What would make Britain negotiate in 1940-1?

[b12ox]

The versaille payments had been stopped much earlier than the actual peace talks in Munich. I dont see how they have anything to do wth the situation right before the war.

 

[BlondieBC]

The versaille payments had been stopped much earlier than the actual peace talks in Munich. I dont see how they have anything to do wth the situation right before the war.

So are you conceding all other other unfaithful actions of the UK that I listed?

 

[Tongera]

Except we have the most interesting subversion of this in the USSR, which did rigidly adhere to the exact words of treaties, which is more than most of its clients did. If Stalin could decide to adhere to the exact terms of treaties and chose to use treaties as his means of conquest, why couldn't Hitler? Stalin was a very bad man, too, after all.

I think Stalin and the USSR only kept to the words of treaties only because it suited him. If they weren't in the interest of the USSR, then they wouldn't be signed or be brken later.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Your reply does not make sense. Whites were betrayed - Slavs (Munich betrayal), French (Oran), and Norway (UK invasion fleet left first) as white.

I will concede that Europeans from 1800-1950 treated Africans and Asians a lot worse than they did Europeans in international affairs.

Well, I agree that 1938 was badly handled, but it's also worth reflecting the only power evidently willing to go to war over it was the USSR, which created elaborate conditions that kept it from ever having to seriously consider that war to start with.

I think Stalin and the USSR only kept to the words of treaties only because it suited him. If they weren't in the interest of the USSR, then they wouldn't be signed or be brken later.

The point is that they kept to them, which the Nazis never did with any of their treaties. After all, they signed a non-aggression pact with Poland.....

 

[Tongera]

The point is that they kept to them, which the Nazis never did with any of their treaties. After all, they signed a non-aggression pact with Poland.....

But because it was the USSR's interest, they obviously wouldn't be broken and should be exempt from this. Nazi's broke treaties even when it suited them.

 

[Snake Featherston]

But because it was the USSR's interest, they obviously wouldn't be broken and should be exempt from this. Nazi's broke treaties even when it suited them.

Which is the point I'm raising. Blondie said that the Germans weren't doing anything out of the ordinary. I'm using the Soviets, not by any means the nicest, friendliest guys around or the least scrupulous about messing with the internal politics of their neighbors to show that even evil does have scruples and standards. In fact the Soviet/Communist specialty was using negotiations as war by other means, where the Nazis just went and invaded everything it was possible for them to invade. One can be *and IOTL was) contained, the other cannot be.

 

[ivanotter]

... Stalin was the one who "gave" Finland its independence in 1917 (as I recall it). Then, later on, coming along and kindly asking Finland to just hand over some territories, or else... so it became the "..or else.." that prevailed.

Now, the Baltics? and why not hand back the Southern Muslim countries which the Tsar just conquered?

so, again: countries are looking out for #1. If it makes sense not to break a treaty, well and good, otherwise just look out.

 

[Snake Featherston]

... Stalin was the one who "gave" Finland its independence in 1917 (as I recall it). Then, later on, coming along and kindly asking Finland to just hand over some territories, or else... so it became the "..or else.." that prevailed.

Now, the Baltics? and why not hand back the Southern Muslim countries which the Tsar just conquered?

so, again: countries are looking out for #1. If it makes sense not to break a treaty, well and good, otherwise just look out.

Stalin wasn't the leader of the Council of People's Commissars then, that was Lenin. The Soviets wanted Finland to give them territory that Finland, which had just managed to get out of Russian control not that long ago was understandably hesitant to simply hand over. That the Soviets responded to this reluctance with an attempt to swallow it whole (which the M-R Pact, it should be remembered, actually allowed for) shows that reluctance was quite justified (of course just because you try something is not a guarantee you succeed in the attempt).

 

[AdA]

We're off course but

If the point is why the USSR wanted to get back some real estate the answer is simple, it used to be theirs and they wanted it back. If Mexico could get California back, they would, for the same reason. There were probably still lots of maps of imperial Russia around in 1938 Moscow, and looking at them and then at a map of the USSR must have hurt...
Of course, it must hurt a lot more now...

 

[Snake Featherston]

If the point is why the USSR wanted to get back some real estate the answer is simple, it used to be theirs and they wanted it back. If Mexico could get California back, they would, for the same reason. There were probably still lots of maps of imperial Russia around in 1938 Moscow, and looking at them and then at a map of the USSR must have hurt...
Of course, it must hurt a lot more now...

However it's worth noting they got them back by adhering to the exact phrasing of a treaty.

 

[AdA]

However it's worth noting they got them back by adhering to the exact phrasing of a treaty.

Both Germany and Russia were on familiar ground there...

 

[Snake Featherston]

Both Germany and Russia were on familiar ground there...

Prussia/Germany, yes. Nazi Germany? No.

 

[Deckhand]

Rearm with what money? They were broke in December 1940. There was LL, but they didn't start taking goods without payment until May-June 1941. By December they would be in a war with Japan. And after all of this you expect the British to start another war with Germany? And the public wants to why?

Canada was good for 5 Billion in 40's dollars in loans and goods to Britain OTL. We might have gone deeper if it was deemed necessary. We would also take promises for supplying inexhaustable resources. For national salvation a way is always found. Britain would have rearmed. Whether there would have been support to go to war on germany again is another question.

 

[AdA]

Prussia/Germany, yes. Nazi Germany? No.

Obviously, 6 year olds tend to have limited experience....
Nazi Germany was still Germany, and well versed in its Prussian heritage. Of course after 1945 a lot of people pretended it was a totally diferent country...

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Canada was good for 5 Billion in 40's dollars in loans and goods to Britain OTL. We might have gone deeper if it was deemed necessary. We would also take promises for supplying inexhaustable resources. For national salvation a way is always found. Britain would have rearmed. Whether there would have been support to go to war on germany again is another question.

5 billion what? $1.5 Billion lasted Britain about three months in the autumn of 1940. Having to repair its ports ITTL and fight Japan will all take a major period of time if the US supplies Britain with LL even after she quits in 1941 before December.