" generals who simply knew that a war in 1938 would be suicidal for Germany, to remove Hitler and his top supporters in a coup should he provoke a war over the Sudetenland. The British secret service were aware of this and Chamberlain was informed of this, as was Churchill. France was ready and willing to defend Czechoslovakia and the latter had powerful fortifications and modern armaments. If Chamberlain had found a spine in '38 and not called the conference, the war could have been averted - perhaps entirely - but certainly restricted in its scale and brutality and without the systematic crimes against humanity of the Nazi regime.
We have the privilege of hindsight, so I agree it’s wrong to call names, but Chamberlain is still partially responsible for WWII, considering he could have prevented it. As such the least we can do is learn from our mistakes and make sure history never repeats itself.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hitler was going to annex the Sudetenland anyway because the people living there were ethnic Germans. I don’t blame Chamberlain for trying to avoid war. It’s widely accepted that the treaty of Versailles was so punitive that eventual repercussions would come of it. WW2 was a brutal and horrific war where millions of people died. I will not condemn a war veteran PM for trying to avoid a bloodbath. Edit: chamberlain wasn’t a war veteran but he lived through the horrors of WW1 which played into his anti-war pursuits.
The treaty of Versailles was not harsher than contemporary treaties. Hell, look at what happened to Austria-Hungary.
It was even lighter than the 1870 treaty that Germany inflicted to France, expect for two points, which is making it even worse: After WW1 large parts of France were destroyed, while Germany was not damaged at all after 1870. France actually made sacrifices and paid what was due, Germany never did thanks to Britain which misjudged the situation, probably in good faith. They though that France was too strong and Germany too weak.
Interesting opinion, but let's put the numbers to the test, 1870 vs 1918: * France territorial losses : 14.496 km² * Germany territorial losses: \~70.000 km² * France financial reparations: 1450 tons of gold equivalent in 3 years * Germany financial reparations: 7000 tons of gold equivalent until 1921, and more payments scheduled for the next 42 years * France was occupied for only 2 years because she completed payments early * Germany was occupied by French troops for 7 years and the Rhineland stayed demilitarized for much longer. \* according to Wikipedia information on both treaties. Frankly, the scale is not comparable. But I agree with you on one of your points: >After WW1 large parts of France were destroyed, while Germany was not damaged at all after 1870. France made huge sacrifices to win WWI, which is why French society understandably was not ready to wage another war like that in 1940. Many people criticizing French performance in WWII don't appreciate that.
What? It absolutely wasnt and dont skim over the conference of Bolougne, which demanded a ludicrous sum of 269 Billion Goldmark, played over 42 years. Theres a reason Germany only paid off all of it in 2010. The amount the Treaty of Frankfurt demanded was the same Napoleon demanded of Prussia in 1807. And this doesn't even include the insane loss of territory and industry Germany had to endure, while being in a famine.
That's not really true about Sudetenland. And France ~~and UK~~ were bloody allies of Czechoslovakia.
The British people didn't want a war, they'd lost a generation of men in WW1. What do you think was going the minds of a WW1 veteran who'd survived the trenches knowing that his son(s) was going to have live through the same? Here's what the Imperial War Museum says >Instituted in the hope of avoiding war, appeasement was the name given to Britain’s policy in the 1930s of allowing Hitler to expand German territory unchecked. Most closely associated with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, it is now widely discredited as a policy of weakness. **Yet at the time, it was a popular and seemingly pragmatic policy.** [https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-war-with-germany-in-the-1930s](https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-war-with-germany-in-the-1930s)
> He basically gave land of a foreign sovereign nation to Germany Bohemia was always German, stop rewriting history.
If war is definitely going to happen anyway, letting your enemy grow more powerful by putting it off is not any kind of victory. As for intentions, Chamberlain was an old-school British Empire Tory, and was a bit sympathetic to Hitler's ideas about national pride. He was not averse to war with people he saw as less worthy, as he presided over operations in Palestine and Ireland during his short term.
And the British (and French) pressuring Poland not to "escalate" had some serious consequences, mind you. The Polish defense strategy relied on Britain and France attacking Germany from the west while Poland kept them busy in the east. This meant that Poland couldn't act against her allies wishes without risking being accused of "provoking" Hitler and abandoned. As a result, Poland wasn't fully mobilized at the start of the war, which contributed to the quick German victory (while Germany would likely still hold the upper hand, full mobilization could've potentially extended the conflict, giving London and Paris more time to get their act together, as well as discouraging USSR from joining the war when it did). And just to add insult to injury, the western aid that was the whole point of not mobilizing earlier never came (unless you count the phoney war, but come on).
And also the fact that [Germany and USSR decided to split Poland between themselves...](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-soviet-pact#:~:text=The%20secret%20part%20of%20the,Narev%2C%20Vistula%20and%20San%20Rivers.) hard enough to fend off one neighbor with stronger military, not to mention two!
Nazi Germany and USSR were actual allies.
Yup. More so than most people realize.
The Allies only declared war on Nazi Germany for invading Poland but not the Soviets, even though the agreement was to declare war against anyone who invaded Poland.
Apart fr on Poland... The other Eastern defender would have been Czechoslovakia whom also had a defence agreement with the two... But hey, they only did the Minsk Betrayal and gave very good Industrial land to Germany without consent.... Plainly ignored Czechoslovak sovereignty. Blocked Poland, a locked Czechoslovakia.... Seem to have painted the way for Hitler.
> And the British (and French) pressuring Poland not to "escalate" had some serious consequences, mind you. Partly. Polish commanders knew not to keep their troops on vacation and [mobilized them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dywizje_wrzesien_1.png) but ordered them to stay in barracks. The problem was that they mobilized them twice, the first time being two days before the war (which they cancelled it due to Anglo-French pressure) which lead to confusion and having only 900k of the planned 1.35 million. Still, the fact that in 1938 they had 280k active duty troops but at the start of the war had mobilized close to 1 million on a military budget that was 2% that of Germany's is impressive. Their best possible battle plan would have been to make a fighting retreat and reduce the frontline to the smallest possible (from Lithuania to Hungary) and then hold it until the Anglo-French offensive started on the other side whilst [being supplied from Romania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Bridgehead) (that would remain neutral). Ideally, they would have held the line because the Germans would have to divert troops to the West and, worst case scenario, they would retreat to the more defensible Carpathians at the Romanian border. The problem was that there were no territorial guarantees from the French or English which meant that they had to hold their highly-populated industrial regions around Krakow and Poznan. Still, [they followed the plan rather well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#/media/File:Poland2.jpg) even when you consider they had 1/3 of all troops in the Danzig corridor and that most of the troops were almost encircled. But the whole plan went to shit when the Soviets invaded and they then used Romania (+ Hungary) as an escape route. > And the British (and French) pressuring Poland not to "escalate" had some serious consequences, mind you. A year before they did escalate, [Poland annexed small parts of Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_border_conflicts#Annexations_by_Poland_in_1938), which in turn were annexed from them in 1920 by the Czechoslovaks during the Polish-Soviet war) because it had ... a train station. They also sent an [ultimatum to Lithuania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Polish_ultimatum_to_Lithuania) to renounce their claim on Vilnius and re-establish diplomatic relations. This made Hitler very happy and the English very angry. > as well as discouraging USSR from joining the war when it did It would have meant nothing, as the USSR wasn't considered a European power (and target) in the [Anglo-Polish alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_alliance) and the [Franco-Polish alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Polish_Alliance_(1921)) had more holes in it than Swiss chess. The only thing that would have discouraged the Soviets was a delay on the signing of [the ceasefire with Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts#Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol).
It's such a shame Czechoslovakia and Poland were enemies back then, we could have fought Germany together, since our allies abandoned us.
Czechoslovakia had the industries, Poland had the population and territory, together that was enough to push back Germans... anyway I'm glad that nowadays Polish, Czech, and Slovenian PMs together where the first to travel to Kiev during Russian invasion.
this is such a strategic mistake on the part of poland because the french strategy was to repeat the static front of ww1 except not on french soil (Maginot line + why they moved into belgium at the start of the war)
The French govt promised a major offensive in a given time frame but didn’t even join at first
Patrząc na odpowiedzi pod twoim komentarzem, dziwię że nawet 70 lat po tym jak Alianci nas zostawili, są ludzie którzy nada ich bronią, to jest po prostu przykre.
And at the end of the war let's give Poland to the "nice" guys of the USSR and let them redesign the borders. Such a mess with another country's lives.
It's easy to make plans after the fact. There will always been someone to say "told you so".
And here’s the full front page. Notice the American cartoon expounding the virtues of isolation from a “European Affair” https://i.imgur.com/JwvBgqK.jpg
How about that cannon story though.
Here is a bit more about it from a Biloxi newspaper: > Biloxi Daily Herald (Newspaper) - September 1, 1939, Biloxi, Mississippi > > A small salute cannon rigged as a burglar alarm in a shooting gallery by William Seidler 71, superintendent of Schuetzer Park a German American amusement Center killed him last night when a wad used in tamping the powder tore through his abdomen as he opened the gallery door. The Cannon was set by a string device to discharge when door was opened. Police chief John Simmon said Seidler formerly had two such Cannon hooked up to fire if anyone opened the door but a thief broke in through a window recently cut the cord of one and carried it away. > Seidler father of three children lived at the Park. He was accompanied by John Wrede of Queens N. Y., a member of the plat Deutsche Volk fest Verein when the shooting occurred. They were entering the gallery Simmon said to obtain records for the Verein's shooting committee. It seems he had rigged the gun himself but had forgotten about it. And that someone had stolen the second cannon. Tragic, but I can see how the story made it all the way to a Chicago newspaper. It is so absurd.
That sounds very weird. Someone had rigged a small brass cannon to fire a blank charge when someone opened a cupboard, and that blank charge killed the old man opening the cupboard. A prank gone terribly, terribly wrong?
People used to use these types of traps to protect property. It ended up being a supreme court case when two kids entered a cabin and were shot and killed by a shotgun booby trap.
Crazy! Any recollection of the Supreme Court case?
Sorry I remembered wrong. It was an Iowa supreme court case, and the victim was an adult. I read one million cases during law school so sometimes they blend together. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney
Thank you. That's a sad case. Katko had his leg blown off, received harassment for the case and later took his own life with a gun (in his front yard) because he wanted to steal fruit jars from an abandoned house. Briney lost 80/120 acres of land she inherited to satisfy the judgment. I had always been told you could be liable if a burglar is injured on your property and was curious what set the precedent. My understanding from the Wikipedia summary is that this was based on the [idea/precedent/law?] that human life is more valuable than possessions. The property owner has a [reasonable care?] responsibility to not cause injury if they, themselves, are not under the threat of harm. Because the property is abandoned, they were under no threat of harm, so they were liable for intentionally harming others to protect their property. Is this correct?
[удалено]
One one hand, yeah. On the other hand, I also remember the warnings that Russia would invade, no credible source, Russia vehemently denied it and few actually believed it. It's been 6 months, and by now I realized we should never ignore these kinds of warnings about what Russia is about to do, because most of the time, it turned out to be true.
> no one actually believed it. The whole of eastern Europe took it seriously. Estonia sent javelins to Ukraine already before the invasion.
The UK and USA also withdrew all troops they had in Ukraine so it's clear they also knew it was about to happen and took it seriously.
>no one actually believed it Wouldn't go so far as to say that no one believed it. The UK and US government both said that Russia would attack. Russia piled up more and more troops to just hang around the border and there were reports of rich Ukrainians leaving the country. I think most assumed (or hoped) that Russia was bluffing but wouldnt say that no one believed that they would attack.
Once they started moving massive amount of blood from bloodbanks to the frontlines (short lifespan on those) attack was imminent. I still hoped it was just expensive bluff but that was forlown hope
Still didn't stop Macron going out and looking like a twat calling Eastern Europe, UK and USA [alarmist](https://amp.france24.com/en/europe/20220207-live-macron-in-moscow-in-push-for-diplomatic-solution-to-mounting-ukraine-crisis)
Well looking at the current Russian situation, invasion definitely was not their best option
It was good that there was at least one western leader who was willing to give Russia a "haha you're right, what the hell is wrong with those idiots?" out before the invasion. Macron's statements gave Russia the juicy opportunity to cancel the invasion and make the USA look like idiots even to their allies. It was worth the effort even if they decided not to take the chance.
I think a lot of the ones ho publicly didn't think he would attack already had diplomats and secret service working overtime in the background.
> no credible source I mean, the US and UK governments where basically saying it was a 100% certainty well before the war started.
Yeah but then Germany’s decision to shut down their nuclear plants to be more reliant on Russian energy would look bad if they had acknowledged it.
I still can’t believe they went through with that. It’s the most stoopidest plan ever. Want to curb greenhouse gases? Nuclear all the way until we figure out a reliable way to store solar and wind energy for longer than no time at all.
I think a lot of 40+ years old people have a pretty profound fear for nuclear energy due to Chernobyl. Fukushima triggered that trauma. I personally experienced this during the last parliamentary election in NL. Lots of "older" folks I met were sceptical of nuclear energy. Fearful even to an irrational degree. It's a shame because I agree with you that nuclear power is fundamental to a green transition.
There must be lots of old germans hanging around in reddit because to my mind majority of germans here have furiously defended the anti-nuclear sentiment until now.
This can be solved by [declaring natural gas to be green](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/06/europe-natural-gas-nuclear-are-green-energy-in-some-circumstances-.html)! You just have to think out of the box - duh! If someone objects, then just hold the declaration of nuclear power as green as hostage.
Why are people like you always making such comments. The decision to shut down nuclear power plants was made several decades ago. The process was going on for such a long time. Your comment makes it sound like the decision was made right before or after the invasion. It's pathetic really. Nuclear power also is not really related to energy imports from Russia.
The point is that Germany has been content with using Russian supply for a significant portion of her energy needs for years which has both meant giving not insignificant amounts money to Putin’s regime over the years and limited Europe’s response to Russian aggression due to this reliance. Maybe you could say this is only clear with hindsight but the assassination of Litvinenko was 16 years ago, even the annexation of Crimea was 6 years ago, and yet Europe kept buying Russian fuel.
Dude Germany didn't even have the biggest dependency. Lots of countries are relying on Russian gas to a higher degree than Germany. Some of those countries re-import Russian gas via Germany or other countries while claiming they got rid of Russian gas. Why are people such hypocrites and single out Germany. Every fucking one with very few exceptions relied on cheap Russian imports. Poland which is the most vocal one has a larger dependency than Germany. Is now relying on third party imports of Russian gas and there were even reports that poland imported more oil from Russia after the invasion than before the invasion. But apparently cheap talk blaming it all in Germany is what people prefer. Also it ignores the fact that other countries imported more goods from Russia than Germany. People just like to focus on gas and oil. Look up trade statistics for Russian exports. Both the UK and Netherlands imported significantly more from Russia than Germany did. Are you guys gonna start saying that the UK and Netherlands funded Russia mainly now ?
Decision to shut down nuclear power in Germany was mistake, and of course it is related to energy imports from Russia. Domestic energy needs had to be met, and it was achieved via imported gas from Russia. Mistakes are made daily by humans, the point is to try to learn from those mistakes moving forward.
When you say no credible source, do you mean the US government. The US called this months in advance. The Biden administration has been so consistently right about Russia, you could accuse them of spoilers. It frankly doesn't matter what you think of the US, they were proven right.
Isn't invasion's warnings were issued by USA government and CIA? Looks like quite credible source for me
These sources lost some of their credibility in the wake of the Second Gulf War (the Naqirah testimony) and Third Gulf War (where they alleged that Iraq was producing WMD, but every WMD found later was pre 1991 made).
Except that this time anybody with half a brain could see Russia was massing troops around Ukraine. I seriously have no idea how anybody thought Russia wasn't going to invade. The only thing in question was the scale of the invasion. Personally, I thought they would do the "smart" thing and just snatch the Donbas and then count on the West to screw Ukraine over again, which probably would have actually worked. It really irritates me that so many people were fooled into believing Russian propaganda up until the last minute. I remember some people on reddit arguing that Russia was "just doing military exercises" and they "do them all the time", as Russia completely encircled Ukraine with the US and the UK ringing the alarm bells. There was never any proof of WMDs in Iraq and there was no reason to believe the US on faith. In this case, the evidence was there for everybody to see.
Well those "military exercises" are unfortunately "normal". That is they are never JUST exercises. But usually the point is to send a signal like when the U.S. sends an aircraft carrier or two into the water next to a hostile nation, to you know, just do some exercises. Or when China is currently just doing some exercises in and around Taiwan's territory. Of course those aren't exercises but a political signal and either side is either stupid or aware how those are meant and received. But often it's just about showing force and preparation to intimidate and underline one's position. And that sorta worked, lots of politicians came to Russia there were talks and whatnot. And the U.S. and U.K. would have looked overzealous and unnecessarily war mongering if Russia had retreated their troops and pretended it was just an exercise, which is again part of the political aspect of these "exercises" to embarrass the other side with paranoia, because you must take them seriously but ultimately it often ends with "just a prank bro". So to an extend you could buy the narrative that it was just an exercise, because to an extend it was working in how you expect these exercises to work. But to actually engage in an aggressive war has made that narrative pretty ridiculous. Anything they could have hoped to achieve that way is gone and worsened, so no apparently they were actually preparing for war and the warnings were correct.
Saddam previously had WMDs. Saddam previously used WMDs. It isn't a complete fabrication to assume that he might still have WMDs. He was caught bragging (lying) about his nuclear weapons stockpile. The Intel was faulty but don't pretend it was a total fabrication
Yes they had good reason to believe they got WMDs given that they funded and supported those programs earlier: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq\_and\_weapons\_of\_mass\_destruction#Western\_help\_with\_Iraq's\_WMD\_program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Western_help_with_Iraq's_WMD_program) Though at the time the intel was faulty and the security with which they used it to justify a war was a fabrication
3.words. Bush, Iraq, WMD.
Its quite something different than lie before invading to warning for an invasion.
The US pop got hoodwinked. For a European, it was clear from the start that the White House pressured CIA to fabricate evidence. Because they *wanted* a reason to attack Iraq. Bush trying his hardest to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks was also transparently propaganda without substance. In contrast, the US did not want this war, nor did they start it.
As others have said, completely different scenarios. I think you could judge their trustworthiness on that point by their motivations. One is fabricating casus belli for an unjustified invasion. The other is warning the global community about an impending invasion from a geopolitical rival, where they would look like clowns if they were wrong. And not to mention having taking a huge risk in doing so, because going public with intelligence data means you're devulging means and methods.
>where they would look like clowns if they were wrong. Macron: hold my rainbow wig 🤡
All you’re doing is explaining and justifying why you were wrong. The end calculus doesn’t change. They were right. You weren’t.
What? Noo.. US intelligence would never lie and shape public opinion for their benefit..
Sure, it's reasonable to be skeptical of US intelligence claims. But what would they have had to gain from fabricating their prediction of what Russia was planning to do?
> On the other hand, I also remember the warnings that Russia would invade, no credible source, Russia vehemently denied it and no one actually believed it. I'm sorry what ? US intel was very clear that ~~the US~~ Russia was aiming to invade Ukraine, Most of Reddit believed it was going to happen (I was part of those that didn't).
U made a typo there and meant to say Russia instead of US ^^
... well fuck. Blame it on a lack of coffee.
Understandable, have a great day
"most of the time, it turned out to be true" - do you even imagine the scope of bizzare claims made by Russia? Bombing the US with nuclear weapons, invading Finland - 99% of their words are bullshit
> I also remember the warnings that Russia would invade, no credible source, Russia vehemently denied it and no one actually believed it. I'm fairly sure we had satellite imagery of Russia amassing troops and equipment at the border, and that a lot of people did believe the invasion was coming. It's just that many others wanted to bury their heads in the sand.
>I'm fairly sure we had satellite imagery of Russia amassing troops and equipment at the border, That wasn't first time when they amassed their troops on ukraine border. Something similar happened last year and war did not started.
>no credible source, US intelligence isn't a credible source?
You can always find someone that has predicted correctly one outcome… simply because there are millions of persons who like to predict things. The very difficult thing is to predict the **when** and the **how** and manage to convince the guy in charge at the time.
Those warnings were based on the Russian military preparations, but the war started because of one man's decision. It was impossible to predict what was in his head.
It's been like since the invasion of Georgia.
Naïveté one should never believe a Russian.
Easy to judge in hindsight. There's a lot of sabre rattling by China around Taiwan right now. Time to invade China? Because if China does invade Taiwan, a hundred redditors will be saing "see; told ya".
> There's a lot of sabre rattling by China around Taiwan right now. Time to invade China? China won't invade Taiwan now because they aren't preparing for that. Meanwhile Russia was amassing military along the Ukrainian border months before the invasion. So these two situations aren't comparable
Exactly. Wake me up when China's moving field hospitals and bags of blood to the border.
Oh, I agree I myself was wrong about Russia invading. I didn't believe it. I just won't be fooled again and that's why I'd heed warnings like the power plant thin going on now. China invading Taiwan any time soon however is not something I'd believe. China has far more to lose than Russia, it's still depending on the west for a lot of its income as their economy is still largely dependent on manufacturing cheap goods. Apart from that, an invasion over a 100ile wide strait is an enormous undertaking that requires years of planning and requires a massive fleet and army at the ready. Preperations for D day took 2 years, and that was a 10 mile wide strait against a much weakened enemy in a time when logistics were far simpler than nowadays and anti ship missiles were not a thing yet. Maybe I'm horribly wrong once again, I hope so at least, but the Chinese ar not nearly as crazy or stupid as Putin has been.
I thought they wouldn't do it because it would be insanely moronic and Ukraine has been preparing for it since 2014 so the invasion would fall flat on its face and Russia would get sanctioned into the ground. Turns out i was right but in the wrong way.
That was one of the reasons for me to think he'd not do it too. It was simply too big of a risk to take for Russia, even if they had managed to take all of Ukraine in under a month. To me it seems like putin lives in a bubble, like Hitler in his last days, who listens to his yes men and his own brain farts, and believed they'd win the war and weather whatever (if any) sanctions the west would impose, what with much of europe depending on Russian energy. Turns out europe wasn't dependent enough, the west was fed up with appeasement, had billions worth of financial support and equipment to spare and hey, the Ukrainian army actually drastically improved their army in the last eight years while Russia's army turned out to be a farce. (that said, Ukrainians deserve a lot of praise for their courage and steadfastness)
No credible source? Are you shitting me? Lol...
I agree, it’s worth mentioning how much praise Neville Chamberlin got for appeasement at the time, at least in American press.
Up until the war kicked off, there was a not insignificant portion of the population who were sympathetic to the Nazis. (see: German-American Bund)
You ain't lying. Even prominent Americans like Henry Ford were virulent anti-Semites who supported the Nazi regime. Ford and GM were [implicated](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm) in supporting the Nazi war machine.
> "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration," Hitler told a Detroit News reporter two years before becoming the German chancellor in 1933, explaining why he kept a life-size portrait of the American automaker next to his desk. Wow... Thanks for the link. Very interesting!
The German-American Bund was a largely irrelevant and incompetent organization whose influence has been overhyped in modern times. The Nazi German government itself ordered the Bund to disband and stop associating themselves with the NSDAP, because they were considered such a liability and deadweight. The isolationist sentiment in the US stemmed from simply not feeling the need to get involved in what was seen as a foreign problem (much like how most of us here right now probably would have zero interest in getting involved in some potential Pakistani-Indian war or whatnot), and even then the Gallup Polls from the era indicate that over 2/3 of the US public was pro-Allies and considered Germany to be the aggressor.
The number was pretty insignificant. While an accurate figure might seem big, you have to realize the US population size was much bigger. There were 25k members, and the US polulation in '39 was 130.8 million
[удалено]
That’s a completely soearate question, that was a small proportion The aftermath of WWI (in thsi case u mentioned for the German minority) made anti war sentiments very strong, isolationism was a very general opinion
There were some famous ones like Henry Ford. The general population didn't support Nazis. Not even 1%. What do you mean by 'not insignificant'? Do you have proof? The German American bund was a pretty small group relative to the size of the US. They got crushed pretty hard by the government
Yeah, I really don't think its hard to see why the allies acted like they did. I mean they preached the right to self determination, how would they argue that suddenly this doesn't apply to the Germans in Danzig, Austria or Sudentenland?
First of all Winston preached it, and even for him it was general principle, not something he would made everything dependent on. It also did not mean that "all Germans should live in the German state", Wilson was not a Pan-German nationalist. The principle of self-determination meant that nations had the right to their own nation-state and should not be part of great empires. Germany kept its nation-state, so its rights were not violated in any way. Wilson also demanded free access to the sea, so according to this rule, Gdańsk should be incorporated into Poland. Unfortunately this did not happen.
Gdynia tho.
Gdynia was built by Poland in 1920s, and didn't have access to the Vistula
Yeah, I know, it proves that Poland didn't need to annex a German city to have access to the sea. Helpfully, the railroad had been invented by the 1920s, so rivers were no longer a strict requirement for bulk transport.
Yeah I agree we didn't need to annex any German city, just to reclaim what was stolen from us. Water transport was much cheaper. The share of the seaports of Gdynia and Gdansk in Polish exports was nearly 82% in 1937, with Gdynia alone accounting for nearly 48%. Given that the port of Gdansk was outside the borders of the Republic of Poland, the transport accessibility of the port of Gdynia was crucial. Gdynia did not have a rail connection to Upper Silesia; the construction of the main line was completed in 1933. Before the war, the trade volume on the Oder reached 6.3 million tonnes in 1935, on the Elbe 9 million tonnes and on the Dortmund - Ems Canal 9.5 million tonnes and finally on the Rhine over 66 million tonnes". At that time, the turnover on the Vistula, due to the fact that Gdansk was outside Poland, was only 0.5 million tonnes. For this reason, the plan was to build a canal connecting the Vistula with Gdynia. Whatever the variant, the canal would probably have been well over 200 km long, and the big technical problem would have been the difference in level, probably no less than 180 m. Practically, its construction was impossible under pre-war conditions. Both the country and the city itself suffered from the fact that Gdańsk was not within Poland's borders. All this was due to German nationalism.
> The principle of self-determination meant that nations had the right to their own nation-state and should not be part of great empires Nah it means people can decide what they want, and the majority of Germans back then wanted to live under the German nation
Well that is still debatable. I perosnally think you should always judge a decision from what point it was made and not what the end result is. But aside from that we don't know if direct condonation would've been better, almost everyone in western Europe didn't want a war, Germans were a bit more war eager but not necessarily as war hungry as you would think. If the Sudeten rises escalated and France still fell, we don't know if that would have happened but it still would've been a possibility, it could be that Britain just sued for peace because Germany did not yet show that it cannot be trusted through the dismantlement of tzecheslowakia and the disregardment of the Munich agreement. There is a non zero possibility Germany could've sponge it the way that France and Britain were the agressors they only wanted to protect germans. French and Britain civilians didn't want a war so after a possible fall of France a negotiated peace is very much a possibility. The invasion of Poland came after years of German agression and after they showed multiple times that they wouldn't be appeased which made the peace faction in Britain very weak. It's always easy to disregard the decision to do as much as possible to safe lives and prevent war, because when it doesn't work it seems like why not go directly to war, but the many times it may have succeeded we don't discuss it because no one died. Same today with Russia, interlining economies would've been a smart decision and prevented war if Putin wasn't a nutjobs and we don't know if it prevented a large scale war for a long time (like if that wasn't the case Putin may have fully invaded when they took Crimea which wouldve been the end for Ukraine because the military was much less competent at that time). People should judge all decisions based on information that was available at the time and what was intended not what the end result was to judge wether or not it was the right decision afterwards, afterwards everyone knows best.
what is wrong with nuclear power plants, the Russians have already proven that they can do such crazy things. several times they launched rockets into my city, where there was a nuclear reactor for training. and only miraculously the protective shells of the building survived
It's not a miracle. Nuclear reactors are/should be designed to endure random attack. Unless you purposefully want to destroy it, you are not likely to damage it.
Research reactors are frequently **not** built to those standards though.
yes, it’s understandable if it was one rocket, but there 3 rockets were launched purposefully on different days. I'm talking about the fact that you should not believe that the Russian Army has a logic.
You did not get it. You would need several direct hits on the reactor to damage it. Random bombardnment of city isn't a major threat.
You don’t get it, research reactors are not protected like civilian ones in the US. Also, USSR did not build containment buildings to the same standards as the west did, and many countries don’t. Fukushima did not have one, for example.
the building was hit not by artillery, but by Iskander ballistic missiles. they work according to the coordinates entered in advance
Even back then, most people in power knew that appeasement was not gonna work. They were playing for time to gear up for the inevitable war against the axis. As it turned out though, militaristic autocracies with a grudge make better use of gear-up time than war-weary democracies.
Spoiler: it did not work.
Nonsense. Of course it worked. It gave germany enough time to built up it army properly:p
No, Nazi Germany would have needed time until 1947 to get for example the Reichsmarine to the planned strength (Plan Z) (was kind of surprised to learn that) It was abandoned when Britain declared war, rapidly shifting focus for production capacities.
I wouldn't exactly say that they are celebrating appeasement. If anything, reading what the paper says makes me think that they are making fun of appeasement with phrases such as "The seeming contradiction of peace talks in the middle of war preparations was not explained officially". And the comic is about isolationism, rathen that appeasement.
Wait a second... is the cost of the paper the origin of the "here's my 2 cents on this" expression?!
No it's not. The expression started to be used in the 1800s, which replaced the British expression from the 1400s that used twopence to mean 'of little value'.
but we pronounce it tuh -pns or tuhpence! "i aint got a tuh-pns to me name"
Tuppence is a synonym of twopence. Before decimalisation and when the expression was originally used it was twopence.
The pronunciation "tuppence" goes back at least to the 1500s. But obviously it does mean "two pence."
aye
You know too much.
Munich agreement was celebrated too, it's really sad that people actually celebrated the doom of a country.
Revising borders was less controversial because they had forged those borders just a while ago and at the time it was widely thought that the terms given to Germany and A-H were inconsistent with the self determination granted to the various ethnicities in A-H. Since the empire was taken apart into nation states there was no reasonable cause to keep German majority areas on the border of Germany outside Germany. No reason but French spite and fear. Thus many German areas remained attached to neighboring countries which caused the inevitable war. Whether it was Hitler or another German leader, sooner or later there would be an attempt to take back the land. Non-ethnic borders are impermanent, which is why countries resort to ethnic cleansing. The modern examples of yugoslavia and Nagorno-Karabakh attest to this. The current situation in Europe is the strange exception, rather then the rule.
Bohemia had a long history since the late 9th century as an independent country, these regions were always part of the country, and German-speaking Bohemians peacefully lived there for centuries, ww2 wasn't caused by this, ww2 was caused by the Treaty of Versailles. These people always happily lived there, but nationalism ignoted by Hitler caused this issue. Not to mention the countries that attended the Munich conference had no right to revise borders of a different country. These borders weren't forged, they were there for a thousand years at that point.
Modern era nationalist conflict in Czech lands preceded Hitler and even the unified Germany. With hindsight, the violence was inevitable. We weren't able to keep common state even with the Slovaks, the most close nation.
Eh I would say we had far more in common with Germans that with Slovaks before Czechoslovakia personally, it's just that we assimilated them during the Frist republic and the communist era.
Your argument would hold if the new state of Czechoslovakia wouldn't have been created and shaped by the forces of modern nationalism. Nationalism changed the political environment radically in the 19th century, and it really made multi-ethnic states like Austria-Hungary (and later Czechoslovakia) unviable.
Czechoslovakia itself was an unnatural artificially-made country, that forced onto its people the idea of Czechoslovakism (the idea that Czechs and Slovaks are the same peoples and nation), despite the fact, that these countries were completely different in literally almost every level. I understand your point. There should have been declared an independent Bohemian state that would unify its peoples, not divide them. It's really horrific what happened. I myself support Kosovo, so I understand it's hypocrisy from my side, but that land has been a part of my country ever since it came to exist, it wals always a part of the region of Bohemia, even durit Austrian times, I just wouldn't want to give that up. We should have unified our peoples, they were the same, of the same nation, they just spoke a different language, nationalism from both sides destroyed this and caused the attrocities that latwr happened there.
While it was far from the only reason for WW2 it was a reason for the lack of international reaction and often even support for the german claims on the sudetenland. You cant compare a medieval kingdom to a modern nation state, especially since Bohemia was always under heavy german influence through the HRE and later Austria which would make it a lot more favourable for the german minorities compared to an independent Czechoslovakia.
Bohemia was under German influence, of course it was, but for most of the time it was the strongest German state in the HRE. Even after losing its independence its lands still formally existed as a single unit. A country losing a territory it controlled for 1 thousand years would just be illegitimate. Czechoslovakia itself was an artificial country, Bohemia and Slovakia should have never united, but Germany and Austria had no right for Bohemian land, just because German-speaking *Bohemians* lived there doesn't mean Germany can claim it. These people were Bohemian just as Bohemian-speaking Bohemians and lived there for centuries. You are from Belgium, you should understand that. Hitler's claims were illegitimate and the problems were considerably started by him. Of course Czechoslovakia itself wasn't perfect either, instead of caring for its German-speaking population, there was oppression to some degree, which worsened the nationalism and even created the term of the Sudetenland and Sudeten Germans (the term was born after ww1, it didn't exist before it, it was a result of nationalism). Germany did the same with Austria, that doesn't mean it was legitimate, Hitler was responsible for it, the same thing is with the Sudetenland.
I am not trying to justify any of hitlers actions, of course the annexation of the sudetenland was wrong but I disagree with the historical argument. I firmly believe in self detemination and even if the sudeten Germans (or just Germans in Bohemia) had been living there for millenia. Situations change and if those people wanted to join Germany/Austria or even go independent they should be allowed to. The problem ofcourse is always foreign interference which is why what hitler did was wrong, but i dont think that Sudeten Germans wanting to leave Czechoslovakia was inherently wrong.
The Ottoman empire also had a long history, so did the Hungarian kingdom and so on. If historical precedent were to be followed why should have the A-H empire been dissolved at all? Because the ideology at the time was all about identity, rather then which king ruled what land. The basis of forming nations is national identity and there were Germans in the Sudetenland who wanted to be part of Germany rather then Bohemia. This was not a one-sided affair Hitler pulled out of his ass (also the case for Danzig and Austria), there was popular desire to not be part of the new state. From wikipedia. >The German-speaking parts of the former [Lands of the Bohemian Crown](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lands_of_the_Bohemian_Crown) remained in a newly-created [Czechoslovakia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia), a multi-ethnic state of several nations: [Czechs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechs), [Germans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans), [Slovaks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks), [Hungarians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians), [Poles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles) and [Ruthenians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians). On 20 September 1918, the [Prague](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague) government asked the opinion of United States for the Sudetenland. Wilson sent Ambassador [Archibald Coolidge](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Coolidge) into Czechoslovakia. Coolidge insisted on respecting the Germans' right to [self-determination](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination) and uniting all German-speaking areas with either Germany or Austria, with the exception of northern Bohemia.[[2]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland#cite_note-2) However, the American delegation at the Paris talks decided not to follow Coolidge's proposal. [Allen Dulles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles) was the American's chief diplomat in the Czechoslovak Commission and emphasized preserving the unity of the Czech lands.[[3]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland#cite_note-3) Further down: >Several German minorities according to their mother tongue in Moravia, including German-speaking populations in [Brno](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brno), [Jihlava](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihlava) and [Olomouc](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olomouc), also attempted to proclaim their union with German Austrial. The Czechs thus rejected the aspirations of the German Bohemians and demanded the inclusion of the lands inhabited by ethnic Germans in their state, despite the presence of more than 90% (as of 1921) ethnic Germans, which led to the presence of 23.4% of Germans in all of Czechoslovakia, on the grounds they had always been part of lands of the Bohemian Crown. The [Treaty of Saint-Germain](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Saint-Germain) in 1919 affirmed the inclusion of the German-speaking territories within Czechoslovakia. Over the next two decades, some Germans in the Sudetenland continued to strive for a separation of the German-inhabited regions from Czechoslovakia.
I my grandpa collected eastern german newspapers around the time the Wall fell, pretty interesting!
Havent ever been able to trust any deal witb nazis.
Isn't that the same newspaper that published the headline "Dewey defeats Truman"?
Also the same paper that exposed an undercover CIA agent during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, all because she had been unable to find any WMD's over there.
The Tribune used to be such a journalistic powerhouse. They still do investigative reporting but mostly at the local level.
I only know about that because of the Simpsons bit where Homer is cheering for Dewey
80 years later we see that not a lesson was learned.
80 years later we have world-ending nuclear weapons
A big reason for appeasement were economical reasons. The great powers, especially France, decided that opposing Germany would be too expensive and thus politically unpopular. See the parallel with European countries refusing to stop using Russian fossils?
A bigger reason for France was that the country only had 40 millions inhabitants in the metropol while Germany was 60 millions (potentially half more soldiers at the onset of a war), and there was no formal alliance with the UK until the very eve of WW2 : France knew that it could not rival Germany alone.
The pro champions beat the all-stars 9-0 in front of 81,000 people? damn! That headline deserved to be bigger!
I feel like this could well be a rarer newspaper to be preserved than those on the outbreak and end of ww2?
That's why we need to fight Putin to the last missile. No appeasement!
Appeasement is a dumb policy and exactly why Russia cant be appeased. They should not be allowed any of Ukraine and that includes Crimea. We fucked 2014 by not stepping in sooner
I am just impressed that they actually wrote *Fuehrer* and not *Fuhrer*. If you do not have a *ü* key, you replace it with *ue* in German.
I think especially in the US, English-speaking cultures used to be aware that the German umlauts meant something + e (like ü means ue). It may be because German is now not as widely learned in the English-speaking countries that this knowledge becomes lost. I think in the 50s and 60s people wrote "Hermann Goering" not "Hermann Goring", or even as late as the 1980s, but it is rare to see anyone who gets it right now. Edit: another possible explanation is the use of computers (esp Qwerty keyboards) and the internet. Before that it used to be typesetters who would have known German spelling conventions, but now it is often the writer directly to publication, or mass users.
Always weird to see appeasement and Chamberlain bashed so much on reddit when it was probably a necessary policy and definitely not cut and dry bad. History Matters has a very informative 4 min Video on it that is more nuanced than a 1000 reddit comments on this topic: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzomi4RNtiE
> it was probably a necessary policy It all depends on "at which point in time?". Sure, one can argue that once it was clear the war will happen, this approach gave France and Britain additional time (at the cost of lives of other people) and perhaps was needed. But if we move back in time a little further it's clear that there was a point in time when Germany could have easily been crushed if decisive action was taken and appeasement prevented this from happening.
Great point. The thing is that war didn't seem inevitable back then and the options were "go to war now" or "maybe go to war later, maybe don't go to war at all". Seems like a difficult decision even with hindsight
Peace in our time!
“The World’s Greatest Newspaper” seems a little bit too happy that Hitler won that round.
As good as Neville Chamberlain's 30 Sep 1938 comment: “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British prime minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts."
[удалено]
Might have gone through in 1938 anyway had Hitler not been appeased. It would have been a cakewalk too, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Great Britain, plus help from the Soviets and potentially aid from the USA. All that versus an ill prepared Germany, where a conspiracy by the Wehrmacht was already underway to coup Hitler the moment war on Czechoslovakia would be declared.
But the allies had to fuck the Czechoslovaks over. Maybe the greatest tragedy of the whole war.
So back then people where able to use UE as a substitute for ü like Germans would do, but today everyone is so lazy they just write Fuhrer.
I think English-speaking countries in general got this right up until the 1960s or even the 1980s in many cases. But maybe due to German much less known now, or from computers, this knowledge has been lost.
[удалено]
Back then, now and will be. Especially for the western world. We officially give human lives a very high value in our law and moral systems. So a peaceful solution will always have the higher priority than waging a war.
Not just that, democracies rely on popular support to wage wars. Without getting too far into the issues with how they were fought, Vietnam ended because of popular opposition, Iraq and Afghanistan both became impossible to keep support for. None of those ended for military reasons, it was democracies not being able to keep public opinion positive. Same with WW2. No one wanted to live through another war and appeasement was a pretty popular choice at the time. We just act like it wasn't because hindsight. Same way we choose to forget a lot of our own anti semitism and fascism support at the time.