Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice?

[Dis]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I call bull**** since AQ had been attacking America for quite sometimwe during his term.

yes, but those were small attacks outside our borders. americans expect americans to be murdered when they travel abroad. I think we can agree 9/11 is a little different.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
So with all of that, german troops marching back into the rhineland, or the friendly annexation of Austria should have gotten them to delcare war? Why? Compare German actions at the time vs. Italian actions, Japanese actions, or the grand threat of Bolshevism, and you tell me why Britian and France, both with internal problems, allied to a bunch of young, weak, contentious new states in the Balkans, facing a totally aloof US, should take it upon themselves to police the upstart Hitler?

Because Germany was violating a peace treaty and none of the others were? Because the French and British had spent several decades trying to contain German power once before, and anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about power and politics in Europe knew the threat that Germany could be again?

By the time you get to 1938 and the Sudetenland crisis then, the question is, what would British and French refusal to let that go have done? I seriously doubt that this notion of a general's coup is at all likely, since these guys could not get their act together even as the war was going badly, AND Hitler was coming of the unification with Austria. So, perhaps no appeasement in 1938 means war in 1938. Would it have been a grand success and an easy victory for the allies? I have no clue, I don;t think anyone else does.

And this does nothing about the other basic point- the Holocaust was possible only because the Germans won battles over and over- had the French, UK, Poles and othrs put together a militarilly effective coolition, then the Holocaust would have never occured- if British and French policymkers in 1938 and early 1939 had made getting an allience with the USSR a top priority, mayeb Germany would never had had the kind of open hand it got by luring the USSR to its camp for the first years.

But these inconvinient facts get in the way or moralisitcally simplistic bullcrap, and so are ignored.

Actually, you aren't talking of facts there, sport. You are launching into a bunch of conjecture.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Because Germany was violating a peace treaty and none of the others were? Because the French and British had spent several decades trying to contain German power once before, and anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about power and politics in Europe knew the threat that Germany could be again?

First, the notion that the UK and France had been working "for decades" to contain German power is absurd.

Oh, and the other bit? Priceless bunk. If we looked at the previous 100 years from 1936, the UK had spent far more time trying to keep the Russians in line, and after 1918 the great Bolshevick threat was a big deal (hence the western European troops to help Poland in 1920-21). So stop BAMing for once and try, just try, to look at the actual situation on the ground back in 1936.

And IF your assertion is valid and Germany was so dangerous,m the French and the UK alone were the ones that needed to act, leaving the Russians/USSR and the US utterly blameless, even when they had to deal with two ex-allies now causing trouble (Italy, Japan)?

So in esssence, the UK and France, with everything going in the world, had to be the cops, and let everyone else scott free? Why?

Actually, you aren't talking of facts there, sport. You are launching into a bunch of conjecture.

If so, better informed conjecture than you own.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


First, the notion that the UK and France had been working "for decades" to contain German power is absurd.

Uhmmm, no it's not. Are you at all familiar with European history 1870 to 1914? Go read some, and then come back, OK?

Oh, and the other bit? Priceless bunk. If we looked at the previous 100 years from 1936, the UK had spent far more time trying to keep the Russians in line, and after 1918 the great Bolshevick threat was a big deal (hence the western European troops to help Poland in 1920-21). So stop BAMing for once and try, just try, to look at the actual situation on the ground back in 1936.

BAMing? Do you have a clue?

And IF your assertion is valid and Germany was so dangerous,m the French and the UK alone were the ones that needed to act, leaving the Russians/USSR and the US utterly blameless, even when they had to deal with two ex-allies now causing trouble (Italy, Japan)?

So in esssence, the UK and France, with everything going in the world, had to be the cops, and let everyone else scott free? Why?

What are you babbling about? France borders Germany. That and their demands at Versailles made it a French problem. I'm sorry, but 1938 is a little early to blame all the world's ills on the US who nobody recognised as a super power (not even themselves).

The Brits were involved because they were at the table. They too had alliances with Eastern European nations, and they saw the state of the continent as their business. Once again, the Yanks did not, and they wouldn't have been particularly welcomed if they did.

In short, I don't recall there ever having been an invitation to Munich sent to FDR. The Brits and French were there though, so who do you think wears the result?

If so, better informed conjecture than you own.

I'd say more like rediculous historical fiction.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Uhmmm, no it's not. Are you at all familiar with European history 1870 to 1914? Go read some, and then come back, OK?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, I am very familiar with European history from 1870 to 1914. Its hard to think at the time of the Fashoda crisis of 1898 that France and the UK were plotting to limit German power, RIGHT? Oh, or do you know what fashoda is?

If anything, until Wilhem kicked out Bismark in 1888 (I believe), the Iron Chancellor did a stellar job in keeping the French sidelined throught the 3 Emperors League and not seeking many colonies-heck, even was nice enough to hold that Berlin Conference in 1884 and so forth.

BAMing? Do you have a clue?

Well, Certainly more than you it seems.

What are you babbling about? France borders Germany. That and their demands at Versailles made it a French problem. I'm sorry, but 1938 is a little early to blame all the world's ills on the US who nobody recognised as a super power (not even themselves).

So? Spain borders France as well- yet France did little to get involved in that nasty war. Heck, the French also signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact, so getting nto an aggressive war was a no no if keeping up international agreemenst is so sacrosant. As for your characterization of the US- shows your level of both reading ability and historical knowledge. It was common knowledge that the US was one of the strongest great powers (maybe why Chuchill was so eager to get them involved)- WW1 had been a very obvious show of that. Where on Earth you get then the notion that people did not view the US asw a great power, I will never know. Oh, and no one is blaming the US for anything, as much as you seem to get your kicks from that tired old mule- the question is why France and the US should get more grief for not curbing the Germans than the Italians or Japanese (both signatories of Versailles as well) or the US and USSR (both cognisant of the "german danger") or even all those new Eastern European states who could not work together worth a damn. Francophobes like you prefer to blame it all on two states cause the reality of the times messes up simplistic world views.

The Brits were involved because they were at the table. They too had alliances with Eastern European nations, and they saw the state of the continent as their business. Once again, the Yanks did not, and they wouldn't have been particularly welcomed if they did.

You latter assumption is baseless (or care to state what you base that BAM on?), but again, the Brits were not the only people in Europe. Heck, given how militarilly pathetic Germany was in 1934, Poland and the Czech republic could have wiped the floor with them. How come no one ever blames the Czechs for not putting up a fierce fight vs the Germans invasion? Heck, they came out of the war generally untouched physically. How come Poland and HUngary aren;t excoriated for tagging along with Germany when Czechoslovakia was annexed in march '39? Wow, great allies there, you know....

In short, I don't recall there ever having been an invitation to Munich sent to FDR. The Brits and French were there though, so who do you think wears the result?

What about the Italians, who convened Munich in the first place? Maybe the other smaller European states could have made a fuzz, no? Maybe the Czechs could have said screw you guys, we will fight, period.... Why should the French and UK, without any real backing from their minor allies, with an untrustworthy Italy, minimal relations with the USSR and an aloof US, why should they have taken the risk of war, huh? Its easy to ***** from 70 years later and nothing to lose, specially when you ignore the reality of the day.

I'd say more like rediculous historical fiction.

Come back when you have something interesting and new to say beside regurgitating the old tired stereotype and a few conservative strawmen thrown in.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I call bull**** since AQ had been attacking America for quite sometimwe during his term.

Do you reall want to compare pre-9/11 Bush to Clinton?

[Admiral]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Because Germany was violating a peace treaty and none of the others were? Because the French and British had spent several decades trying to contain German power once before, and anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about power and politics in Europe knew the threat that Germany could be again?

The problem, in the eyes of France and GB, was the balance between Germany and the Soviet Union. Both France and GB had gone socialist in the interwar years, and in France, this socialism was defeated by hardline conservative nationalism that is vaguely similar to fascism. In England, the reaction against the first Labour government was more moderate, but there were still strong anti-communist sentiments in the country. Given this, given the purported Nazi opposition to communism, many in both governments were tempted to let Germany go and tangle with the Soviets, and some considered Germany an ideological ally.
Hindsight proved them completely wrong, but what if things had been different? What if the USSR had proved much stronger, and had emerged from WW2 in a position to dominate all of Europe. Then, we would have criticized France and Britain for being too strong on Germany, and not realizing the true threat, that anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about power and politics could recognize.
The point is that at least in the eyes of the European foreign ministers, it wasn't a bilateral situation, but a trilateral situation, and the consequences of beginning a war against Germany might be Soviet control of Europe (which was considered worse than Nazi-domination. Bear in mind that not only was the final solution not known at this time, but the western european powers considered jews, gypsies, and the rest of the holocaust victims to be on the same level as the various Africans and Asians that they had been killing in the name of "civilization" since the 1600s, and to which the rules of war did not apply. However, the Soviets threatened the very fabric of European society, and a soviet victory over western europe would lead to unthinkable consequences).
In short, in my eyes, we can condemn the leaders of Western Europe for mistaking the degree of threat posed by the Nazis and the USSR, but not for appeasement in the face of undeniable proof of Nazi evilness.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Spiffor: There have been numerous books written on the subject of appeasement during the run up to WW2 and most of them used the personal writtings of people in all the governments involved and/or interviewed the people involved. The conclusion reached time after time is that intially Hitler was afraid that the UK and France would come after him militarially if he kept breaking agreements and siezing territory. Slowly though Hitler realized that the British and French weren't going to stand up to him and Hitler believed he could keep demanding concessions. They caved on the reoccupation of the Rhineland, they caved on the annexation of Austria, they caved on the annexation of the Sudtenland (selling out their own ally), and they caved when Czechoslovakia was broken in two and Czechlands were annexed. Why would Hitler not think the Allies would cave again on the Danzieg corridor?

It's true, France and Britain have been appeasers when they could have afforded not to.

However, what happenend in the 30's is not the crux of this discussion, I think. This discussion is about how Europe's name is "appeasement" or "cowardice" (or more accurately, it mostly targets France and Germany).

An appeasement policy is a policy based on fear. You try to satisfy the demands of another country, for you fear the war that would happen otherwise. Such was the policy held by France and Britain in the 30's. Such is the policy held by the US toward North Korea (and very rationally so, IMHO). Such was the policy held by Saddam toward the US in early 2003.

Now, this Döpfner guy makes the leap that Europe's reluctance to use war as a tool of international policy IS appeasement. This leap, I have read it countless times in posts written by Yanks: if the Euros don't want to go to war, that's obviously because they shake in their boots

This is completely false: I don't think we Europeans have ever felt more secure in our history. Until the 80ies, the Soviets were a very tangible threat, and we wondered when their invincible armies would invade us, or when we would all die from the nuclear holocaust. The threat posed by the terrorists (and most European countries have experienced terrorism) is pretty small compared to that. I know of no European that has ever shared to me their fear for their lifestyle.

As such, fear is not the reason of why we prefer pacific methods. The main reason (I'm talking about the people here, not the governments), is because we loathe war in itself. And we are reluctant to make some other people at the other end of the world suffer under our bombs. OTOH, this is why there is no significant opposition to sending our troops in peacekeeping missions: because the soldiers there are helping instead of killing.

The idea that Europe today is behaving in an appeasing fashion is completely false. This rethorics is on the same level as saying "the Yanks are gung-ho Texan cowboys", which is a common stereotype in Europe. It's a gross misrepresentation of a complex reality. And I think you Yanks do trash the American pundits who parrot this stupid stereotype. Just the same, we Euros trash the European pundits that parrot stupid Yankish stereotypes

Edit: typos

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Admiral


The problem, in the eyes of France and GB, was the balance between Germany and the Soviet Union. Both France and GB had gone socialist in the interwar years, and in France, this socialism was defeated by hardline conservative nationalism that is vaguely similar to fascism. In England, the reaction against the first Labour government was more moderate, but there were still strong anti-communist sentiments in the country. Given this, given the purported Nazi opposition to communism, many in both governments were tempted to let Germany go and tangle with the Soviets, and some considered Germany an ideological ally.
Hindsight proved them completely wrong, but what if things had been different? What if the USSR had proved much stronger, and had emerged from WW2 in a position to dominate all of Europe. Then, we would have criticized France and Britain for being too strong on Germany, and not realizing the true threat, that anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about power and politics could recognize.
The point is that at least in the eyes of the European foreign ministers, it wasn't a bilateral situation, but a trilateral situation, and the consequences of beginning a war against Germany might be Soviet control of Europe (which was considered worse than Nazi-domination. Bear in mind that not only was the final solution not known at this time, but the western european powers considered jews, gypsies, and the rest of the holocaust victims to be on the same level as the various Africans and Asians that they had been killing in the name of "civilization" since the 1600s, and to which the rules of war did not apply. However, the Soviets threatened the very fabric of European society, and a soviet victory over western europe would lead to unthinkable consequences).
In short, in my eyes, we can condemn the leaders of Western Europe for mistaking the degree of threat posed by the Nazis and the USSR, but not for appeasement in the face of undeniable proof of Nazi evilness.

Sorry, dude, but I have to ask what SciFi mag you got this from.

The French didn't enforce Versailles because they were afraid of the Soviets? Whose memoirs did you get that from?

Incidently, the Soviets did emerge to dominate a good chunk of Europe, and a bit of the rest of the world. When did anyone ever condemn the British/French psuedo-stand over Poland?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, I am very familiar with European history from 1870 to 1914. Its hard to think at the time of the Fashoda crisis of 1898 that France and the UK were plotting to limit German power, RIGHT? Oh, or do you know what fashoda is?



Come back when you have something interesting and new to say beside regurgitating the old tired stereotype and a few conservative strawmen thrown in.

Do you know why the French went after Prussia in 1870?

Come back when you gain a clue about what you are talking about.

[notyoueither]

Some educational material for you, GePap.

http://static.highbeam.com/p/politicalsciencequarterly/june221997/armscontrolandtheanglogermannavalracebeforeworldwa/

That Europe's two leading powers were competing head-to-head in the building of battleships was indeed a striking feature of world politics during the period 1906-1914. To the generation of statesmen and naval leaders involved, this contest appeared as nothing less than a struggle for mastery in Europe and hegemony of the world's oceans. With these high stakes at risk, it is not surprising that the Anglo-German naval rivalry is often thought of as a herald of the fierce struggle soon to be waged by the great powers during World War I.

That was when diplomacy was being chucked, and the pounds were being put on the table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

The conflict marked the culmination of tension between the two powers following Prussia's rise to dominance in Germany, still a loose federation of quasi-independent territories.

The war began over the possible accession of a German candidate to the Spanish throne, which was opposed by France. The French issued an ultimatum to the king of Prussia, who refused...

France's defeat, the unification of Germany and the resulting final unification of Italy swept away the old balance of power that existed in European politics and completely redrew the political map. Republicanism again became mainstream politics in France, while militarism moved to the forefront in Germany. The bitterness felt by many French following their defeat and the unease with which the other Great Powers viewed the new Germany was the start of a chain of events which led directly to World War I and World War II.

Hmmm, what does it sound like France was doing? Challenging for a beer trophy?

Finally, this one gives a really good chuckle, given your earlier question.

http://www.saburchill.com/history/chapters/empires/0055.html

The Fashoda Crisis (1898)
The Berlin Conference set the rules for the division of Africa, but it also made the colonial powers even more aggressive in their pursuit of unclaimed territory. A pattern was emerging between the two greatest colonial countries.

France was clearly expanding in a west to east direction, from French West Africa to French Somaliland, while Britain had expanded in a north-south direction, from Egypt to the Cape. The point where the two axes crossed was the Sudan. Here a small French expedition, under Major Marchand, reached Fashoda, on the Upper Nile, in 1898. This was followed, only two months later, by a much bigger British force under Lord Kitchener. The two leaders did not know whether to sit down and have a drink together or fight. Both claimed Fashoda and the Sudan for their own countries.

In London and Paris, for the last time in their histories, there was talk of war between Britain and France. However, the diplomats knew it was absurd for their countries to go to war over a distant African village. Quietly, an agreement was reached. France would recognise the British presence in Egypt and Sudan and Britain would recognise France's presence in Morocco. With colonial differences settled, the two countries could concentrate on a far more pressing subject; coming together in an Entente Cordiale to face a common danger -Germany.

Do you mean to say that WW1 just happened to come about in the first six months of 1914? How ignorant are you?

[Zoid]

The sad truth to why Adolf Hitler could rise to power and unhindred could plot world domination is that the super powers at the time ie France, Britain and the US thought that they could control Hitler or at least work with him within the capitalist system as they did with other fascist dictators at the time. Mussolini had ruled in Italy since the late 1920s and had no ambition for world conquest. The war in Abessinia was just another colonial war, and besides France and England had already taken the best of Africa already. Franco was not a problem either, being tied up in a civil war and all. And there was a fascist government in Brazil that was happy to trade whatever goods Europe needed.

So it isn´t strange that they thought they could treat Nazi Germany that same way. It wasn´t until the nazis begin to threaten the interests of the leading nations they decided to make a stand. And then, of course, it was too late. Mayhem and disaster followed for 6 awful years.

Had Nazi Germany been content with Austria and the Sudetenland, and played ball with the other nations as good capitalists, they would´ve been left alone. No matter the atrocities commited within their borders. After all as long as you can make a buck, who gives a rats ass about human rights?

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

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Do you reall want to compare pre-9/11 Bush to Clinton?

If you could tell me where I mentioned Bush in the post you quoted, I might be interested in such a comparison.

[Last Conformist]

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

The British and Argentines must be really fond of their wool industries.

[DinoDoc]

That's the only thing you found wrong with that collection of BS he called a post?