Could WW2 in Europe have ended sooner without unconditional surrender?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Im confused.
There are several folks opposing the idea that Britain enabled the Nazis.

Didn't Britain pursue a policy of appeasement? And doesn't appeasing a bully (when you are the only agency able or likely to successfully oppose him) enable him, by encouring him in his behavior, letting him consolidate his clique, and make others feel helpless in the face of his aggression?

The case seems clear: France wanted Britain's backing in opposing Hitler, since France was in no financial shape to do it alone. Britain refused, somewhat sympathizing with the remilitarizarion of the Rhineland, refusing to take action against the Anschluss, and approving Hitler's annexations in Czechoslovakia.

Looks like enabling, to me.

So what am I missing? Is the appeasement thing just a lie?
 
Looks like enabling, to me.

In the same sense Poland enabled Auschwitz,eg being unable to stop it. In the Rhineland militarization,france was basicly impotent,and many people symphatizised with the germans (never mind germany shifting troops in its own borders is hardly the behaviour of a bully). so that point it out.

In the Anschluss,Austria for all intents and purposes voluntarily got part of germany. What options did the british have against that? Stop this hugely popular thing,or we invade you with our small peacetime army?

The same with the whole Czechoslowakia thing,really. Britain didn't feel strong enough to take germany on yet,so how can you,with hindsight,chastice them for it?
 
Tallil2long , I'm confused with what you seem to be saying. Are you actually arguing that trying to avoid a war is wrong? No one knew that the Nazi's were nuts at the time. In hindsight Britain made a mistake by thinking compromise could be reached, but before Hitler renegaded on Munich was that so blatantly a wrong position? And why just call out Britain , the USA sat back and did nothing , as did most of the other democracies.
 
That's an argument without a shred of basis; there was no possibility of a coup after 1937, there simply wasn't anyone in any position of power who wasn't absolutely loyal to Stalin; anyone who gave Stalin and the NKVD the least reason to doubt them was dead. Stalin would not have put out peace feelers to Hitler (4 in all; in the first month of the Barbarossa campaign, and one each in '42, '43 & '44) unless he was absolutely certain it posed no threat to his own position of power; Stalin simply didn't tolerate anything that even implied a possible threat to his position; as evidenced by his actions when he became aware of Felix Dzerzhinsky's entirely fictitious organisation, 'The Trust'.

If the Soviet leaders were not going to get rid of him at the end of June 1941 they certainly are not going to attempt it in 1943.
 
In the same sense Poland enabled Auschwitz,eg being unable to stop it. In the Rhineland militarization,france was basicly impotent,and many people symphatizised with the germans (never mind germany shifting troops in its own borders is hardly the behaviour of a bully). so that point it out.

In the Anschluss,Austria for all intents and purposes voluntarily got part of germany. What options did the british have against that? Stop this hugely popular thing,or we invade you with our small peacetime army?

The same with the whole Czechoslowakia thing,really. Britain didn't feel strong enough to take germany on yet,so how can you,with hindsight,chastice them for it?

First, Poland was conquered and prostrate, therefore powerless to do anything about Auschwitz.

Second, Britain's standing army was small, but her navy, her economic and financial power, and her military potential were big. She did not attempt to use any of these either to stop the referenced things, or to seriously pressure the Nazis to withdraw.

As for the Anschluss, was it not forbidden by the ToV, which Britain helped formulate, and signed? I guess there is no obligation to enforce a treaty you are party to, when your allied co-signers ask you to do so?
 
It seems hypocritical to simultaneously say the British enabled Hitler by not bombing Dresden in 1933 and also prolonged WW2 by not letting the german military profit from the war.

Also, "enabling" means "actively assisting," in English. Not sure if this is a language issue.
 
Tallil2long , I'm confused with what you seem to be saying. Are you actually arguing that trying to avoid a war is wrong? No one knew that the Nazi's were nuts at the time. In hindsight Britain made a mistake by thinking compromise could be reached, but before Hitler renegaded on Munich was that so blatantly a wrong position? And why just call out Britain , the USA sat back and did nothing , as did most of the other democracies.

It is appropriate to make reasonable efforts to avoid a war.

Britain's efforts to avoid war involved selling out the Czechs to foreign conquest; betraying the French who asked for support; letting a defeated enemy blatantly violate treaty terms and gain strength; ignore an obviously escalating series of aggressive provocations; and refuse to even use peaceful methods such as economic sanctions to rein in a regime whose rhetoric -- even before the War -- was demonstrably violent and threatening.

These, in my opinion, go beyond "reasonable efforts to avoid war". Or do you think them appropriate?
 
It seems hypocritical to simultaneously say the British enabled Hitler by not bombing Dresden in 1933 and also prolonged WW2 by not letting the german military profit from the war.

Also, "enabling" means "actively assisting," in English. Not sure if this is a language issue.

One definition of enable is "to make possible". A related definition of enabler is "a person who encourages or enables negative or self-destructive behavior in another".

By making it possible for Nazi Germany to carry out its series of aggressive provocations, which consolidated Nazi power, strengthened Germany for war, and improved her strategic position, Britain enabled Nazi aggression. Because without BRITAIN'S refusal to take action, the Nazis COULD NOT do what they did.

But DID Britain make the Nazi moves possible? I argue that they did, since Britain had the ability to support France and the OBLIGATION to help her ally enforce the treaty terms that she herself helped construct and signed. And with both France and Britain firmly opposed, it would have been impossible for Nazi Germany to do what she did. The French recognized the danger, and sought British support. The British declined.
 
I don't desire to portray Britain as evil or bad. But her refusal to take action was the decisive factor in letting the Nazis pursue a course that was obviously belligerent and threatening, was victimizing neighbors (the Czechs) and blatantly violated the ToV which Britain helped construct.

Denying that she had any ability, or responsibility, to take action against these dangerous provocations, seems very wrong-headed IMHO.
 

Deleted member 1487

It seems hypocritical to simultaneously say the British enabled Hitler by not bombing Dresden in 1933 and also prolonged WW2 by not letting the german military profit from the war.

Also, "enabling" means "actively assisting," in English. Not sure if this is a language issue.
In a twisted mind perhaps because simply enforcing the ToV at the Rheinland in 1936 would have prevented the entire WW and all the horrors that came with it. By 1943-44 it was about ending the killing before the bitter via offering a treaty that prevented another war even if it meant letting the Germans keep something like Austria to get it and save millions of Allied and civilians lives.

And yes enabling is the right word to discuss the British allowing the Nazi government from getting away with murder from 1936-39 and prepare for war. Hell they even gave them gold in 1939 that was used to buy more materials to prepare for war AFTER violating the Munich agreement. That is literally paying Hitler for violating a treaty and to use the money to go for the next round. They didn't have to give the Nazis Czech gold in British after they effectively invaded and annexed Bohemia in May 1939, but they did. They wouldn't enforce the Munich Agreement either and as a result allowed the Germans to capture enough equipment to equip 22 divisions, as well as the entire arms industry of Bohemia. That isn't blaming the British for Hitler's crimes, that is blaming the British for being blindingly stupid and not trying to stop him before he was in a position to start a world war when it was entirely within their ability and rights based on the ToV or Munich Agreement. And presenting Dresden as the only option in 1939 or earlier is insane, because that had no military value AND it was a violation of international agreements and as yet Germany had not violated them. Simply attacking their military and blockading them would have been enough. In 1936 not even that, just sending troops into the Rheinland to enforce the ToV would have been enough. Also not even signing the Anglo-German Naval Agreement would have been warranted because German naval restrictions were already set in the ToV:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
The Anglo-German Naval Agreement was highly controversial, both at the time and since, because the 35:100 tonnage ratio allowed Germany the right to build a Navy beyond the limits set by the Treaty of Versailles, and the British had made the agreement without consulting France or Italy first.
Britain specifically helped break down the ToV as early as 1935 without regards to her allies!
 
It is appropriate to make reasonable efforts to avoid a war.

Britain's efforts to avoid war involved selling out the Czechs to foreign conquest; betraying the French who asked for support; letting a defeated enemy blatantly violate treaty terms and gain strength; ignore an obviously escalating series of aggressive provocations; and refuse to even use peaceful methods such as economic sanctions to rein in a regime whose rhetoric -- even before the War -- was demonstrably violent and threatening.

These, in my opinion, go beyond "reasonable efforts to avoid war". Or do you think them appropriate?
Again , why is it all on Britain ? USA what did they do? By your criteria, they had the money , had the influence , saw the aggressive behavior , looked the other way. Britain did not want to fight a war , the losses of ww1 scared a generation deeper than you can imagine. That's when it came to Britain been pushed to where it had to fight , it kept on fighting, even when most of the rest of the world thought it was hopeless. The thought was finish this now , no round 3. Same reason Britain was never going to give terms much better than we will not execute the lot of you to any German government.
 
This thread is useless. Both sides throw same arguments at each other, and both refuse to budge.
Its irrelevant which side is correct, since neither can convince the other.

I tried to present alternate hypothetical scenario, but nobody is interested in discussing it.
 

Deleted member 1487

Again , why is it all on Britain ? USA what did they do? By your criteria, they had the money , had the influence , saw the aggressive behavior , looked the other way. Britain did not want to fight a war , the losses of ww1 scared a generation deeper than you can imagine. That's when it came to Britain been pushed to where it had to fight , it kept on fighting, even when most of the rest of the world thought it was hopeless. The thought was finish this now , no round 3. Same reason Britain was never going to give terms much better than we will not execute the lot of you to any German government.
The US didn't sign the ToV and wasn't committed to any Europe defense agreements. They learned the lesson of isolationism and set up the post-war world to make sure there wouldn't be great power wars in Europe anymore.
 
And yes enabling is the right word to discuss the British allowing the Nazi government from getting away with murder from 1936-39 and prepare for war. QUOTE]
Was going to write a paragraph or two on why Britain was so desperate not to fight a war but on reflection the below is far more eloquent
upload_2016-8-19_16-21-30.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-8-19_16-21-6.png
    upload_2016-8-19_16-21-6.png
    341.2 KB · Views: 133

Deleted member 1487

This thread is useless. Both sides throw same arguments at each other, and both refuse to budge.
Its irrelevant which side is correct, since neither can convince the other.

I tried to present alternate hypothetical scenario, but nobody is interested in discussing it.
Exactly why I wanted to kill it, but people kept responding.
 
So what you're saying is that it's a mistake to give Germany any concessions and that none of its concerns were legitimate, because force is the only thing they understand.

I agree! Fortunately, so did the allies by 1945.
 

Deleted member 1487

If Britain was so desperate not to fight another war, why did it start working with Hitler from 1935 on to circumvent the ToV armaments restrictions? Then not act when they unilaterally remilitarized the Rheinland? It wouldn't have been hard to oppose the Nazis with France on their side, they'd just need to provide financing. Beyond that they did nothing, not even sanctions when Germany invaded Austria, then let them take the Czechoslovak border forts, then let them violate the Munich Agreement and turned over Czech gold after that to help finance their rearmament plans, then in August 1939 dithered on signing deals with Stalin to contain Hitler and convinced the Poles to demobilize their army and tried to get them to give up Danzig and make themselves a German economic dependent. I get not wanting to fight another war, but what Britain did in terms of letting the Nazis get away with flagrant rearmament meant that that war was even possible when it could have been headed off long before war was even possible.
 

Deleted member 1487

So what you're saying is that it's a mistake to give Germany any concessions and that none of its concerns were legitimate, because force is the only thing they understand.

I agree! Fortunately, so did the allies by 1945.
No, it wasn't a problem to work with Germany to rehabilitate it's economy or loosen some restrictions, what was a problem was to not enforce an existing treaty and unilaterally decide to let the Nazi government get away with everything.

In a 1943-45 negotiation scenario the Allies wouldn't be negotiating with Hitler or the Nazis, rather a non-Nazi coup group that removed them and wanted to end the war and would agree to evacuate most of the Nazi conquests, potentially all with negotiations. The thing is it is the US in 1943-44 that is the major player there, not the Brits who had been burned by their own stupidity in enabling Hitler and they aren't negotiating with the Nazis.

But please guys this thread has run it's course, let's just let it die.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top