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 29th March 2019, 03:21 AM   #2121
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,476
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Henri still hasn't answered if Chamberlain was receiving false data about the German Army in 1934.

I think anyone warning Chamberlain in 1934 that the German Army was some special force that they needed to worry about, was lying, or mistaken.

If Chamberlain used this as a basis for his appeasement of the Germans, then that is a mistake. If they had told Chamberlain in 1934 that Germany couldn't handle a naval blockade, then perhaps he would have taken some measures.
The Germans in 1934 were not ill-trained or ill-equipped. I believe their air force had been secretly training in Soviet Russia. I still think it would have been the utmost folly for the UK government to have had a military conflict, or naval blockade, with Germany in 1934. The British public and the House of Commons, and the rest of the world, didn't want to know about it. It would have been a wild project. There is a bit about the matter at this website:

https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWgermanA.htm

Quote:
Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the German Army was unable to grow to more than 100,000 men. One way that Adolf Hitler dealt with this issue was to allow the Sturm Abteilung (SA) to grow rapidly. By 1934 the SA had grown to a force of over 4,500,000 men.

The growth in the importance of the SA worried other leaders in the National Socialist German Workers Party. It also upset leaders of the German Army who feared that it would be taken over by the Ernst Roehm and the SA. They were won over to the Nazis when Adolf Hitler ordered the Night of the Long Knives where around 400 leaders of the SA were murdered.

Whereas the SA now lost its power, Hitler allowed the German Army to grow rapidly. In 1935 he introduced military conscription. This enabled the German Army to train 300,000 conscripts a year. By 1938 it had 36 infantry divisions of 600,000 men.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th March 2019 at 03:23 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 29th March 2019, 10:11 AM   #2122
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,670
As it happens I was just re-reading the section of ‘The Wages of Destruction' covering the situation in 1934, so you can take that as the source for the political and economic points mentioned below:

In 1934 the German army had 100,000 troops, with little in the way of artillery or machine guns and no tanks or motorized transport. The SA numbers look impressive until you realize that most of those card carrying members weren’t much use for anything more than filling up the crowd at party rallies. The hard core could be counted on for street brawling with Communists and beating up Jews, but were militarily worthless. The Luftwaffe just didn’t exist. The work in Russia was on tactics and pilot training to create a nucleus of trained personnel who could be used to create an airforce when the restrictions of Versailles were lifted. In 1934 Germany had no combat aircraft. The navy was hardly any better off, no submarines and a relative handful of largely out of date surface ships. That the army had been raised to 600,000 men by 1938 sounds impressive, except again this is still basically a force of infantry with little in the way of mechanization and still lacking in heavy weapons and munitions, the tanks in service with the Heer are largely training vehicles. It’s an utterly inadequate force to fight a war against the western powers and Hitler knew it, hence the orders to withdraw from the Rhineland in 1936 if the French intervened and the intense resistance to the idea of war with Czechoslovakia by the Wehrmacht and senior government members in 1938.

As to 1934 Germany did fear military intervention by the French and/or Poles because of the fact that Germany had withdrawn from the international disarmament talks and the League of Nations in October 1933 and then having thoroughly outraged the French they antagonized the British and Americans in December 1933 by slashing repayments on Germany’s debts. . Oh and in the summer you had the ‘Night of the Long Knives’ and the attempted Nazi coup in Austria culminating in the murder of Chancellor Dolfuss. Put it another way, far from not wanting to know about conflict with Germany the Nazi’s had enraged pretty much all their neighbours by the summer of 1934.

Of course if the British had launched the all-out trade war with Germany that seemed to be looming in 1934 after the Nazi's defaulted on Germany's debts, a trade war with the wholehearted support of one Neville Chamberlain, then the Nazi regime would have collapsed in months, deprived of the loans, credits and raw materials supplied by the City of London and the British Empire.
__________________
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 30th March 2019, 10:39 AM   #2123
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,476
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Of course if the British had launched the all-out trade war with Germany that seemed to be looming in 1934 after the Nazi's defaulted on Germany's debts, a trade war with the wholehearted support of one Neville Chamberlain, then the Nazi regime would have collapsed in months, deprived of the loans, credits and raw materials supplied by the City of London and the British Empire.
America has been trying a trade war with Russia and China and Iran recently. Hitler was elected. There was considerable support for him in Germany at the time.

There was a pro-Churchill TV documentary recently, made in 2013, which suggested Churchill did a good job in Lloyd George's cabinet during the 1914-18 war as a de facto Secretary of State for war making sure armaments and military equipment and aircraft were supplied to the war machine. That may be true. Churchill did make the statement then that Germany was a terrible foe.

I just feel Churchill fancied himself as a great general. I would not have liked him on my left flank in a battle situation, with his wild projects. I suppose it could be that we would have been lost without Churchill, despite his astonishing lack of vision, due to lack of leadership.
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 30th March 2019, 10:49 AM   #2124
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,670
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
America has been trying a trade war with Russia and China and Iran recently. Hitler was elected. There was considerable support for him in Germany at the time.
What the British threatened Germany with wasn't a trade war, it was simple economic annihilation. Germany depended on the City of London for loans and trade credit. Without those German imports would have evaporated and what could they do in return? Nothing, their export trade with the UK and the rest of the world had slumped owing to their refusal to devalue the Reichsmark. Again this is all information you could have learned if you would pick up a book instead of desperately Googling for some blog or op-ed piece that you think supports your view. Likewise if you had done any proper research you would have realised that electoral support for the Nazi's had peaked at 37.5% and had steadily declined thereafter. The Nazi regime was facing a serious crisis of support in 1934 owing to the continuing economic issues, particularly rising food prices and the decline of living standards.


And of course your hatred of Churchill is irrelevant, since as has been pointed out a hundred times he was not in power during appeasement.
__________________
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; 30th March 2019 at 10:50 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 30th March 2019, 11:00 AM   #2125
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,476
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Likewise if you had done any proper research you would have realised that electoral support for the Nazi's had peaked at 37.5% and had steadily declined thereafter. The Nazi regime was facing a serious crisis of support in 1934 owing to the continuing economic issues, particularly rising food prices and the decline of living standards.
From the internet:

Quote:
In January 1934, the Law for the Reconstruction of the State abolished Germany’s state governments, apart from Prussia.

These changes made Germany a one-party state and destroyed democracy in the country.
When a new Reichstag election was held in December 1933, the Nazis won 92 per cent of the vote.
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 30th March 2019, 12:34 PM   #2126
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,670
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
From the internet:
Yes In December 1933, after they had taken power and could manipulate the vote. I mean you can't even be bothered to tell us where you got the quote from, afraid that once again whatever source you cherrypicked will contradict your claims if people get a chance to see the whole thing? Or have you turned to another neo-Nazi website?
__________________
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 30th March 2019, 12:35 PM   #2127
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,862
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
From the internet:
How does fixing the elections so there is only your party indicate popularity?
Captain_Swoop 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 30th March 2019, 10:44 PM   #2128
Dabop
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 857
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
From the internet:
No from HERE

ETA
and here's why

Previous paragraph...

Quote:
Within months of the passing of the Enabling Act, Hitler removed most sources of political opposition.

He merged the Nazi and the Nationalist Parties.
The Centre Party (Catholic Party) disbanded voluntarily in return for Hitler agreeing not to interfere in Catholic schools and youth movements.
Socialists and communists, who had not already fled, were put in prison.
In March, local parliaments were closed and then re-established with Nazi majorities.
So rather than Henri's 'see they got 92%!!!!!!' spin we get to see his cherrypicking of quotes yet again...
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader

'When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.' George Carlin

Last edited by Dabop; 30th March 2019 at 10:49 PM.
Dabop 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 6th April 2019, 02:31 AM   #2129
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,476
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Again your quote relates to 1940, long after appeasement was over and yes we get that you hate Churchill and the Irish but it really has zero to do with appeasement. It's still odd that you will take the opinions of every officer of the period except the German ones who thought Germany would have been crushed if went to war in 1938, especially as their opinions seem to be backed up by the cold hard numbers of logistics and operational capabilities. why don't they count Henri?
Benny Hill had a bit to say about the Irish mentality and Catholic fundamentalists with regard to appeasement, which is on You Tube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLq5IINQaTk
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 6th April 2019, 03:15 AM   #2130
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,862
Yes, Benny Hill is always my 'go to' for information on the history of inter-war politics and the speed of milkmen in the west.
Captain_Swoop 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 6th April 2019, 04:04 AM   #2131
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,397
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Yes, Benny Hill is always my 'go to' for information on the history of inter-war politics and the speed of milkmen in the west.
Though to be fair, it is an improvement on some of the other sources used in this thread
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
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 6th April 2019, 05:21 AM   #2132
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,670
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Benny Hill had a bit to say about the Irish mentality and Catholic fundamentalists with regard to appeasement, which is on You Tube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLq5IINQaTk
What the hell does Benny Hill's Terry Wogan impersonation have to do with anything??? If you are incapable of responding coherently to the rebuttal of, what we will generously call your 'argument', just admit it.
__________________
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 16th April 2019, 04:15 AM   #2133
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,476
Hitler had an abnormal mental kink so it was difficult to threaten him with violence in 1934 as opposed to appeasement.
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 17th April 2019, 12:20 PM   #2134
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,670
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Hitler had an abnormal mental kink so it was difficult to threaten him with violence in 1934 as opposed to appeasement.

Again all you do is demonstrate your wilful refusal to actual learn anything about appeasement or the Nazi regime. In 1934 Germany had little in the way of means to fight a war and if Hitler had attempted to drag Germany into one the army and the various political/business elements who had backed him would have turned on him. The Fuhrer cult that grew up largely after 1939 and the military successes didn't exist in 1934 and Hitler's grip on power was dependent on the support of groups he hadn't yet tied to the Nazi agenda.
__________________
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 2019, 10:06 AM   #2135
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,476
There are some interesting quotes about appeasement with regard to WWII in that book Afternoon Light by the former Australian Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies published in 1967. He was around at the time of appeasement:

Quote:
As to the then attitude of the Labour Party, I recall that, in 1936, when we were both engaged, on opposite sides, before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, my friend and political opponent, Stafford Cripps, said to me at lunch, 'Menzies what do you think of my party's defence policy?' I was bold enough to reply: 'Well, until recently, I did not know that you had one. But I now observe that you are all for sanctions imposed by the League of Nations; that you will most fully support them; and that if this leads to hostilities you will wage war with bows and arrows.

But since no judgement on these matters can be either final or dogmatic, I will, with retrospective wisdom, assume that Baldwin followed the politically prudent but wrong course...…..

Chamberlain's 'appeasement' at Munich was an appeasement from military weakness. He believed that Britain was not capable of a major war, and, in short, that the best must be made of a bad job. I have never been able to convince myself, though I know that better men have disagreed, that if Chamberlain had thrown down the gage at Munich, we would have won the ensuing war.

The real test is-what happened to British armament between Munich and September 1939. Winston Churchill made no secret of his belief that Hitler gained more strength from that fateful year than we did; that his taking over of Czechoslovakia gave him enormous resources of a military kind. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that British equipment in fighter aircraft-the development and production of the Hurricane and the Spitfire-grew rapidly under the energetic and imaginative administration of Philip Swinton.....
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 2019, 03:14 PM   #2136
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,536
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There are some interesting quotes about appeasement with regard to WWII in that book Afternoon Light by the former Australian Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies published in 1967. He was around at the time of appeasement:

No. First, as I mentioned, Menzies was an arch-appeaser himself, so his opinions on the subject are likely to be heavily biased. Second, as I also discussed, there was no significant increase in the rate of fighter production after Munich. Third, Swinton was dismissed as Secretary of State for Air in May 1938, so he had nothing to do with fighter production after that time. Fail.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 2019, 04:32 PM   #2137
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,057
But again, WTH had he done in 1934 that would be worth going to war over? Or do we demand just complete clairvoyance at this point?
__________________
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 20th April 2019, 02:34 AM   #2138
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,476
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
No. First, as I mentioned, Menzies was an arch-appeaser himself, so his opinions on the subject are likely to be heavily biased.
That's a bit unfair. There is a bit about Australian politics at the time, and Menzies, at this website:

https://www.jewishnews.net.au/menzie...-freedom/29309

Quote:
Menzies understood the true nature of the Nazi threat, referring in his memoirs Afternoon Light, to the “sinister figure of Hitler”. When it came to attributing responsibility for the war, Menzies made clear “the guilt was that of Germany alone”.

Following a four-day visit to Germany in July 1938 (not the “several weeks” Kelly claims) Menzies, in fact, was shocked by the Nazis’ destruction of the liberal and democratic features of Germany, and by the apparent willingness of the German people to accept this. He wrote about the “somewhat queer atmosphere of Germany”, and told Dr Schacht, the president of the Reichsbank, that “the real danger of the regime was that the suppression of criticism would ultimately destroy Germany”.

Far from unrealistically believing peace could be preserved, on his return he expressed his deep concern at the parochialism of the Australian states in resisting Commonwealth plans to prepare for war. He told the Constitutional Club of Sydney in October that:

“Few people of the Commonwealth fully realised that the European crisis might involve hostilities in Australian waters – that war might be something that would come to Australia, and not merely something that was happening 12,000 miles away” (SMH, 25/10/1938).

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th April 2019 at 02:37 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 20th April 2019, 02:43 AM   #2139
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,476
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Second, as I also discussed, there was no significant increase in the rate of fighter production after Munich.
I don't think that is strictly true:

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/from...34-1940.html/8

Quote:
The supply of armaments at the outbreak of war, compared with the supply in October 1938, had improved beyond all possible dispute. Whether the improvement was sufficient to fulfil its strategic objective depends on the definition of the objective. If the sole strategic aim was to make Britain better able to withstand attack from the air then production in the year following Munich went some of the way towards achieving it.

The output of aircraft was rising. Even more importantly from the point of view of air defence, the number of modern fast fighters among the aircraft coming into production increased even more dramatically. The monthly output of Hurricanes rose from 26 in October 1938 to 44 in September 1939 and of Spitfires from 13 to 32 in the same period. The number of squadrons equipped with new aircraft had grown correspondingly.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th April 2019 at 02:45 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 20th April 2019, 03:03 AM   #2140
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,670
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
But again, WTH had he done in 1934 that would be worth going to war over? Or do we demand just complete clairvoyance at this point?
Military action against Germany was highly unlikely in 1934, though not impossible for the reasons outlined earlier, but strong economic sanctions were on the cards owing to Germany actions in terms of trade, debt and reparations. If the British had followed through on their threats the wheels would have come off the German economy and Hitler's regime probably wouldn't have survived.
__________________
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; 20th April 2019 at 03:05 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 20th April 2019, 09:25 AM   #2141
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,536
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a bit unfair. There is a bit about Australian politics at the time, and Menzies, at this website:

https://www.jewishnews.net.au/menzie...-freedom/29309

It's not the least bit unfair. As I wrote when you brought up Menzies and his memoir previously, and you ignored as usual:

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).

Further, the fact that Menzies knew war was a possibility, and that Hitler would be at fault for starting it, does not mean he was the least bit anti-appeasement.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 2019, 09:44 AM   #2142
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,536
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't think that is strictly true:

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/from...34-1940.html/8

I meant there was no significant increase for several months following Munich, as this table (from the same website), which I've previously linked, shows. Fighter deliveries ranged from 40-50 a month from August 1938 through the end of the year. Of course production was increased rapidly during 1939, for a variety of reasons.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 2019, 10:30 AM   #2143
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,476
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Military action against Germany was highly unlikely in 1934, though not impossible for the reasons outlined earlier, but strong economic sanctions were on the cards owing to Germany actions in terms of trade, debt and reparations. If the British had followed through on their threats the wheels would have come off the German economy and Hitler's regime probably wouldn't have survived.
I don't think the political and economic problems were quite as simple as that at the time. The matter is explained at this website:

http://igcsehistory.weebly.com/the-l...f-nations.html

Quote:
Failure of economic sanctions

Economic sanctions were supposed to be the League’s main weapon, but members of the League did not willingly impose them because they were worried that without America, they would not work.
Economic sanctions were difficult to enforce as member countries were unwilling to stop trading with an aggressor because it would harm their own trade as much as an aggressor’s.

When they did impose them, they were easily broken.
The League therefore lacked the muscle to enforce the decisions of its assembly and council.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th April 2019 at 10:33 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 20th April 2019, 11:58 AM   #2144
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,670
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't think the political and economic problems were quite as simple as that at the time. The matter is explained at this website:

http://igcsehistory.weebly.com/the-l...f-nations.html
It explains nothing, because we are not talking about the League of Nations, we are talking about the Bank of England and City of London, the people who could economically cripple Germany by denying it credit and loans. 'The matter is explained' if you read 'Wages of Destruction' but I guess since it isn't a blog or an op-ed piece that's beyond you.
__________________
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 24th April 2019, 08:15 AM   #2145
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,476
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
we are talking about the Bank of England and City of London, the people who could economically cripple Germany by denying it credit and loans.
I don't think Chamberlain can be blamed for that.
You are talking as though the Bank of England and City of London were not sympathetic to the Nazis. America did not want to get involved. There is a bit about it at this website:

www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=175310

Quote:
The documents reinforce the impression that Norman was an inflexible aparatchik, but also renew questions about his suspected Nazi sympathies. As outlined in Liaquat Ahmed’s Lords of Finance, Norman was close friends with Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler’s minister of economics and Reichsbank president.

In January 1939, Norman went to Berlin to attend the christening of Schacht’s grandson, named Norman in his honour. Ahmed writes that Norman admired “Schacht, and during the early years of Nazi rule, even the achievements of Hitler – he is said to have told a Morgan partner that 'Hitler and Schacht are the bulwarks of civilisation in Germany’.”

Schacht later turned against Hitler and was sent to Dachau in 1944 for suspected involvement in the attempt on the Fuhrer’s life. But he played a vital role in restoring Germany’s fortunes under the Third Reich.

Suspicions about Norman’s political leanings would be reinforced by his behaviour after the press got hold of the Czech gold scandal. By May 1939, it had become a major political issue and on May 26, the Chancellor of the time Sir John Simon, asked Norman if the Bank still had the Czech gold. Norman obfuscated.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th April 2019 at 08:17 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 24th April 2019, 09:35 AM   #2146
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,670
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't think Chamberlain can be blamed for that.
Which is apropos of nothing, the point was that in 1934 the British, French and Americans were hostile to the Nazi regime partly because of the League of nations withdrawal, but mainly because of Germany actions in terms of trade and debt.

Quote:
You are talking as though the Bank of England and City of London were not sympathetic to the Nazis.
Because they weren't. The only reason they backed off pressuring Germany further was the fear that they might not get back any of the money they were owed.

Quote:
America did not want to get involved.
Which is utterly irrelevant as far as any military response goes in 1934. The French and the Poles were perfectly capable of dealing with a Wehrmacht that barely existed in 1934. Again military action is unlikely in 1934 but Nazi Germany had already antagonized its neighbours badly enough to provoke some loud sabre rattling from Paris and Warsaw.

Quote:
There is a bit about it at this website:

www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=175310
And you've gone trawling at a 911 Truther site rather than doing real reading, still I suppose its a step up from neo-Nazi websites.
__________________
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
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 12:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.