ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 12th August 2018, 01:35 AM   #1841
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,108
Well, it's a fair summation of Mein Kampf, sorta. It's more complex. Or more chaotic, if you will. It's a lot more against the Treaty Of Versailles than any two of those combined, though. Also the issue of the Jews may not get the most page space PER SE, if you combine it with the idea of a pure ethnic ("völkisch") state, it does really become most of the book.

The thing is, though, Mein Kampf was more than 10 years old, and for all anyone could tell, he hadn't really done more speeches on those topic for more than 10 years, except for Versailles, so it looked like it was something easy to concede. The rearmament was easy to overlook considering what Germany started from after Versailles, and the fact that for better or worse it was bordering France which had mobilized something like 1 in 8 men at that point.

I'd say it was a bit hard to forbid Germany to have about 850,000 soldiers, when France had easily twice that. Hell, Czechoslovakia had one cool million, at much less population than Germany. Really, only the UK had less army than Germany at that point, but the UK had a huge moat around itself. Essentially it was easy to mistake it for just building up to the point where it can DEFEND itself.

There WAS some sabre rattling towards the east, but that was strictly against the USSR. And frankly at the time it sounded like a good thing to most of the west. Nobody liked the USSR at the time, really.

And in the context of Munich, at the time Adolf was hammering ONLY on the right to self-determination of the Germans there. I suppose you can connect it with Mein Kampf in retrospect, but at the time it wasn't that obvious a connection between wanting to unite the German majority areas and wanting to conquer anyone else.

Essentially all I'm saying is that politics is... politics, really.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 12th August 2018, 04:00 AM   #1842
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Essentially all I'm saying is that politics is... politics, really.
And what everyone else is saying is that Chamberlain was really bad at it. At every turn he made poor choices, pursuing appeasement long pas the point where he should have been questioning what it was actually achieving.
__________________
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 12th August 2018, 04:13 AM   #1843
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,288
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
And what everyone else is saying is that Chamberlain was really bad at it. At every turn he made poor choices, pursuing appeasement long pas the point where he should have been questioning what it was actually achieving.
And where exactly was that point?
Aber 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 12th August 2018, 04:40 AM   #1844
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,108
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
And what everyone else is saying is that Chamberlain was really bad at it. At every turn he made poor choices, pursuing appeasement long pas the point where he should have been questioning what it was actually achieving.
Was he, though?

Remember that ovation he was given after Munich? In fact, it wouldn't be until 1940 that his memory started to turn really unpopular. Basically it wasn't until they actually got bombed, that the average Brit started thinking, "Bloody 'ell, mate... we oughtta stopped that Adolf chap back in 38."

Basically what I've been saying all along is that in a democracy -- which the UK certainly was -- the politicians are supposed to do what the voters want, or at least what makes them happy. I submit the simple idea that what Chamberlain delivered was really just that: what made the voters happy. The proof of the pudding being in the eating and all that, it did make most British downright exuberant.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 12th August 2018 at 04:49 AM.
HansMustermann 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 12th August 2018, 05:02 AM   #1845
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Was he, though?

Remember that ovation he was given after Munich? In fact, it wouldn't be until 1940 that his memory started to turn really unpopular. Basically it wasn't until they actually got bombed, that the average Brit started thinking, "Bloody 'ell, mate... we oughtta stopped that Adolf chap back in 38."

So what? This isn't about the popular view, this is about what Chamberlain's actions. He was Prime Minister, he would be expected to have a slightly better grasp of the bigger picture than the man in the street.

Quote:
what I've been saying all along is that in a democracy -- which the UK certainly was -- the politicians are supposed to do what the voters want, or at least what makes them happy. I submit the simple idea that what Chamberlain delivered was really just that: what made the voters happy.
Except politicians in a democracy do things that make people unhappy all the time, the job is not make people happy its to make decisions about what's best for the country, and not just for the next five minutes. Generally the politicians who make the biggest impact are those who are willing to take the hard decisions, not duck them in pursuit of popularity.

Quote:
The proof of the pudding being in the eating and all that, it did make most British downright exuberant.
They were relieved war hadn't broken out, the exuberance came from Chamberlain's 'peace in our time' claim. If as some claim he knew better he was lying and then proceeded to do a poor job of preparing the people for what was to come, and a lacklustre job of overseeing rearmament. If on the other hand he believed his own rhetoric then he was an inept leader who refused to deal with reality.
__________________
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 12th August 2018, 05:09 AM   #1846
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
And where exactly was that point?
Probably the Anschluss at the latest. It was too all intents and purposes an invasion and made it clear that Hitler was going to impose his plans regardless. As soon as it looked like the plebiscite might go against him Hitler used force, in a situation where he could hardly claim to be restoring German territory or rolling back the Versailles Treaty.
__________________
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 12th August 2018, 07:35 AM   #1847
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,108
I'm not saying he was particularly clued or anything. Just that when you look at the popular sentiment about the war, you can kinda see how a politician would make that kind of decision. Is all.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 12th August 2018, 07:51 AM   #1848
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,108
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Probably the Anschluss at the latest. It was too all intents and purposes an invasion and made it clear that Hitler was going to impose his plans regardless. As soon as it looked like the plebiscite might go against him Hitler used force, in a situation where he could hardly claim to be restoring German territory or rolling back the Versailles Treaty.
Actually, he kinda could claim the latter. One of the conditions imposed after WW1, was that Austria stays separate.

And it went against concerns that a separate Austria, stripped of its pre-ww1 territories, might not have the economic base to be actually viable. Which actually proved to be so, when starvation promptly started to happen in Austria in the '20s. Yeah, it's not something you associate with a western nation in the 20th century, but basically their economy imploded even harder than the Weimar Republic's.

By 1936, Austria essentially declared itself a German state. As in, you know, one of the states of Germany. Autonomous, but still, essentially it declared itself a part of Germany, Just because it couldn't actually survive without the trade with Germany.

And really a LOT of Austrians wanted to unite with Germany, even just because of that. There WERE estimates from the 30's that put the Anschluss desire at around 80% among Austrians. Probably a lot less after the Nazis started their terror attacks in Austria, but still, let's just say that the people greeting the Germans in the streets with flowers were real and not staged.

Basically that too was a political mess created by the Versailles treaty, that the UK decided it can just walk away from,
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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

Bookmarks

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 05:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.