Appeasement: Right or Wrong?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
There never was such a thing as a kingdom of Germany!

Oh yes there was, just no one that we'd easily recognize. Consider first that at one time the whole area was united under one king, Lothair. Also remember that the Holy Roman Emperor held the Crown of the Kingdom of German, the Kingdom of Italy, the Kingdom of Lotharingia, and several others.

The Holy Roman Emperor was not a hereditary king, he was elected by 12 electors.

Neither were the leaders of Poland, Hungary, and many other Central European kingdoms, including Bohemia. BTW, I'm not completely sure Bohemia was a full Kingdom.

in fact, bohemia was an independent Kingdom under the suzereinity of the Emperor (much like Kings in Bavaria, saxony, hesse, Brandenburg and so forth)

Bohemia was hardly independent. It was subject to the rulings of the imperial diet. When Otto of Bohemia tried to take over huge swaths of Germany (and reconsolidate the Kingdom of Germany), he was removed from his position and Austria and Styria were handed over to a minor family, the Hapsburgs.

until by marriage the habsburgs became Kings of Bohemia and Moravia and then made these imperial lands, and kept them as part fo the Archduchy of Austria once they lost their title of Holy Roman Emperors and then they caled themselves the Emperors of Austria:

Actually, it was the death of Lajos King of Hungary and Bohemia that handed Bohemia over to the Hapsburgs, and the Bohemian diet still had to approve that after Lajos' death. It was only after a fire in Prague castle destroyed the records that Ferdinand could demand to be made a hereditary king of Bohemia, rather than an elected king. And 90 years later, Bohemia elected the Prince of Pfalz as king, setting off the thrity years war.

I expect better form you Che...making such elemental historical mistakes

See all the neat things you learn while scripting events for Europa-Universalis.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


This bizzaro-history of yours is incredible. Germany was no innocent victim, even if Versailles was unduly harsh. The fighting broke out because Hitler kept invading other countries. Bloody hell.

As for the original topic of the thread: it's not really a stance on the morality of appeasement, but I do think that appeasement is a losing strategy. It's just not very smart.

Appeasement pre-WWII led to a long and bloody world war. Many people believe that had France and the UK come down on Germany hard when Hitler ordered his army into the Rhineland, it all couldhave been avoided. No way to know for sure, though.

What do you think of that famous line often used to describe the Holocaust, DF? You know "first they came for the jews, but I was not a jew, so I did nothing..." etc.

-Arrian

Arrian, As far as I can recall, Hitler invaded only one country before 9/2/39 and that was Poland on 9/1/39. The reason Hitler invaded is that the Poles refused to negotiate because of its pact with Britain and France.

What happened after that was, of course, the kind of thing that happens in wars. Hitler invaded a lot of countries in an effort to win the war. However, he seems to have bit off more than he could chew when he attacked the USSR.

Arrian, just to make my position clear, it is my position that Britain and France should not have been interfering in Eastern Europe because they had no legal obligation to do so and did not have the power to win the military confrontation they provoked. What they should have done if they wanted Poland and its other client states to remain independent is to call for a European conference that would include the USSR and the United States. If the USSR, the US and England and France had all been guarantors of the results of such a conference, I believe there would have been peace in Europe.

[chequita guevara]

He invaded the Czechs. They just didn't fight back.

[GePap]

Oh yes there was, just no one that we'd easily recognize. Consider first that at one time the whole area was united under one king, Lothair. Also remember that the Holy Roman Emperor held the Crown of the Kingdom of German, the Kingdom of Italy, the Kingdom of Lotharingia, and several others.

Do I have to get out my sources on this? i really don;t want to have to quote several chapters of History books: The Kingdom of Bohemia (what we were talking about) was independent, much like the Kingdoms of Hungary, and Poland. I still say you are wrong on a Kingdom of Germany, but even if you were right, bohemia was not part of it. When Lothar was King, the nds of Bohemia were not in German hands, period.

Neither were the leaders of Poland, Hungary, and many other Central European kingdoms, including Bohemia. BTW, I'm not completely sure Bohemia was a full Kingdom.

while other kings were lected by nobles, the Emperor did not have the powers of taxation and so forth- his power was shown to be higly ceremonial going into the thirty years war, by which time the Emperor still held his seat, but was even incapable of forcing a state religion on all the duchies under him.

Bohemia was hardly independent. It was subject to the rulings of the imperial diet. When Otto of Bohemia tried to take over huge swaths of Germany (and reconsolidate the Kingdom of Germany), he was removed from his position and Austria and Styria were handed over to a minor family, the Hapsburgs.

You made me bring out the history books:

When Frederich babenberg, Duke of Austria died, both Ottokar, King of Bohemia, and Bela IV, king of Hungary, vied to get control, since the Emperor at the time was very weak. Ottokar also undertook crusades against the Baltic lands with the teutonic Knights, all in an aim to get himself made emperor, specially after he defeated the Hungarians in Austria also. Then Rudolph of Habsburg got himself elected emperor, and undertook to challenge Ottokars aims of making himself lord of central europe. In fact, ottokars defeat came in the battlefield, at Marchfeld field, where his army was defeated by th army of the Emperor Rudolph of habsburg. After the battle and Ottokars death during it did the Emperor make the disputed lands of the Babenbergs his and his families.

See all the neat things you learn while scripting events for Europa-Universalis.

see all one learns form going to Vienna to study Central european History, that and buying goo history books?

[Capt Dizle]

Ned, normally I have respect for what you say but in this thread almost every statement and conclusion is totally wrong, baseless, and illogical. I do not have the time now, but I am going to attempt to rebut it all as soon as I do.

Are you being serious or just trolling us?

[Ned]

jimmytrick, I am half serious and half trolling. I only wish there had been some way of avoiding WWII. That war cost tens of millions of lives.

Of course Hitler was aggressive. Perhaps everything people say about him was ultimately true, that he would have started a major war regardless of any negotiations. I don't know.

If it is true, however, that the only thing Hitler understood was military power, then WWII was caused by Britain in not acting at a time when it still could without causing a major war. By the time they did act, they no longer had military superiority over Germany. Thus, Germany invaded Poland. They no longer feared, or for that matter, had any respect for Chamberlain.

Many would say the US is being aggressive in Iraq. But in a sense, we are being aggressive in order to oppose aggression. But we are still being aggressive. We will cause a war, more than likely. But we will win it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He invaded the Czechs. They just didn't fight back.

From my understanding, Hitler invited the Czech PM to Berlin and made him wait outside his office until around 2 in the morning. He then called him in and demanded that he allow Germany to occupy the Czech portion of the country. He then dismissed him. Then Georing and Himler (?) informed the PM that the German army had orders to invade beginning at 6 in the morning. When the PM still did not cave, Georing said that the German air force would beginning bombin Prague at dawn. At hearing this, the PM fainted. He then signed away Czech independence before the Germans "invaded."

The next day, I believe, Slovakia voted to join Germany.

Whether Hitler would have actually carried out his threats to invade, we shall never know.

[Capt Dizle]

Slovakia was coerced into declaring independence from the Czechs shortly before Hacha signed.

I feel certain that Hitler would have invaded. He was convinced that Britain and France would do nothing. Of course he could have waited for Czechoslovakia to be more gracefully annexed but Hitler was on a timetable set by his fears of an early death.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned


Arrian, As far as I can recall, Hitler invaded only one country before 9/2/39 and that was Poland on 9/1/39. The reason Hitler invaded is that the Poles refused to negotiate because of its pact with Britain and France.

What happened after that was, of course, the kind of thing that happens in wars. Hitler invaded a lot of countries in an effort to win the war. However, he seems to have bit off more than he could chew when he attacked the USSR.

Arrian, just to make my position clear, it is my position that Britain and France should not have been interfering in Eastern Europe because they had no legal obligation to do so and did not have the power to win the military confrontation they provoked. What they should have done if they wanted Poland and its other client states to remain independent is to call for a European conference that would include the USSR and the United States. If the USSR, the US and England and France had all been guarantors of the results of such a conference, I believe there would have been peace in Europe.

As Stalin was as bad as hitler and the US didn't give a stuff about europe how would this have helped

[Ned]

jimmy, we are looking at this from 20-20 hindsight. If Hitler really was going to invade, why did he pull off this elaborate sequence of events with the Czech PM?

I think Hitler assumed all along that the Czech would cave because no one would be coming to their aid. Earlier in this thread it was said that Hilter's popularity in Germany was high because he was undoing the Versailles treaty without firing a shot. Why would he jeopardize his unblemished record by invading Czechoslovakia? An armed conflict would certianly inflaime world opinion aganst Germany. It could have potentially brought the USA and the USSR into the now hot war on the side of Britain. Hitler, I beleive, did not want this.

In fact, Chamberlain said publicly that Britain had no obligation to protect Czechoslovakia. Perhaps.

The fall of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq illustrates a simply truth. Countries can be created from defeated empires by drawing lines on the map, but they cannot normally continue to exist without security guarantees. Israel might be an exception to this rule as it has survived without US intervention in any of its conflicts.

Those EE countries could not continue to exist independently in face of a re-armed, combined Germany/Austria. Their very creation guaranteed a future world war if England were to oppose German or even Soviet re-acquisition. But it did oppose German and WWII did occur.

Was appeasement right? Of course it was. It should have continued. Britain and France should simply have pulled out of EE affairs as the United States pulled out of Vietnam.

[Arrian]

Why would he jeopardize his unblemished record by invading Czechoslovakia? An armed conflict would certianly inflaime world opinion aganst Germany. It could have potentially brought the USA and the USSR into the now hot war on the side of Britain.

Like his armed conflict in Poland? Oh, wait, that wasn't the result... the USSR helped him and the USA continued to not give a damn.

The fall of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq illustrates a simply truth. Countries can be created from defeated empires by drawing lines on the map, but they cannot normally continue to exist without security guarantees. Israel might be an exception to this rule as it has survived without US intervention in any of its conflicts.

You're kidding, right? What do you call all of that aid money? Everyone in the Arab world knows that we will never allow Israel to be destroyed - if they were ever seriously in trouble, Uncle Sammy would ride to the rescue. That wasn't true in the beginning ('48), but it is now.

Was appeasement right? Of course it was. It should have continued. Britain and France should simply have pulled out of EE affairs as the United States pulled out of Vietnam.

*boggle* What?

-Arrian

[Ned]

Arrian, By Poland, Britain had thrown down the gauntlet. They had spent most of '39 setting up defensive alliances. Germany, in response, had nailed down a non aggression pact with the USSR.

Germany now was totally prepared for war with Britain. But Germany did not want to declare war on Britain. That might have brought the US into the war in '39. Thus the invasion of Poland probably was intended to provoke Britain into a declaration of war.

As to Israel, I agree that for some time we have supported Israel and guaranteed their existence. However, remember in '67, we cut off their arms shipments and pulled the 6th Fleet out of the Eastern Mediterranean just as the Soviets moved their fleet in next to Israel and were threatening to invade.

The Vietnam analogy: We were protecting SV against communist aggression from the North. We could not win that war without risking a world war. Any invasion of the North would have provoked Chinese intervention. Any invasion of China would have provoked Russian intervention.

Britain in the late '30s was protecting the democracies of EE against Nazi aggression. This guarantee ran the risk of triggering a world war - and it did trigger a world war.

We withdrew from SV and let it go communist. We did not go down the path to a world war.

Britain could have done the same in '39. It could have simply let Nazi Germany have its way in EE. But it did not "withdraw." It rather declared war on Germany, thus starting yet another world war.

WWI started because Austria declared war on Yugoslavia, which had Russia as an ally. WWII started in the same manner. However, in SV, we did not declare war on North Vietnam and avoided WWIII.

I suggest that our withdrawal from Vietnam was right and that both Germany and Britain share the blame for WWII.

[Arrian]

I know we didn't always back Israel the way we do now. But your comment that Israel is an exception because it survives w/o a security guarantee is contradicted by a) the massive amount of aid we give Israel and b) the large US military presence in the region, which few doubt would be brought to bear if Israel was really in danger of falling, and c) our decision not to take issue with Israel's nuclear weapons.

I have no problem with our withdrawl from Vietnam, and I would not call it appeasement. I don't think it is relevent to our discussion.

I see what you're getting at now: Britain decided to take a stand, and thus "caused" WWII. Continuing to appease Hitler in '39, however, would have been a mistake. Britain new it had to "throw down the gauntlet." Hitler was not going to stop gobbling up countries, and the UK & France finally figured that out. That the UK & France finally chose to oppose Hitlers' aggression does not make them responsible for the war. Hitler invaded Poland.

Had the UK and France decided not to fight over Poland, then Hitler would have gotten exactly what he wanted: a free hand in Eastern Europe to create his "lebensraum" (sorry if I butchered the spelling). He could have invaded and fought the USSR without a western front. There would still have been a huge war, with millions of casualties, not to mention the distinct possibility of an even more complete "final solution."

But if you want to believe that WWII was Britain's fault, go right ahead. I suppose the United States is actually to blame for the Pacific war, because we cut off Japan's steel? The attack on Pearl Harbor, after all, was simply a result of our failure to appease Japan, right? So obviously it was our fault.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

I hope this thread is around tomorrow.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again... arguing with David:



And yes, David, might makes right and always has.