Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/8/2014 12:13:25 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: petskye

You are however assuming that had Chamberlain chosen a different path everything would of went exactly as you predict when truth is it is a fantasy because all you know is what happened up to the point of Chamberlains decisions not afterwards. For all we know Chamberlains decision to back down stopped man kind going extinct because Hitler might of stayed on leading Germany and created an atomic bomb before anyone else dropping it on all countries that opposed him. At the end of the day everything you say is just conjecture you have no facts to prove what would of happened if Chamberlains decision would of been different because no matter what you say think or do you could never work out the truth of what would of happened without it actually happened.

We know that if Chamberlain hadn't backed down there would have been war.
We know that the German military felt that if there was going to be a war the sooner the better as
the British in particular were beefing up their military
We know that when the German military wasn't sure they could have broken through the defenses and still held off the British and French.

It should be kept in mind that while Germany rearmed so did Britain and so did the US. We may have really gotten going after 41 but lend lease and other efforts were going well before then. The whole world knew war was coming and the longer it was delayed the more prepared we all were for it.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/8/2014 1:57:19 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crouchingtiger77

quote:

Both Britain and France appeasement of Hitler didnt help, however as for the cause, no.


Nice history but you did not speak directly to the issue of either the Sudetenland, and Czechelovolkia and that both of these areas, as per terrain were not conducive to an
easy German Army win. If Chamberlain had taken time to have studied or learned about
this terrain and yes of the Czech army capabilities there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to appease Hitler by giving him carte blance a country without a fight.

And this appeasement is what enabled, the operative word, enabled Hitler, his high command and yes the German people into thinking they'd have an easy war of it.
So
You have not made your case as to why Chamberlain is not indirectly and more to the point, directly responsible for WWII. He does not give over that which did not belong to him in the first place, that in itself boggles the freaking mind. The Sudetenland did not belong to Britain to dispose of as they did.

The war does not happen or if it does, Hitler will have to forego taking on the Czech army and later go into poland which was an easier task as we know. But, he needed the Sudetenldand and Czecholovokia for their resources and yes for strategic reasons as well.



You know why the French and British did not worry about defending the Ardenne?

Because the terrain through there is not conducive to an armored attack. The most they figured the Germans would push through was a few infantry divisions.

From where did the Germans enter France, the Ardenne. In a matter of hours.

In 1944, the did the same damn thing, busting through a line held by battle weary troops put there for a rest. Why, because the allies figured that in winter, the Germans could not pull off an offensive in the Ardenne, or any where else for that matter.

If you have ever visited the region, you would have a hard time believing that the German army could push so many tanks through an area cut with hills, valleys, streams and rivers in as little time as they did. Three main roads cut through the area, sames prior to ww2, the cendondary roads are narrow and twisting, with 17th and 18th century bridges across rivers and streams.

So if the German army could punch through there, the Sudetenland and the Czech country side would hardly be a problem. As for the check army, it might have held the Germans up, but in the end it would have fallen.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Crouchingtiger77)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/8/2014 4:37:34 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Got to love the typical revisionist bollocks in the OP. Its the same shit from the same people about appeasement. If America was so concerned why didnt they act on it...

The answer is probably the same as most of Europe, after the loses of WW1 no one but an idiot wanted a second helping. I am guessing the OP`s next thread will be about how the Seventh Cavalry saved the world.

Back to the daily bullshit.

(in reply to Crouchingtiger77)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/8/2014 5:04:00 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crouchingtiger77

a Fantasy based on historic fact that you seem not to be able to accept
1. France and Britain had agreement with Czechoslovakia to come to their defense and did not do so.
2. Chamberlain gave over the Sudetenland to Hitler and that was after having in Hitler's presence witnessed the maniacal rage Hitler could explode into.
3. Chamberlain's appeasement by giving over the Sudetenland also meant the end to the conspiracy to kill Hitler.

There is no fantasy in any of the above. Are you also an appeaser?


No fantasy....... FFS your post is full of it.

1) France had an agreement to support Czechoslovakia, Britain didnt.
2) Chamberlain didnt give Hitler anything.
3) Do you think Chamberlain knew of thany conspiracy.

You can have your own bullshit but you cant crate your own facts.

Britain may have been unwilling to start a war with Germany after WW! but they hardly had the capacity to intervene in Czechoslovakia. We had a smallish army and airforce but a strong navy. Any suggestions how we could have sailed up the fucking Rhine unhindered ?

God, some of you people are so damn stupid its laughable.

(in reply to Crouchingtiger77)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/9/2014 8:58:01 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Got to love the typical revisionist bollocks in the OP. Its the same shit from the same people about appeasement. If America was so concerned why didnt they act on it...

The answer is probably the same as most of Europe, after the loses of WW1 no one but an idiot wanted a second helping. I am guessing the OP`s next thread will be about how the Seventh Cavalry saved the world.

Back to the daily bullshit.


I'm always a bit skeptical of any attempt to try to pinpoint the cause of something to a single factor or a single individual, particularly when it comes to monumentally complicated events like the Second World War. I think it can be said that there may have been a series of diplomatic and political blunders made by a number of people in various governments in the years leading up to World War II.

Much of the blame clearly falls on Hitler, justifiably so, but the rest of the blame seems to rest on those who either "should have known better" or "should have done something to stop Hitler sooner."

A lot of blame might also fall on Stalin for making the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler which cleared the way for the invasion and partition of Poland. And then there was Mussolini and Tojo.

I don't think America was all that concerned in 1938, although at the time I think we pretty much considered ourselves somewhat detached and geopolitically isolated from the situation.

The post-war wisdom which prevailed in the aftermath was also focused on our own mistakes. For example, the U.S. Senate's refusal to ratify Versailles and America's entry into the League of Nations weakened the Western Allies to the point where it may have emboldened Axis ambitions for expansion. We also stayed out of the Locarno Pact as well, which also left some loose ends. The belief which then prevailed after the war was that America should get more involved in world affairs, rejecting isolationism completely. The result has been a more active policy of interventionism where we seem to get involved in everything, everywhere.

I think that some people might use history not to convey information about the past, but to influence political perceptions about the present. I also don't think that it's because of any jingoistic "we saved the world" stuff either. That may be on the surface, but it also has the effect of creating the imperative in people's minds that we must "save the world."


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/9/2014 9:03:05 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		A lot of blame might also fall on Stalin for making the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler which cleared the way for the invasion and partition of Poland. And then there was Mussolini and Tojo.

I don't think America was all that concerned in 1938, although at the time I think we pretty much considered ourselves somewhat detached and geopolitically isolated from the situation.
------------------------------

The first is somewhat oversimplified. The non-aggression pact was for the USSRs protection to give it some breathing room cuz it knew the war was coming to them, and Stalin went shopping for alliances in the US and England and was refused. Thats why he did that bit, give himself a little insulation.


Americans were pretty much for the appeasement at the time, what the fuck did we care? So, you giving some land to someone over in there, big deal. Doesn't affect us.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/9/2014 10:37:03 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		If the Chinese hadn't invented gunpowder in the 9th or 11th century (depending on how you want to define that invention), none of this would have happened the way it did.

So by the "logic" applied in this thread, the Chinese are directly and solely responsible for WWII.





(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/9/2014 1:16:51 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Got to love the typical revisionist bollocks in the OP. Its the same shit from the same people about appeasement. If America was so concerned why didnt they act on it...

The answer is probably the same as most of Europe, after the loses of WW1 no one but an idiot wanted a second helping. I am guessing the OP`s next thread will be about how the Seventh Cavalry saved the world.

Back to the daily bullshit.


I'm always a bit skeptical of any attempt to try to pinpoint the cause of something to a single factor or a single individual, particularly when it comes to monumentally complicated events like the Second World War. I think it can be said that there may have been a series of diplomatic and political blunders made by a number of people in various governments in the years leading up to World War II.

Much of the blame clearly falls on Hitler, justifiably so, but the rest of the blame seems to rest on those who either "should have known better" or "should have done something to stop Hitler sooner."

A lot of blame might also fall on Stalin for making the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler which cleared the way for the invasion and partition of Poland. And then there was Mussolini and Tojo.

I don't think America was all that concerned in 1938, although at the time I think we pretty much considered ourselves somewhat detached and geopolitically isolated from the situation.

The post-war wisdom which prevailed in the aftermath was also focused on our own mistakes. For example, the U.S. Senate's refusal to ratify Versailles and America's entry into the League of Nations weakened the Western Allies to the point where it may have emboldened Axis ambitions for expansion. We also stayed out of the Locarno Pact as well, which also left some loose ends. The belief which then prevailed after the war was that America should get more involved in world affairs, rejecting isolationism completely. The result has been a more active policy of interventionism where we seem to get involved in everything, everywhere.

I think that some people might use history not to convey information about the past, but to influence political perceptions about the present. I also don't think that it's because of any jingoistic "we saved the world" stuff either. That may be on the surface, but it also has the effect of creating the imperative in people's minds that we must "save the world."

There is also an argument, which I happen to agree with, that the Versailles Treaty itself caused WW2. The treaty imposed such crippling economic terms and humiliating loss of stature on Germany that it was inevitable that the Weimar Republic would collapse and a militant expansionist government would replace it.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 5/9/2014 1:17:55 PM >

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/9/2014 7:48:39 PM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The first is somewhat oversimplified. The non-aggression pact was for the USSRs protection to give it some breathing room cuz it knew the war was coming to them, and Stalin went shopping for alliances in the US and England and was refused. Thats why he did that bit, give himself a little insulation.


This is true, and it's possible that Stalin's decision may have also been affected by the results of the Munich Agreement. He may have thought that Britain and France would back down again, but even if they didn't, it was no problem for him if Germany went to war with Britain and France.

quote:


Americans were pretty much for the appeasement at the time, what the fuck did we care? So, you giving some land to someone over in there, big deal. Doesn't affect us.


Yep. Of course, I guess the same could be said from the Anglo-French point of view as well. It didn't really directly affect them if Germany took over Czechoslovakia or Poland, and if the bulk of Hitler's armies were in the east, then that meant the west could remain relatively safe - or at least buy themselves some more time.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/9/2014 9:02:06 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crouchingtiger77

The Sudetenland was given by Chamberlain to Hitler and Germany in the belief that this would avert a new
world war.

But what Chamberlain did not know was that there was a Conspiracy to have Hitler killed when he did go in to take the Sudetenland.

But, after, Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, this broke up the conspiracy.

So, was Chamberlain inadvertently responsible for World War II?

I would say yes because I believe the Germans were not yet ready to take on Europe as they did. This pact with Chamberlain gave them time and if Chamberlain along with France had stood up to Hitler it would have set him back on his heels.

And, this whether there had been a conspiracy to kill Hitler or not, Chamberlain because of his gutless and spineless persona was responsible for permitting Hitler to do what he did.


What if Kennedy hadn't been killed?

What if Reagan (contrary to every promise of debt and deficit reduction he made) hadn't in fact quadrupled our debt in 8 years?

What if Carter had been successful in getting the prisoners out of Iran?

What if 130 years ago when "Spindletop" was the first "Gusher" of oil had actually been the beginnings of the USA's supremacy in oil instead of the UAE and others, and it remained so today?

What if FORD hadn't fucked up the Mustang in 1971?

(And just to stay on topic....I'm going with....Hitler was responsible for WWII....not Chamberlain).







< Message edited by LookieNoNookie -- 5/9/2014 9:03:03 PM >

(in reply to Crouchingtiger77)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/9/2014 10:53:03 PM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
There is also an argument, which I happen to agree with, that the Versailles Treaty itself caused WW2. The treaty imposed such crippling economic terms and humiliating loss of stature on Germany that it was inevitable that the Weimar Republic would collapse and a militant expansionist government would replace it.


I agree with that argument too. The Treaty of Versailles was excessively punitive, in addition to being disorganized and lacking in any effective enforcement mechanism. It was a treaty imposed from strength, but that strength could not be maintained over the long haul.

To be sure, the treaty created a volcanic anger in Germany which was a major factor in the rise of Hitler, although it could also be argued that fears of the increasing power of the Soviet Union and fears of possible communist uprisings elsewhere in Europe may have been the decisive factor in winning over the aristocracy and military to Hitler's side.

On the other hand, Hitler used the same malignant nationalism which had been popular in German political thought since the 19th century, and it was that malignant nationalism which the Allies feared in a unified and increasingly powerful Germany, with the industry and technological prowess to be a formidable threat. No doubt the Allies were quite angry with Germany after WW1, but they were also quite afraid of Germany and what they were capable of. That was a large part of the reason they imposed the Treaty of Versailles on Germany in the first place, perhaps believing it would make them so weak and impotent so as to be unable to make war. They were wrong. It had the effect of actually creating a worse monster than the one they thought they had just killed.

I think the Locarno Pact might be considered "Versailles Revisited," at least in the sense that it was made after Allied anger had subsided and at a time when Germany's government was democratic and reasonably moderate. I think it was in the Allies' interest to recognize Germany's new democracy at the time, along with other fledgling democracies in Central and Eastern Europe (most of which were doomed to failure). The growing power of the Soviet Union was no doubt looming larger and larger on their minds, as well as fears of communism elsewhere. We also had our Red Scare here in America. The British and French were also facing their own economic problems at home and dissension in their crumbling empires. The League of Nations wasn't a strong enough coalition to put any teeth behind their resolutions. We didn't want to have any part of it.







(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 10:29:31 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		A Stalin wasn't involved

Bullshit

B Lebrun was French, and as I said earlier the French spine was amputated at Verdun 1916.

Your ignorance has been noted

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 10:33:52 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Can I ask a question for clarification? Could you explain the phrase, "France had stood up" for me? Is it a typo? Is it a neo-koan along the lines of, "what would a chair look like, if our knees bent the other way?" I can't make heads or tails of the concept.


Perhaps it has to do with your mindset?

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 10:38:51 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		Chamberlain may or may not have caused WWII. It is a question that we simply cannot answer. We do know that Chamberlain's appeasement strategy was a failure that did not satisfy Hitler and did not end his territorial ambitions.

We know no such thing.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 10:42:31 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		Much of the blame clearly falls on Hitler, justifiably so, but the rest of the blame seems to rest on those who either "should have known better" or "should have done something to stop Hitler sooner."

Is it possible that there were people who did not want hitler stopped?

A lot of blame might also fall on Stalin for making the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler which cleared the way for the invasion and partition of Poland.

Lets look at that: Russia had a treaty with france to attack germany if germany were to attack france. Why would churchill (without portfolio)go to poland to try to convince them not to let russia cross their country to fulfill their treaty obligation with france?




< Message edited by thompsonx -- 5/11/2014 10:44:30 AM >

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 10:43:53 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		You are right about the French, their spine had been amputated at Verdun
in 1916.


Ignorant,childish, unsubstantiated opinion.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 10:46:41 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		Without that, the Germans probably would have knocked Russia out of the war.

Ignorant unsubstantiated opinion.
Russia had more and better tanks than germany.
Russia had more and better troops than germany.
Russia had more industrial capacity than germany.
Russia had more stratiegic reserves than germany.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 10:48:29 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		I do say it was Chamberlain, his gutless, spineless personna which enabled Hitler to do what he did.

Which divisions should chamberlain have brought to europe to do this ass kicking?
There was no standing army in g.b. Where would they get them. If you take them from syria, india who does their function when they are gone?

(in reply to Crouchingtiger77)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 10:49:52 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
One thing the Russians did after Germany opened up the Eastern Front was pack up their manufacturing facilities and move them to the other side of the Ural Mountains where German bombers couldn't easily reach them.

Wasn't this was done before the germans attacked in june of 41

The first HE-111 had a range of something like 700 miles. The Germans made improvements that eventually got it up around 2,000 miles but I don't think they could build enough of them to do any good. Comparatively, the B-17 had a range of over 3,000 miles.

With an tiny payload and minimal protection.

(in reply to RottenJohnny)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 10:52:11 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		As to Russia, had he been a bit more intelligent he would have permitted his army to bypass Stalingrad and march straight into Moscow capturing the capital.

He tried that the year before and it cost him a quarter of a million body bags in the assault and another 90.000 as zhukhov chased his punk ass out of town.

And of course had he not declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor could have also have meant victory first in Russia before having to having a two front war.

In the first two months of the war with russia german soldiers won the body bag lotto 62,000 times.

(in reply to Crouchingtiger77)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094