Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice?

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Is that why the French were putting together armoured divisions in 1934?

Probably not, but putting a division together and using it properly are not the same.

[Cruddy]

"Big publisher blows off steam publicly".

Hardly news is it.

Anyway, what's he moaning about - people usually buy more media in a crisis so he's quids in.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The French still had the idea that armor would be used to support infantry action and so they sprinkled their armor amoung many differnet units. The Germans had come up with this model warfare doctrine which meant you mass all of your armor together and you have the infantry tag along in motorized vehicles so you can move fast and break through the enemy's line to wreck chaos in the enemy's rear.

I also think the Germans were the first to use airpower to blast through enemy positions. The US learned that lesson very well and employed it against the Germans later, then again in Afghanistan and the two Gulf wars.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

At any rate, if you want to slag the Czechs, fill yer boots. I'll stick to a more conventional reckoning, like the one that the people of the time came to when they realised that Chamberlain had screwed the pooch.

Conventional thinking is of little use- certainly there were critics of Chamberlain- and never have I said that what was done in Munich was right- my point is that the notion that it is Munich that is to blame for everything that happened. There were many points after that could have changed things. Munich is a simple excuse for all the other mistakes that occured after and a convnient cachall for those that dislike the notion of appeasement, or hold the wrong assumption that all you need to do is "stand up to bullies" to avoid war.

I believe you miss the point that is of interest to most. Munich is not to blame. Munich represents everything that is to blame when it comes to the policies of appeasement in the late 1930's. When war was so feared that many rational people convinced themselves that Hitler and the Nazis were no threat if only they were accomodated with bits of this country, and all of that, then they postponed the reckoning and increased the scale of the conflageration.

Appeasement had its time and its place. The Rhineland perhaps, or the repeal of the unreasonable restrictions on the German armed forces were reasonable things to grant, perhaps.

Appeasement went too far when Austria was ignored, even though a plebiscite of Austrians to see which they preferred (independence or Anschluss) was supressed, the Chancellor deposed and a Nazi friendly thug put in his place.

Appeasement had certainly run its course by Sept '38 when the Czech people rallied in Prague and demanded guns to defend thmesleves and their state, but Chamberlain and Daladier actually pressured the Czech government into accepting German demands that increased as the intent to capitulate became clear.

[GePap]

Appeasement should not be based on whether someone is going "far enough", it should be based, as all strategies should, on whether they can work. In the end, appeasement works IF one side is actually willing to go as far as the other side is willing to push.

In that respect, from hindsight, appeasing Hitler was never good because he was simply bent on war- to an extent the UK could have easily appeased Hitler the whole way- he had no real design on their empire. France on the other hand had no choice really, since war with France was a basic aim for Hitler, and ditto a war in the east.

That said, the leaders of Western Europe in the mid-30's had a lot of issues to deal with, and HItler did not seem the biggest for a long time, with all the problems of that turbulent decade. To blame them for looking out for their short term interests is to ignore basic human failings and expect more than is really there.

I say what I say as well because the arguement that we should never appease is what bugs me- appeasement is a strategy- in some places in can work, in others it won't work due to the conflicting aims. But simply to rant about "appeasement" as a catch all for the moralist bridgades is moronic, and that is what annoys me about that arguement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Your lucky a lot of Americans of German descent don't want to move back "home." I think that about 40% of American are of German descent. I am one of them.

Last time I checked, it was only 20% Geman ancestry (2nd place), with 22% claiming English decent. I have both. In the mid 90s, German and English ancestry in the U.S. switched positions, with more Americans claiming German decent than any other ethnicity. They may have changed how they count the numbers though.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You keep making this claim but you have yet to provide any evidience.

Czechoslovakia was largely built by French capital. When the Germans seized the country, they began appropriating property for German capital. Thus, France lost a neo-colony when the Germans seized Czechoslovakia. Poland, on the other hand, was a neo-colony of Great Britain, with the latter country being the largest investor in the former.

With most of the world divied up between French and British capitalism directly in the form of colonialism, it was exceedingly difficult for German capitalism to expand, and as we all know, if you can't grow, your economy stagnates. That left Eastern Europe and Latin America as potential markets for German capitalism. Gemany, actually, penetrated quite deeply into Latin American markets, but unlike Africa and Asia, they were competitive markets, and so Germany was at a disadvantage internationally vis a vis France and Great Britain.

Thus, the war began as a way for Germany to convert Eastern Europe into German colonies, to provide resources and markts for German capital, and by Great Britain and France to hold on to their investments in the same. After all, it's not like Western Europe cared about mere Slavs or some abstract concept of freedom. We are talking about countries which hadjust completed the annexation of the Middle East only a decade or two earlier, and were fighting brutal campaigns in Palestine and elsewhere to hold on to those colonies.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Oerdin
You keep making this claim but you have yet to provide any evidience.

Czechoslovakia was largely built by French capital. When the Germans seized the country, they began appropriating property for German capital. Thus, France lost a neo-colony when the Germans seized Czechoslovakia. Poland, on the other hand, was a neo-colony of Great Britain, with the latter country being the largest investor in the former.

With most of the world divied up between French and British capitalism directly in the form of colonialism, it was exceedingly difficult for German capitalism to expand, and as we all know, if you can't grow, your economy stagnates. That left Eastern Europe and Latin America as potential markets for German capitalism. Gemany, actually, penetrated quite deeply into Latin American markets, but unlike Africa and Asia, they were competitive markets, and so Germany was at a disadvantage internationally vis a vis France and Great Britain.

Thus, the war began as a way for Germany to convert Eastern Europe into German colonies, to provide resources and markts for German capital, and by Great Britain and France to hold on to their investments in the same. After all, it's not like Western Europe cared about mere Slavs or some abstract concept of freedom. We are talking about countries which hadjust completed the annexation of the Middle East only a decade or two earlier, and were fighting brutal campaigns in Palestine and elsewhere to hold on to those colonies.

It is strange, then, that the French sold Czechoslovakia down the river given that they would lose their "capital." Strange.

[Ned]

I was watching a Military Channel piece on Stalingrad last night. It turns out that Hitler stripped the 6th Army of almost all of its armor, but still ordered it to attack and take Stalingrad. What he did was to move a great deal of airpower to support the attack. The combination was very effective as it allowed the German divisions, with no armor, to advance against defending Russian armies, which were equipped with armor, at a rapid pace.

Airpower appears to be the most critical element to the German offensive, and without it, German offensives were not effective.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Oerdin
You keep making this claim but you have yet to provide any evidience.

Czechoslovakia was largely built by French capital. When the Germans seized the country, they began appropriating property for German capital. Thus, France lost a neo-colony when the Germans seized Czechoslovakia. Poland, on the other hand, was a neo-colony of Great Britain, with the latter country being the largest investor in the former.

With most of the world divied up between French and British capitalism directly in the form of colonialism, it was exceedingly difficult for German capitalism to expand, and as we all know, if you can't grow, your economy stagnates. That left Eastern Europe and Latin America as potential markets for German capitalism. Gemany, actually, penetrated quite deeply into Latin American markets, but unlike Africa and Asia, they were competitive markets, and so Germany was at a disadvantage internationally vis a vis France and Great Britain.

Thus, the war began as a way for Germany to convert Eastern Europe into German colonies, to provide resources and markts for German capital, and by Great Britain and France to hold on to their investments in the same. After all, it's not like Western Europe cared about mere Slavs or some abstract concept of freedom. We are talking about countries which hadjust completed the annexation of the Middle East only a decade or two earlier, and were fighting brutal campaigns in Palestine and elsewhere to hold on to those colonies.

What a load of crap.

[Saras]

teh evil capitalism.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


AFAIR it where the USA who supported Saddam during the 80s (and gave him WMDs) and who trained and equipped the Taliban (and Osama bin Laden) to counter the sowjet occupation of Afghanistan.

The U.S. screwed Saddam and the Iranians during their war. We supported each side in turn when they appeared to falter, though we never wanted the Iranians to win under any circumstances. If we gave the Iraqis WMDs I'd like to see the proof of it. All I've seen are dodgy paranoic ramblings from lefty websites on the subject. The U.S. never trained or equipped the Taliban or OBL.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kamrat X

WWII was a war to defend business interests. Just as every other war on this planet for as long as there´s been people. It´s not pretty, but it´s true

That's fvcking classic! Thanks for the laugh!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Winston Churchill is providing electricity for a couple London boroughs.

Even in death he is more energetic than the European Right and more useful than the European Left.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Uhhh, I was referring to you equating Michael Moore with Nazis.

When we all know that he is more in line with the terrorist scum, even going so far as to attack Team America headquarters.