As a matter of fact, it is. Churchill said that Stalin's acceptance of the pact was cold-blooded but "at the moment, realistic in a high degree."
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
World War II (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Because he still thought there was a chance to make peace with the British.
timschochet
Footballguy
He might of said it then; he said something else in his memoirs.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is another popular analysis that I disagree with. But I won't get to it now.
timschochet
Footballguy
The British Military in 1939
England in August of 1939 was still considered the world's only superpower, with the finest navy afloat. But like the Americans, the British did not understand the importance of air power at sea. The Royal Navy was dominated by battleships, and had almost no aircraft carriers. As Churchill would learn to his dismay when he took over the Admiralty in September, it also had far too few destroyers to handle the U-Boat terror.
England's army was in worse shape. During the First World War the territorial army had over two million men at arms. Now it had around 400,000. A military draft had been underway since April, but it would take months to train all of the troops for battle. There was also an issue peculiar to the British: it's army was divided into two separate forces: the regular Army, stationed around England, and the territorial Army, also referred to as the "Indian" Army. These two forces had separate commanders, chains of command, withheld information from each other and were highly competitive. They fought with the government over resources.
I have discussed the air force in an earlier post: it was superb, though small. Despite all of these limitations, the British had a much higher morale than their French counterparts. After all, it had been centuries since they had lost a war. They were not used to defeat. They had tried to talk Germany out of it's crazy behavior, but now that the struggle was coming, the majority of British believed in August 1939 that there was nothing for it but to get rid of Hitler.
This belief, however, was not yet shared by the British Prime Minister...
England in August of 1939 was still considered the world's only superpower, with the finest navy afloat. But like the Americans, the British did not understand the importance of air power at sea. The Royal Navy was dominated by battleships, and had almost no aircraft carriers. As Churchill would learn to his dismay when he took over the Admiralty in September, it also had far too few destroyers to handle the U-Boat terror.
England's army was in worse shape. During the First World War the territorial army had over two million men at arms. Now it had around 400,000. A military draft had been underway since April, but it would take months to train all of the troops for battle. There was also an issue peculiar to the British: it's army was divided into two separate forces: the regular Army, stationed around England, and the territorial Army, also referred to as the "Indian" Army. These two forces had separate commanders, chains of command, withheld information from each other and were highly competitive. They fought with the government over resources.
I have discussed the air force in an earlier post: it was superb, though small. Despite all of these limitations, the British had a much higher morale than their French counterparts. After all, it had been centuries since they had lost a war. They were not used to defeat. They had tried to talk Germany out of it's crazy behavior, but now that the struggle was coming, the majority of British believed in August 1939 that there was nothing for it but to get rid of Hitler.
This belief, however, was not yet shared by the British Prime Minister...
timmy, bucking popular trends until he doesn't.
Redwes25
Footballguy
Yeah, I agree with that as well as having another 300,000 British troops in prisoner of war camps makes peace more likely rather then less. Hitler just acted like the arrogant ##### that he was rather then capturing the army as his General's advised.
timschochet
Footballguy
America in 1939
And what were we up to, during this climatic moment in world affairs?
America was still in the throes of the Depression in August of 1939. (The reasons for this belong in another thread; let me just say that, as a fiscal conservative, I am convinced that FDR's New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression, which should have ended much earlier.) The America of 1939 wasn't greatly interested in foreign affairs. Compared to the major capitals of Europe, Washington DC was back then a sleepy little village.
No one wanted to fight in a war. It was unthinkable. The college campuses were filled with pacifists. Most Republicans in Congress, and not a few Democrats, were isolationists who wanted nothing to do with a European struggle. Nor were they concerned with Japan, either. Two years earlier the American gunboat Panay had been sunk, and the public response was indifference. People were concerned with their jobs, or with baseball (those were the days of the great Yankee/Red Sox rivalry between Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio) or with movies. 1939 is considered the greatest year ever for Hollywood feature films.
The army was at it's lowest depths in 20 years. Douglas MacArthur had retired as Chief of Staff in order to take over command of the Phillipines, and the army was at 200,000 men. It was ill-equipped. It was terribly segregated with only two Black officers (this in part is because much of the Army were Southerners- this is a truth throughout American history- the Southern states have always produced the largest share of soldiers. It's interesting to note that not a single isolationist rally was ever held in a Southern state- the South was ready and eager for war.)
Back in the 1920's Commander Billy Mitchell had demonstrated how battleships could be easily destroyed by dive bombers operating from carriers, and he called for a new navy to be composed primarily of aircraft carriers. His advice was ignored. By August of 1939, the entire Navy had less than a half dozen aircraft carriers: The Enterprise, The Lexington, The Hornet were the main three. Meanwhile, the Japanese were building several. The navy's main strength were it's powerful battleships, most named after states of the union.
While the American public did not want war, they were sympathetic to the British. Franklin Roosevelt realized this, and was determined to help England while staying out of the struggle. It must be noted here that in this same month, August of 1939, FDR began a series of unconstitutional actions in which over the next two years he lied to the public, lied to Congress, and continually broke the law. His actions are beyond what any President has dared to undertake before or since. They make the worst things liberals accuse Bush of pale by comparison. Yet I would argue they were all necessary for allied victory.
And what were we up to, during this climatic moment in world affairs?
America was still in the throes of the Depression in August of 1939. (The reasons for this belong in another thread; let me just say that, as a fiscal conservative, I am convinced that FDR's New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression, which should have ended much earlier.) The America of 1939 wasn't greatly interested in foreign affairs. Compared to the major capitals of Europe, Washington DC was back then a sleepy little village.
No one wanted to fight in a war. It was unthinkable. The college campuses were filled with pacifists. Most Republicans in Congress, and not a few Democrats, were isolationists who wanted nothing to do with a European struggle. Nor were they concerned with Japan, either. Two years earlier the American gunboat Panay had been sunk, and the public response was indifference. People were concerned with their jobs, or with baseball (those were the days of the great Yankee/Red Sox rivalry between Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio) or with movies. 1939 is considered the greatest year ever for Hollywood feature films.
The army was at it's lowest depths in 20 years. Douglas MacArthur had retired as Chief of Staff in order to take over command of the Phillipines, and the army was at 200,000 men. It was ill-equipped. It was terribly segregated with only two Black officers (this in part is because much of the Army were Southerners- this is a truth throughout American history- the Southern states have always produced the largest share of soldiers. It's interesting to note that not a single isolationist rally was ever held in a Southern state- the South was ready and eager for war.)
Back in the 1920's Commander Billy Mitchell had demonstrated how battleships could be easily destroyed by dive bombers operating from carriers, and he called for a new navy to be composed primarily of aircraft carriers. His advice was ignored. By August of 1939, the entire Navy had less than a half dozen aircraft carriers: The Enterprise, The Lexington, The Hornet were the main three. Meanwhile, the Japanese were building several. The navy's main strength were it's powerful battleships, most named after states of the union.
While the American public did not want war, they were sympathetic to the British. Franklin Roosevelt realized this, and was determined to help England while staying out of the struggle. It must be noted here that in this same month, August of 1939, FDR began a series of unconstitutional actions in which over the next two years he lied to the public, lied to Congress, and continually broke the law. His actions are beyond what any President has dared to undertake before or since. They make the worst things liberals accuse Bush of pale by comparison. Yet I would argue they were all necessary for allied victory.
Senor Schmutzig
Footballguy
Wow, this is some good stuff. I'll second the request from someone above about suggesting some reference material for those of us that want to get into it deeper. I have read some WWII but with the sheer amount of material out there, any direction towards some of the more worthy reading would be appreciated.
That quote comes straight from The Gathering Storm.
timschochet
Footballguy
The stuff I am writing is my own- I'm really having fun with it. I am using a number of sources, however. For issues of overall strategy, I am relying on the following books:The Rise And Fall of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer
Wow, this is some good stuff. I'll second the request from someone above about suggesting some reference material for those of us that want to get into it deeper. I have read some WWII but with the sheer amount of material out there, any direction towards some of the more worthy reading would be appreciated.
The Rising Sun by John Toland (chronicles the Pacific War)
Hitler and Stalin by Alan Bullock
The Glory And The Dream by William Manchester (from an American perspective.)
For military details, I am using:
Delived From Evil by Robert Leckie
The Second World War by Martin Gilbert
I want to note about Gilbert: no historian I have ever read is as detailed as this guy. He states one fact after another. But he never offers an opinion. So even though his books are great encyclopedic resources, they're not much fun to read. But I'm glad I own them.
And yes, I also use Wikipedia from time to time.
These are just a few of thousands of books that have been written about this subject. Delivered From Evil is a pretty fair one book volume summary of the entire war and it's background and aftermath.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's been ten years since I read it, but that is NOT my recollection. I'm going to look it up when I get a chance. If you're correct, of course I will acknowledge it here. But I KNOW he considered it to be a great error.
No one said his theory was correct. Obviously, it wasn't. But what other reason could he have for letting the evacuation take place?
Try page 351.
Ozymandias
Footballguy
"It's been ten years since I read it, but that is NOT my recollection. I'm going to look it up when I get a chance. If you're correct, of course I will acknowledge it here. But I KNOW he considered it to be a great error."
And you know this because, regardless of what he said, you have placed your hand upon Churchill's hand, and had a mind-meld.
And you know this because, regardless of what he said, you have placed your hand upon Churchill's hand, and had a mind-meld.
timschochet
Footballguy
It didn't take me that long. I found it on the internet: it's on page 351 of The Gathering Storm. Churchill does indeed write: "At the moment it was realistic to a high degree". So Christo is right after all. However, two paragraphs later, Churchill adds the following:Only twenty two months were to pass before Stalin and the Russian nation in its scores of millions were to pay a frightful forfeit.
William L. Shirer writes of Stalin and the Nazi Soviet Pact:
It turned out to be the greatest blunder of his life.
Both of these writers, along with many others, agree that the Pact was a terrible mistake for Russia.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I only wish I could, Ozy. But I just quoted him; that will have to do.
timschochet
Footballguy
From time to time I will be incorrect in some of my facts here. Thankfully for all of us, Christo will always be around to correct me, it seems. Thanks again, Christo!
Ozymandias
Footballguy
True. But for Churchill to say they "paid a frightful forfeit", does not equal "it was a blunder". We live in only one world, and the hypothetical scenarios are virtually limitless. The US and Britain paid a frightful forfeit for their invasion of Europe, but that does not equate to it being a blunder.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Einstein Letter
One other extremely important event occurred in August of 1939, which would have a great effect on both the war and world history. On August 2, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to FDR, which included the following paragraphs:
In the course of the last four months it has been made probable — through the work of [Frédéric] Joliot[-Curie] in France as well as [Enrico] Fermi and Szilard in America — that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.
This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable — though much less certain — that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.
This letter started FDR upon the Manhattan Project, with everything that implied.
One other extremely important event occurred in August of 1939, which would have a great effect on both the war and world history. On August 2, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to FDR, which included the following paragraphs:
In the course of the last four months it has been made probable — through the work of [Frédéric] Joliot[-Curie] in France as well as [Enrico] Fermi and Szilard in America — that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.
This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable — though much less certain — that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.
This letter started FDR upon the Manhattan Project, with everything that implied.
timschochet
Footballguy
Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me in the field of nuclear physics can explain, in layman's terms, what Szilard and Fermi had achieved in the summer of 1939 and why it was so crucial to the development of the atomic bomb?
Ozymandias
Footballguy
Yes. I think we probably do not realize how influential a scientist like Einstein was. He probably got Roosevelt's attention in the way no one else could. And speed was of the essence; a delay of 6 months in getting the bomb would have led to millions more casualties. (That is my considered opinion, although revisionist historians have differing views.)
timschochet
Footballguy
According to Linus Pauling in 1955, Einstein later regretted that he wrote that letter. His fear was, of course, that the Germans would build atomic bombs first. But afterwards he wished he had never done it. Of course, this is according to Pauling, we don't have Einstein's word on this. Also, it's difficult for me to believe that nuclear bombs would not have been developed anyway. But if not for the letter, they might not have been created in time for use against Japan. How would world history have been changed?
timschochet
Footballguy
That's really interesting. Thank you.
Ozymandias
Footballguy
I believe the invasion of Japan was scheduled for November, 1945. If Okinawa is any indication, the invasion of Kyushu would have been a bloodbath. The Allies were counting on a 3-1 advantage in the initial invasion, but later documents from Japan indicate it might well have been 1-1. Given the Japanese "no surrender" policy, the casualties would have been enormous. I don't know that the US could have prosecuted the war then, and an armistice, leading to an armed and hostile Japan, would have been a likely scenario.
I made a factual assertion that I knew to be true. As is your MO, you told me I was wrong before doing your research.I was not correcting you, you were trying to correct me.Dexter Manley
Footballguy
My grandfather was a guard at the white house during WW2. He was a great marksman and sniper, and as such they reassigned him there. The batallion or whatever that he was orginally with eventually went over to Europe and suffered extremely heavy casualties.
To help pass the time, my grandfather and the other soldiers on the white house grounds would play a 'hide and seek' game with FDR's dog. They would routinely hide FDR's dog in their barracks, and laugh their asses off at the secret service guys who were looking all over the place for the dog. The dog loved the game, and would just go running to his hiding spot right away whenever they were able to call him over to the barracks.
To help pass the time, my grandfather and the other soldiers on the white house grounds would play a 'hide and seek' game with FDR's dog. They would routinely hide FDR's dog in their barracks, and laugh their asses off at the secret service guys who were looking all over the place for the dog. The dog loved the game, and would just go running to his hiding spot right away whenever they were able to call him over to the barracks.
timschochet
Footballguy
August 1939- The Last Weeks of Peace
The two weeks between the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the outbreak of World War II make for highly instructive reading. It is instructive because of the comedy of errors that was committed on all sides as the world moved inevitably towards conflict. In the nuclear age, we cannot afford such incompetence, which I will attempt to describe in upcoming posts.
Let's begin with Warsaw. Upon the news of the Pact, a joyous Colonel Beck sought out the British Ambassador. "This is the best news ever for Poland!"
he shouted. He explained to the stunned Ambassador that now the Poles, with British help, could attack both Germany and Russia "and do away with both aggressors!"
The two weeks between the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the outbreak of World War II make for highly instructive reading. It is instructive because of the comedy of errors that was committed on all sides as the world moved inevitably towards conflict. In the nuclear age, we cannot afford such incompetence, which I will attempt to describe in upcoming posts.
Let's begin with Warsaw. Upon the news of the Pact, a joyous Colonel Beck sought out the British Ambassador. "This is the best news ever for Poland!"
he shouted. He explained to the stunned Ambassador that now the Poles, with British help, could attack both Germany and Russia "and do away with both aggressors!"
timschochet
Footballguy
In Germany, the Foreign Minister, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, insisted to Hitler that no matter what they said, the British and French would never go to war over Poland.
Only in the insane world of the Third Reich could such an incompetent vain idiot become Foreign Minister of a great power. Ribbentrop was a former wine salesman, a bad one. He acquired the "von" from his father in law, a Prussian landowner who couldn't stand him. He served for three years as Ambassador to England, where he failed miserably in his main task to secure a British alliance. The German foreign office was stunned when Hitler selected this nincompoop to be the foreign minister.
Ribbentrop may have received his assurance from Nevile Henderson, known in Fleet Street (British journalism) as "His Majesty's Nazi Ambassador To Berlin". To suggest that Henderson was sympathetic to the Nazi regime would be to understate matters. He adored the Nazis, especially his close friend Herman Goering. He refused to submit any message from Chamberlain, his boss, that he thought might be "too confrontational". Chamberlain knew this, but did not fire him.
During the next two weeks both of these men would be put to difficult tests which they did not perform well.
Only in the insane world of the Third Reich could such an incompetent vain idiot become Foreign Minister of a great power. Ribbentrop was a former wine salesman, a bad one. He acquired the "von" from his father in law, a Prussian landowner who couldn't stand him. He served for three years as Ambassador to England, where he failed miserably in his main task to secure a British alliance. The German foreign office was stunned when Hitler selected this nincompoop to be the foreign minister.
Ribbentrop may have received his assurance from Nevile Henderson, known in Fleet Street (British journalism) as "His Majesty's Nazi Ambassador To Berlin". To suggest that Henderson was sympathetic to the Nazi regime would be to understate matters. He adored the Nazis, especially his close friend Herman Goering. He refused to submit any message from Chamberlain, his boss, that he thought might be "too confrontational". Chamberlain knew this, but did not fire him.
During the next two weeks both of these men would be put to difficult tests which they did not perform well.
Redwes25
Footballguy
I believe he just wanted to let his beloved Luftwaffe and his friend Georing to get in on the kill of England. Basically, he told them to stop for his own ego as he did not need to waist Armor when even his vaunted airforce could do it alone.They did the same thing with Warsaw when they thought that it could fall with air power alone. Of course a war needs to be won on the ground.
Just out of curiosity, is the Shirer book still considered the "be all and end all" of the history of Nazi Germany? It was written over 50 years ago. Haven't any newer works supplanted it? Is it well regarded in academic circles, i.e. is it cited by other works of dissertations? Remember, Shirer was a journalist, not a trained historian. Maybe that doesn't make a difference to the general public, but it certainly does in the ivory tower of professional academic historians.
Tim you are also leaving our the absolute love affair of American leftists and Communists in Hollywood, labor and journalism with Stalin and the idealized Soviet system. You are also leaving out the anti-Semitism of large parts of America, as exemplified by Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and such demagoges as Father Coughlin and the American Bund. There was great suspicision of Britian and British motives. What is your citation for the statement that the "American public were sympathetic to the British"? You also realize that a peacetime draft passed the House (IIRC) by a single vote, despite a heavy lobbying effort by Roosevelt. And Rossevelt came damn close to losing the 1940 election to Wendall Wilkie.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
As noted, there was plenty of splinter groups supporting the Soviets and the Fascists. A great example of what DC is talking about is the German American Bund rally at Madison Square Garden which had 22,000 attendees. A picture of the rally
I guess I just don't get the connection. Whether or not the Germans captured the BEF, they still had to take the RAF out of the picture to force the Brits to the peace table. As long as the RAF was an effective fighting force, no cross-channel invasion could even be threatened.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
That is something that I have found interesting. The RAF, being the star of the Battle of Britain, is always talked about as being an obstacle to invasion- which it was. But wouldn't the Royal Navy pose a significant problem to a German invasion as well? As for the saved soldiers, it is conceivable that their loss would have meant a weaker British presence in North Africa. If the Italians and Afrika Corps were able to defeat the British and seize the Suez, that would have been a near death blow to the British as it would effectively sever the connection to their colonies in India and the far east. Colonies that kept the battered British with everything they needed to keep fighting. (well, the majority of self sources materials at least)ETA: I am not sure that there is a direct correlation here though as I have never seen any numbers showing where that 300K troops saved ended up going. But you have to assume that they went where the fighting was, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ozymandias
Footballguy
The Germans were convinced that they could eliminate the RAF. And they might well have been able to do so but for radar, which enabled the British to have some advance warning so as to know when to send the planes up. And they might have done so anyway, but they started bombing the cities instead of persevering in their campaign to eliminate the RAF.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Navy would have been at the mercy of the Luftwaffe in the channel in much the same way a German invasion fleet would have been at the mercy of the RAF. Not enough room to operate.
You mean like what happened to HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales in December 1941?
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks for pointing all that out. There's a reason I didn't mention some of things you stated:1. The "love affair" with Stalin is a little overstated. Even so, it's heyday came around 1943-45, when some very embarrassing films were made, such as "Song of Russia".
2. Being Jewish, my whole family has always assumed that Charles Lindbergh was anti-Semtic. I myself am not so sure. He was certainly isolationist and very nearly pro-German. Henry Ford's views were not at all influential during the late 1930's. And Father Coughlin's day had passed around 1936. America in 1939 was not especially anti-Semitic, from what I've been able to raad.
3. My citation for my statement is William Manchester's The Glory and The Dream. He states that American public opinion turned very much against Germeny based on two events that received much radio attention: the seizure of Czechoslovakia, and Kristallnacht, the anti Jewish progrom which took place in November of 1938.
4. The draft vote you refer to did not pass until early 1940, and the election was not on the horizon in August of 1939, so I didn't bring those up.
They didn't last too long, that's for sure.
SofaKings
Footballguy
The Luftwaffe change in strategy of urban bombing instead of keeping the pressure on the British airfields and radar installations shouldn't be underestimated. The Brits were THAT close to running out of planes and pilots.
timschochet
Footballguy
Continuing the commentary about August, 1939:
With the Pact signed, Hitler thought his problems were solved, and he and his generals proceeded with the final plans for Fall Weiss (Case White) the invasion of Poland. But then, within a few hours, three events occurred which stunned Der Fuehrer and caused him to order the halt of all further plans.
The first of these was a letter from Mussolini. Il Duce had been Hitler's ally ever since the two had signed the Pact of Steel, and was committed to join Germany in any war against the west. But poor Benito revealed in his letter that he was really unprepared for war: couldn't Adolf maybe wait until 1942? If Germany fought now, the Italians might have to renege...
The only stunning thing about this letter is that it stunned Hitler. Mussolini was the leader of a nation whose people had no desire to fight a war, as they would prove again and again. It can safely be said that the Pact of Steel was a hindrance, not a help to Germany's aims. Time and again the Germans would find themselves forced to bail Mussolini out during the war. But to the dismay of the German generals, Hitler always took Benito very seriously and considered him his one true ally.
Italy's efforts and achievements in World War II are worth some study, and I'll try to get to it at some point. Let's just say for now that they would have made the 2008 Detroit Lions proud of their record...
With the Pact signed, Hitler thought his problems were solved, and he and his generals proceeded with the final plans for Fall Weiss (Case White) the invasion of Poland. But then, within a few hours, three events occurred which stunned Der Fuehrer and caused him to order the halt of all further plans.
The first of these was a letter from Mussolini. Il Duce had been Hitler's ally ever since the two had signed the Pact of Steel, and was committed to join Germany in any war against the west. But poor Benito revealed in his letter that he was really unprepared for war: couldn't Adolf maybe wait until 1942? If Germany fought now, the Italians might have to renege...
The only stunning thing about this letter is that it stunned Hitler. Mussolini was the leader of a nation whose people had no desire to fight a war, as they would prove again and again. It can safely be said that the Pact of Steel was a hindrance, not a help to Germany's aims. Time and again the Germans would find themselves forced to bail Mussolini out during the war. But to the dismay of the German generals, Hitler always took Benito very seriously and considered him his one true ally.
Italy's efforts and achievements in World War II are worth some study, and I'll try to get to it at some point. Let's just say for now that they would have made the 2008 Detroit Lions proud of their record...
timschochet
Footballguy
The second stunner for Adolf that August was a letter from Nevile Chamberlain. The letter explained that Neville had learned that if the Kaiser had known of British intentions in August of 1914, perhaps that war would have been prevented. Chamberlain wanted to be very clear this time: any invasion of Poland and Britain WOULD declare war.
The letter was almost not delivered, because Nevile Henderson, true to form, didn't want to give Hitler "the wrong impression", according to his own memoirs. (What the "right impression" would have been is unstated, though I think we can guess that Henderson was all in favor of just letting the Germans have Poland.) But this time Henderson was overruled by the British cabinet.
In shock, Hitler summoned Ribbentrop, whom he had come to rely upon as a "British expert". "You told me they would back off, once we signed the pact with Stalin!" he exploded. Ribbentrop replied, according to history, "Mein Fuehrer, I assure you they will. I know the British, they will never go to war for Danzig." But this time Hitler began to doubt his foreign minister and considered further measures to keep the British from marching.
The letter was almost not delivered, because Nevile Henderson, true to form, didn't want to give Hitler "the wrong impression", according to his own memoirs. (What the "right impression" would have been is unstated, though I think we can guess that Henderson was all in favor of just letting the Germans have Poland.) But this time Henderson was overruled by the British cabinet.
In shock, Hitler summoned Ribbentrop, whom he had come to rely upon as a "British expert". "You told me they would back off, once we signed the pact with Stalin!" he exploded. Ribbentrop replied, according to history, "Mein Fuehrer, I assure you they will. I know the British, they will never go to war for Danzig." But this time Hitler began to doubt his foreign minister and considered further measures to keep the British from marching.
SofaKings
Footballguy
Is this really necessary? At least the Lions came out of their lockerroom and fought, something that cannot be said for their navy.
timschochet
Footballguy
Regarding my previous post, it's important to note that Hitler never wanted a war with Great Britain. In Mein Kampf he envisions a natural alliance between Germany and England in which the English control the seas and her colonies, and Germany gets to dominate central Europe. His purpose in sending Ribbentrop to London during the late 1930's was to achieve such an alliance. He considered the British to be of Nordic stock, nearly equal to German blood.
What Hitler did not pay attention to in his book or plans was that England has always adhered to one central foreign policy: never allow one nation to dominate the European continent. If that ever happens, England must ally herself with lesser opponents to defeat the dominating power. This had been England's strategy against Philip of Spain and against Napoleon and against the Kaiser. At first during the Nazi regime, the British government mistakenly believed the Soviets to be the greater threat, and this explains some of their early responses to Nazi aggression. But in the end, they reverted to form, and took up the policy which had always been central to their survival.
What Hitler did not pay attention to in his book or plans was that England has always adhered to one central foreign policy: never allow one nation to dominate the European continent. If that ever happens, England must ally herself with lesser opponents to defeat the dominating power. This had been England's strategy against Philip of Spain and against Napoleon and against the Kaiser. At first during the Nazi regime, the British government mistakenly believed the Soviets to be the greater threat, and this explains some of their early responses to Nazi aggression. But in the end, they reverted to form, and took up the policy which had always been central to their survival.
timschochet
Footballguy
The third stunner for Hitler came from General Halder, chief of staff of the Wehrmacht. Franz Halder was one of three Generals closest to Der Fuehrer, but the other two, Jodl and Keitel, were generally sycophantic. Until he was fired in 1942 as a result of one disagreement after another with Hitler, Halder usually expressed his honest opinion, no matter how controversial it was.
In August of 1939, Halder told Hitler bluntly that the Wehrmacht could not both invade Poland and successfully defend the West Wall against the French. The Germans would be left with less than 30 divisions to defend against 100 divisions that the French could throw at them. If Paris was determined, they could be in Berlin and nothing the Germans could do would stop it. He therefore proposed a two year delay in invading Poland until further troops were ready.
(It's important to note here and later that the German Generals usually never protested the morality of Hitler's actions, only whether or not they would be successful. At no point does Halder ever question the invasion of a sovereign nation, only the timing.)
This advice, coming at the same day as the Mussolini letter and the Chamberlain letter, really gave Hitler pause. He decided that he would engage in a diplomatic flurry to see if he could sever Danzig from Poland and have another "Munich" like agreement with Britain and France.
In August of 1939, Halder told Hitler bluntly that the Wehrmacht could not both invade Poland and successfully defend the West Wall against the French. The Germans would be left with less than 30 divisions to defend against 100 divisions that the French could throw at them. If Paris was determined, they could be in Berlin and nothing the Germans could do would stop it. He therefore proposed a two year delay in invading Poland until further troops were ready.
(It's important to note here and later that the German Generals usually never protested the morality of Hitler's actions, only whether or not they would be successful. At no point does Halder ever question the invasion of a sovereign nation, only the timing.)
This advice, coming at the same day as the Mussolini letter and the Chamberlain letter, really gave Hitler pause. He decided that he would engage in a diplomatic flurry to see if he could sever Danzig from Poland and have another "Munich" like agreement with Britain and France.
Ozymandias
Footballguy
Similar threads
