IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags World War II history

Reply
Old 17th April 2018, 01:41 PM   #1361
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit about appeasement and Chamberlain, relevant to this thread, in a book by the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, Sir Robert Menzies called Afternoon Light 1967:
Well Menzies does share one characteristic with yourself and at least he admits it:

Quote:
I have not the slightest qualification to decide the issue.
How you think a quote from a politician who admits he doesn't know whether Chamberlain was right or not strengthens your claims I have no idea.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

Last edited by Garrison; 17th April 2018 at 01:44 PM.
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 02:21 AM   #1362
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Well Menzies does share one characteristic with yourself and at least he admits it:

How you think a quote from a politician who admits he doesn't know whether Chamberlain was right or not strengthens your claims I have no idea.
You have a closed mind.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 02:41 AM   #1363
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
Oh dear....
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 03:09 AM   #1364
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
According to this Globe and Mail article from 11 Sept 1939, there was no recorded vote. It mentions no dissenters in the Senate, and three in the Commons: two French-Canadians, Liguori Lacombe and Wilfrid Lacroix, who proposed a "non-participation amendment", whatever that may mean (political support but no military support?).

Thanks. I was going off a couple of newspaper headlines I'd seen.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 05:13 AM   #1365
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit about appeasement and Chamberlain, relevant to this thread, in a book by the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, Sir Robert Menzies called Afternoon Light 1967:

Menzies was not PM at the time of Munich (he was attorney-general); he didn't become PM until after the death of Joseph Lyons in April 1939. That aside, Menzies' views on appeasement can hardly be considered unbiased, as he was himself an arch-appeaser who favored negotiations with Hitler even after the invasion of Poland and the declaration of war (see here).

And speaking of Menzies, here is an excerpt from his war speech: "It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war." Nothing about Australians' having any choice about it, though even if they had, there would still have been overwhelming support for standing with Britain, just as there would have in September 1938.

I'm going to request the book AUSTRALIA AND APPEASEMENT: Imperial Foreign Policy and the Origins of World War II, by Christopher Waters, on Inter-Library Loan. Indiana University has a copy, so I should be able to get it fairly quickly. For now, here are excerpts from two reviews. From The Sydney Morning Herald:
Former Australian prime minister Billy Hughes saw through appeasement. Hughes remained in parliament as an unretired force, using power as minister for external affairs to warn of the need for rearmament and of the inevitability of war against Germany. The Lyons government in the late 1930s pledged itself to maintaining support for British appeasement policy as though that policy was the core of a strategy by the British Empire to contain Hitler. As Australia's representative in Britain, [former Australian PM Stanley] Bruce bridged the two worlds with hostility against the enemies of appeasement. He won many debates which Australian governments supported. Then the war began.

The Australian Labor Party under John Curtin was increasingly alarmed about Australia's isolation in Asia and fearful of the price which appeasement might have in leaving the nation at risk of Asian restlessness. When Bruce toured Australia in 1938, his public service mentor warned that few if any Australians seemed persuaded of his views in favour of appeasement. And in London, Australian public servants were warning that Germany and Japan could seize Dutch interests in Asia, with armed force becoming possible in Dutch Indonesia. Visiting British writer H.G. Wells had spoken publicly in Australia about Hitler's threats to peace, but the Lyons government won praise in Germany for its considered public rebuke of Wells. Home goal?
From The Australian:
Australia's primary strategic motivation was distrust of Japan. If Britain were involved in a full-scale European conflict, its navy might become overstretched in the Far East. "The growing fear," Waters explains, "[was] that a sufficient fleet would not be sent to Singapore in a time of war."

Despite these well-justified concerns, there was never a doubt the Lyons and Menzies governments would commit Australia to war, when Britain declared it. Their support for the empire was non-negotiable. Labor, by contrast, was isolationist [but see above].
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 08:11 AM   #1366
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Well Menzies does share one characteristic with yourself and at least he admits it:



How you think a quote from a politician who admits he doesn't know whether Chamberlain was right or not strengthens your claims I have no idea.
You have a closed mind.
Correction
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 10:23 AM   #1367
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
I note that those who accuse others of having a Closed mind often have a mind so open that the brains fall out...
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 10:25 AM   #1368
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's not quite correct. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were not colonies in 1938, though thank goodness they were on our side. They were willing to declare war against Germany in 1939, but not in 1938:

https://quizlet.com/139651631/why-di...t-flash-cards/
Quote:
This meant that it was vital to protect this Empire. In the mid 1930s, Chiefs of Staff had warned Britain's leaders that could not afford to fight a war on three fronts- Germany in Europe, Italy in the Middle East and Japan in the Far East. Mussolini tried to stir up trouble in the Empire in 1937 by encouraging the Arab Revolt which threatened the Suez canal, a vital trade route.

Led to appeasement as Britain chose to concentrate their limited armed forces on the defence of the Empire as the threat here was seen as much greater than Hitler's actions in Europe. They therefore had no choice but to appease Germany as they didn't have enough military resources to do both.

At the Imperial Conference in London in 1937, member states of the British Empire, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, made it clear that they would not take part in another war in Europe due the horrors of the first one.

Led to appeasement, as addressing Germany's grievances was seen as a safer option than going to war without military back-up.

I found the origin of the hilited paragraph; it's from a BBC study guide for the Scottish history "higher", which I gather is something like an Ordinary Wizarding Level (O.W.L.) The passage is on the second page. Whoever made up those flash cards presumably cribbed it from here.

The rest of the article is fairly reasonable as far as it goes, but it's not very detailed, and cites no sources. However, as I have shown, the part about the Imperial Conference is clearly wrong.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 10:30 AM   #1369
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Menzies was not PM at the time of Munich (he was attorney-general); he didn't become PM until after the death of Joseph Lyons in April 1939. That aside, Menzies' views on appeasement can hardly be considered unbiased, as he was himself an arch-appeaser who favored negotiations with Hitler even after the invasion of Poland and the declaration of war (see here).
Their support of Appeasement pretty much guaranteed the scenario they were so afraid of. in 1938 there was little chance of Japan striking south and against a much stronger Germany in 1940-41 Singapore had to make do with British leftovers for defence.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 02:30 PM   #1370
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
So, Henri, when are you planning to answer the questions you've been asked?

Specifically, please explain:
  • how Germany was going to bomb Britain into submission in 1938
  • how Germany was going to invade Britain in 1938
  • how Germany was going to conquer France (and Belgium) in 1938, or failing that, in the spring of 1939
Please be as specific as possible, and be sure to discuss how this was going to be accomplished with far fewer Wehrmacht resources than in 1940, especially while fighting Czechoslovakia, or while recovering from having conquered Czechoslovakia.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 02:06 AM   #1371
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
With what? I remember reading a book once about the artist Dora Carrington which said her arty group were conscientious objectors in the First World War, but in the second world war they all joined up to fight.

There is an internet article on that Oxford Union debate about not fighting for King and Country in 1933, which indicates the sort of thing Chamberlain was up against trying to persuade the public and the British Empire to go to war. The public and the House of Commons did not want to go to war over the Sudetanland, mainly because they had never heard of it. They had to work it out for themselves:

https://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/archives/e...ountry-debate/
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 02:41 AM   #1372
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
Do try harder....

ps Dora carrington died in 1932.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 02:56 AM   #1373
erwinl
Illuminator
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
With what? I remember reading a book once about the artist Dora Carrington which said her arty group were conscientious objectors in the First World War, but in the second world war they all joined up to fight.

There is an internet article on that Oxford Union debate about not fighting for King and Country in 1933, which indicates the sort of thing Chamberlain was up against trying to persuade the public and the British Empire to go to war. The public and the House of Commons did not want to go to war over the Sudetanland, mainly because they had never heard of it. They had to work it out for themselves:

https://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/archives/e...ountry-debate/
Like the peace ballot of '34-'35? (your link)
It says that the people wanted peace, but were also willing to fight if a country (now which country did they mean there?) attacked another country.

People did clearly see the evil of Nazi germany. Unfortunately not Chamberlain.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 03:39 AM   #1374
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an internet article on that Oxford Union debate about not fighting for King and Country in 1933, [...]
https://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/archives/e...ountry-debate/
Churchill College, Cambridge? That's hardly an impartial source in this context

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 05:58 AM   #1375
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
With what?

Continuing evasion noted, as usual.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I remember reading a book once about the artist Dora Carrington which said her arty group were conscientious objectors in the First World War, but in the second world war they all joined up to fight.

[citation needed] Further, all of the surviving male members of the Bloomsbury GroupWP were too old for military service in 1939. Fail.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an internet article on that Oxford Union debate about not fighting for King and Country in 1933, which indicates the sort of thing Chamberlain was up against trying to persuade the public and the British Empire to go to war. The public and the House of Commons did not want to go to war over the Sudetanland, mainly because they had never heard of it. They had to work it out for themselves:

https://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/archives/e...ountry-debate/

To add to erwinl's point about the Peace Ballot, which I imagine you'll ignore, if Chamberlain believed that Britain and the Empire and Commonwealth wouldn't go to war over the Sudetenland, yet, as you have claimed, he also knew that war with Hitler was inevitable, then why was there any need for appeasement at all? Why not just let Czechoslovakia fight Germany, possibly with Soviet backing? As has been pointed out to you several times, such a war would have resulted in the expenditure or destruction of large amounts of both German and Czech war materiel, which would have made Germany significantly weaker when the conflict with the Western Allies did come.

Finally, you are attempting to change horses yet again. First, you claimed that Chamberlain was right to appease Hitler at Munich because, had war come in 1938, Germany would have easily defeated not only France and the Low Countries, but also Britain, and that the extra year of British rearmament somehow made all the difference.

After this line of argument was utterly destroyed, you then half-heartedly shifted to claiming that Chamberlain believed, based on faulty intelligence, that this would happen, and thus made the best decision he could in the circumstances. As has been pointed out to you, this claim is still wrong, however, it's at least defensible to an extent. But, frankly, you didn't do a very good job of making the case.

So now you're claiming that Chamberlain had to appease Hitler because Britain and the Empire and Commonwealth wouldn't have gone to war over the Sudetenland. This is also wrong, as has been demonstrated, but it's also nonsensical, because, as I mentioned, you have previously claimed that Chamberlain knew that armed conflict with Germany would come eventually. Appeasement only makes sense if he truly believed that he was achieving "peace in our time."
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 07:14 AM   #1376
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
With what?

I also wanted to mention that your repetition of this "with what?" mantra does not make it true of the British armed forces in September 1938, any more than your repetition of the "too slow" mantra made it true of the Gladiator.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 08:23 AM   #1377
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Peter Hitchens has a controversial viewpoint about all this Polish guarantee stuff. He seems to think that if Britain had stayed neutral, like Ireland, that Britain could have been spared the horrors of war. The problem for Chamberlain, and uppermost in his mind, is that Hitler intended an unprovoked attack on Britain, as well as Russia and America and the Czechs. In the event Britain could do practically nothing to help the Poles or the Czechs.

This is what Peter Hitchens seems to think about it all:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....d-war-two.html

Quote:
That Britain’s guarantee to Poland in April 1939 was dishonest, in that we knew when we made it that we had no intention of taking any material action to enforce it, and that we couldn’t have done if we had wanted to, as our armed forces (on the modernisation of which we had nearly bankrupted ourselves by 1938) were designed to defend the Empire overseas, and our home islands - but not equipped or configured for a continental land war. We also knew that the Germans were fully aware of our military weakness, in continental land forces, and likewise did not take our guarantee seriously.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th April 2018 at 08:25 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 08:29 AM   #1378
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
This is what Churchill wrote about the Polish guarantee and what Peter Hitchens thinks about it:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....l-speaks-.html

Quote:
I concede that ( as those who check the source will find) Churchill surrounds these remarks by restating his belief that a war over Czechoslovakia would have been feasible and possibly won by Britain and France. I do not think this is true, as it overestimates France’s aggressive capacity, and the defensibility of Czechoslovakia after the Anschluss. He follows it with some emotional bombast about death being better than slavery, which is undoubtedly true, but in my view is a false choice. We were only in danger of slavery because of our involvement in a war we couldn’t possibly win, because we didn’t have the weapons with which to fight it. Armed neutrality posed no such risk. So my ‘Finest Hour’ critics might do well to note what Churchill himself also says a) about Poland itself and b) about the absurdity of the Polish guarantee.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th April 2018 at 08:30 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 08:55 AM   #1379
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
We are discussing Munich (1938), not Poland (1939).
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 09:08 AM   #1380
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Is this the Peter Hitchens that has a column in the Mail?
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 09:16 AM   #1381
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Henri, instead of trying to change the subject, why don't you answer the questions you've been asked?
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 09:45 AM   #1382
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Henri, instead of trying to change the subject, why don't you answer the questions you've been asked?
Yes - come on Henri, let's read your answers!
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat.
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 09:58 AM   #1383
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
I do admit that Henri has a point. Dead people were remarkably lax in taking any action against the Nazis.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 10:10 AM   #1384
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is what Churchill wrote about the Polish guarantee and what Peter Hitchens thinks about it:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....l-speaks-.html

Quote:
<snip>

Churchill surrounds these remarks by restating his belief that a war over Czechoslovakia would have been feasible and possibly won by Britain and France. I do not think this is true, as it overestimates France’s aggressive capacity, and the defensibility of Czechoslovakia after the Anschluss.

<snip>

This is the only part of either of your posts that is relevant to the topic under discussion. And, yet again, we have a journalist, and not a historian, who as usual has an agenda (debunking British participation in World War II). Further, as in the other such journalist quotes you've posted, many issues are ignored, and the few that aren't are oversimplified. Fail.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 10:14 AM   #1385
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
With what? I remember reading a book once about the artist Dora Carrington which said her arty group were conscientious objectors in the First World War, but in the second world war they all joined up to fight.

There is an internet article on that Oxford Union debate about not fighting for King and Country in 1933, which indicates the sort of thing Chamberlain was up against trying to persuade the public and the British Empire to go to war. The public and the House of Commons did not want to go to war over the Sudetanland, mainly because they had never heard of it. They had to work it out for themselves:
Are you claiming that Chamberlain was trying to persuade the British public/Empire to go to war and failed to do so? If so you can add this to the list of claims you need to provide evidence for. That evidence will have to be compelling as everything else presented in this thread suggests Chamberlain did the exact opposite, encouraging the public to believe war could be avoided.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 12:42 PM   #1386
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 14,283
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I do admit that Henri has a point. Dead people were remarkably lax in taking any action against the Nazis.
Good as well. Or we might had had Heinrich I. to deal with.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 04:04 PM   #1387
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Like the peace ballot of '34-'35? (your link)
It says that the people wanted peace, but were also willing to fight if a country (now which country did they mean there?) attacked another country.

People did clearly see the evil of Nazi germany. Unfortunately not Chamberlain.
It was also an old custom of the Oxford Union to pick really outrageous topics for debates.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 04:07 PM   #1388
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I do admit that Henri has a point. Dead people were remarkably lax in taking any action against the Nazis.
But Half Vampires were really good at kicking Nazi butt....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BloodRayne
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 09:53 PM   #1389
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
I said "dead", not "undead"

__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 12:01 AM   #1390
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 14,283
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I said "dead", not "undead"

What do you think Heinrich was before events?
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 09:15 AM   #1391
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
So, Henri, when are you planning to answer the questions you've been asked?

Specifically, please explain:
  • how Germany was going to bomb Britain into submission in 1938
  • how Germany was going to invade Britain in 1938
  • how Germany was going to conquer France (and Belgium) in 1938, or failing that, in the spring of 1939
Please be as specific as possible, and be sure to discuss how this was going to be accomplished with far fewer Wehrmacht resources than in 1940, especially while fighting Czechoslovakia, or while recovering from having conquered Czechoslovakia.

Bump.

And while we're at it, we're still waiting for you to explain why Chamberlain ceded the Treaty Ports back to Ireland in 1938.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 09:35 AM   #1392
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post

To add to erwinl's point about the Peace Ballot, which I imagine you'll ignore, if Chamberlain believed that Britain and the Empire and Commonwealth wouldn't go to war over the Sudetenland, yet, as you have claimed, he also knew that war with Hitler was inevitable, then why was there any need for appeasement at all? Why not just let Czechoslovakia fight Germany, possibly with Soviet backing? As has been pointed out to you several times, such a war would have resulted in the expenditure or destruction of large amounts of both German and Czech war materiel, which would have made Germany significantly weaker when the conflict with the Western Allies did come.
That was a Czech problem, not Chamberlain's problem. Neither Britain or France stopped the Czechs from taking on Germany over the Sudetanland dispute. It's just that they did not give the Czechs a guarantee, like the Polish guarantee. Chamberlain's problem was military weakness which could have been a catastrophe if war was declared in 1938.

There is some background to the Czech point of view at this website, which would be understood by those who do not have little military knowledge and no strategic ability:

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-...d-of-giving-in
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 10:54 AM   #1393
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That was a Czech problem, not Chamberlain's problem. Neither Britain or France stopped the Czechs from taking on Germany over the Sudetanland dispute. It's just that they did not give the Czechs a guarantee, like the Polish guarantee.
France was allied to the Czechs, Chamberlain conspired to give away Czech territory without so much as consulting them, in the face of such betrayal are you surprised the Czechs didn't fight?

And it most assuredly was Chamberlain's problem, or rather Britain's problem as he threw an ally under the bus and massively strengthened a potential enemy, one that according to you he knew we would have to fight?

ETA: Oh and please do respond to Spitfire IX's questions, your refusal to support your claims is becoming tiresome. If you wish you can simply admit you can't support them and withdraw the claims.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

Last edited by Garrison; 22nd April 2018 at 10:56 AM.
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:11 PM   #1394
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That was a Czech problem, not Chamberlain's problem. Neither Britain or France stopped the Czechs from taking on Germany over the Sudetanland dispute. It's just that they did not give the Czechs a guarantee, like the Polish guarantee.

This is completely untrue, and frankly silly. Chamberlain didn't need to fly to Munich and meet with Hitler to avoid giving Czechoslovakia a guarantee. All he had to do was say, "We reserve the right to act as we see fit," or something to that effect, and let everyone wonder what Britain was going to do. Czechoslovakia only backed down after Beneš was told in no uncertain terms that no outside help would be forthcoming. Further, Chamberlain could certainly have held a private meeting with Beneš and explained that it was necessary for Czechoslovakia to fight, even if they lost, in order to guarantee ultimate Allied victory. But he didn't.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain's problem was military weakness which could have been a catastrophe if war was declared in 1938.

As Garrison commented earlier, you keep saying this, and it continues not being true.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is some background to the Czech point of view at this website, which would be understood by those who do not have little military knowledge and no strategic ability:

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-...d-of-giving-in

Irrelevant, as discussed above. The point is that Czechoslovakia needed to fight, even if they couldn't win by themselves, or they were temporarily conquered.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 02:13 PM   #1395
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Irrelevant, as discussed above. The point is that Czechoslovakia needed to fight, even if they couldn't win by themselves, or they were temporarily conquered.
It's another point Henri keeps ignoring, the question is not could we have saved Czechsolvakia, it's could Britain and her allies have defeated Germany quicker and at lower cost in lives with a war starting in 1938? Based on the evidence I would say yes. Henri keeps saying no in effect, while making untrue claims about the military situation in 1938.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 09:08 AM   #1396
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post

[citation needed] Further, all of the surviving male members of the Bloomsbury GroupWP were too old for military service in 1939. Fail.
The Bloomsbury group is a bit of a vast complex subject, but it does seem that some of the members of it, like David Garnett and the Bells were not quite such pacifists in the second world war:

https://thecharlestonattic.wordpress...ag/art/page/2/

Quote:
Meanwhile, back at Charleston, David Garnett tried to persuade Julian Bell to stay and fight fascism from home, helping to prepare for war against Hitler. Although Julian Bell was unchanging in his conviction he did make a compromise, deciding to travel to Spain as an ambulance driver instead of as his new-found ideal – expressed in his 1937 talk to the Cambridge Apostles – as a solider.

When he arrived in Spain he longed for action and on the 6 July 1937 was thrown into the thick of battle taking the wounded from the front at Brunete. During this time he wrote his last letter to his mother in which he revealed how Charleston was not far from his mind. He wrote of how he kept his ambulance, of the other men, and then about “the other odd element […] the Charleston one of improvising materials – a bit of carpet to mend a stretcher, e.g. – in which I find myself at home”. These words, “at home”, are especially moving here as he was never to return home again.

On the 18 July his ambulance was hit and he was mortally wounded with a piece of shrapnel to the chest. He was one of the 35,000 men who lost their lives in the battle of Brunete.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd April 2018 at 09:12 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 09:10 AM   #1397
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Henri, what bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 09:55 AM   #1398
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Bloomsbury group is a bit of a vast complex subject, but it does seem that some of the members of it, like David Garnett and the Bells were not quite such pacifists in the second world war:

https://thecharlestonattic.wordpress...ag/art/page/2/
Henri, you do realize that the Spanish Civil War was not the Second World War?
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 10:12 AM   #1399
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Bloomsbury group is a bit of a vast complex subject, but it does seem that some of the members of it, like David Garnett and the Bells were not quite such pacifists in the second world war:

https://thecharlestonattic.wordpress...ag/art/page/2/

Continuing evasion noted. I renew the questions listed above, and, to expand on my earlier post, please explain why Chamberlain needed to go to Munich if he believed that war with Hitler was inevitable, but also believed that Britain and the dominions would not support war at that time.

As for Julian Bell, he was, a) killed in the Spanish Civil War, prior to the Munich Crisis, b) of the next generation of the Bloomsbury Group, and thus too young to have served (or refused to have served) in WWI, and c) serving in a noncombatant capacity. Fail.

ETA: And the quotation does not support your implication that Julian's family and Garnett wavered in their pacifism.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz

Last edited by SpitfireIX; 23rd April 2018 at 10:17 AM.
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 10:41 AM   #1400
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
An ambulance driver or medic is a pacifist role. Brave but pacifist.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.