To all who are literate in the History of WW1 and WW2?

Question

The cause of WW1 is quite straight forward as we all know. However, WW2 revolves around much complexicity. There were the meglo-maniac like Hitler, for instance. But what I what to know is did Chamberlain's policy of apeasement allow WW2 to take shape? and even though it was claimed that WW2 was inevitable, why did Chamberlain wait all the way till Hitler tried to conquer Poland, to finally go to War?

Answer 1

Chamberlain and those who supported him were doing what all statesmen and generals do: they predicated their conduct and decisions on lessons they thought they had learned in the previous war. The United States went to Iraq entirely prepared to fight the Vietnam war again.

The "appeasers" remembered that between 1914 and 1918, 8,000,000 uniformed men lost their lives because an Austrian Archduke was assassinated by a nationalistic eighteen-year-old kid. A single event drew all the nations of Europe into a bloodbath of the most brutal and unrelenting discription that went on for four years.

For four years the best of Europe's youth struggled and died in what has been called "a mud mausoleum," leaving an age and talent gap in Eurpean leadership that was filled by crack pots like hitler and worms like Chamberlain who, incidently, did the Dick Cheney and was not at the Somme or Verdun to see the thing at first hand.

To Chamberlain and many, many other Europeans and Americans it appeared, and rightly so, that the Allied statesmen had forced an unfair peace arrangement on the Central Powers, especially Germany, and that Germany had a legitimate "beef." A number of them, in point of fact.

The crazy map of Europe that the Allies created cried out to the whacko nationalistic minds among the loosers and provided a ready-made appeal to the general sense of fairness in their countries.

The appeasers misread the Nazi movement and didn't read "Mein Kampf," and some among them, Chamberlain included, lacked spine, but their policy of avoiding war at all costs had wide support, and no one called them "Apeasers" until it was clear that the policy had failed.

As for Winston Churchill's far sightedness in calling for war, here was a man that loved war, his ear was tuned to the sound of violence and his nostrols scented the blood of war wherever it was; Africa, the Balkans, the Carribian, and he dashed to the sound of the first gun or the smell of the smoke. He was a man of violence, the only man in the British government who wanted to use poinson gas on the German people in the last days of the war. And in fact, his meddling with strategy unquestionably prolonged the suffering of his people in "their finest hour."

Chamberlain was weak, not very perceptive, imagined that the world was led by white-gloved gentlemen like himself, but he was only blamed when the policy, in retrospect did not prevent war at all, though it had seemed to many that it might.

His conduct at Munich was a revolting display of indifference to the fate of the Czechs, and history will never forgive him that wretched moment. The conduct of the English negotiators who failed to form an alliance with Russia in the summer of 1939, is equally reprehensable. They did not like Russians and the result of their refined distaste was the Russo-German treaty that freed Hitler to concentrate on the West. And he did just that!

Disgusting-------in hindsight.

Answer 2

First off I think your view of WWI as a straightforward cause is short sighted. The spark was obvious as was the spark that set of WWII in Europe, but the events and political ties that led up to it were complex.

So to understand WWII one needs to understand the outcome of WWI. Did Chamberlain's policy of appeasement allow the war in Europe to take shape? Yes and no. Yes in the fact that it allowed the Nazi parties to continue to take bits and pieces. The Saarland, the Sudetenland, Bohemia, Austria and so forth. Often it has been noted that if any of the European powers had stood up to that advancement, the overall advancement would have slowed.

Why did Chamberlain wait? There are probably many answers to this question but one of the more obvious ones is the staggering numbers of dead in WWI. The British were hit hard. Granted not as hard as the French, Germans and Russians but still very hard. It was a war of attrition. It was a war so bitter that nobody had the stomach for another such war 15 years later. The 15 years comes from Hitler taking power in 1933. Remember that nobody really knew that the tactics of war would change. It was more fear of the advancement of weaponry and the fresh memory of 4 years of war that kept Chamberlain from jumping in to stop Hitler.

Hitler would make treaties and then break them. Perhaps when Chamberlain thought he had 'peace for our time' he believed it, but Hitler knew it was not really a treaty.

Also remember the Chamberlain, like all politicians, are more concerned about keeping their job, even when it means having to take an unpopular stance.

Answer 3

To answer your question: Yes, Chamberlain's policy of appeasement facilitated the military build-up in Germany in the years prior to Hitler's invasion of Poland. Chamberlain refused to act, and as a result Hitler continued to fortify his wermacht despite the fact that the Treaty of Paris declared the creation of any German militia expressly forbidden. Even though the other powers in Europe believed war was inevitable, Chamberlain held out hope that diplomacy would prevail. In the end, he realized that Hitler couldn't be reasoned with and further diplomatic efforts were useless.

The parallel that can be drawn deals with the failure of the U.N. to enforce the restrictions and sanctions placed on Iraq after Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Hussein continued to thumb his nose at the U.N. and continued to amass weapons of mass destruction (don't believe what you hear on the Clinton News Network or the Communist Broadcasting Service; I have over a dozen colleagues in the Armed Forces that have actually been to Iraq and have seen the WMDs and the captured/killed al-Qaeda operatives with their own eyes), so instead of Chamberlain you have "Dubya" who came to the realization that no amount of diplomacy or sanctions was going to stop Saddam Hussein from doing whatever the hell he pleased.

Funny how history repeats itself, doesn't it?

Answer 4

First of all, I question your statement that the cause of WW1 was "quite straight-forward". There were so many factors, and yes, Europe was ready to explode, but I don't think anything was straight-forward. Imperial influences world-wide had brought tension throughout the world, but Germany probably had the most to lose by a wide war, and was reluctant to get involved. The Brits and the French thought that they could gain the most by a huge war, and the rest of Europe, the Balkans, Prussia had nothing to gain. Anyway, the pot boiled over for many reasons. WW2, of course, started with the Treaty of Versaillles. Its cause was much more "straight-forward", in that Europe let Hitler rise to power and never tried to intimidate him.

Answer 5

Neville Chamberlain is the quintessential example of the danger of giving in to bullies, rather than meeting them head-on. Chamberlain believed that "appeasing" Hitler by giving him the Sudetenland, rather than defending its sovreignty would keep the peace. It didn't. It only emboldened Hitler and made him greedier. Not stopping Hitler after the anschluss only cemented his megalomaniacal avarice and murderous self-justification. Chamberlain kept trying vainly to "give peace a chance." All that did was make it harder, more destructive, and deadlier to stop the evil that had entrenched itself.

Answer 6

If you want to know of a very good book on World War II that will answer y our questions, the look up WORLD WAR II by A.J.P Taylor, and great English Historian.