With hindsight one can say that acting against Germany in [say] 1936 would have been the correct course of action, but notwithstanding the fact that they didn't know the extent of Hitler's plans back then it is still utter folly to call the British & French spineless after the nightmarish horrors and losses both had endured during WW1 just two decades earlier. Indeed, once they had become fully aware of the extent of Hitler's plans, both threw themselves into the fray once more. Calling Britain and France spineless is utterly unwarranted.

The narrative that the western allies were spineless and also calculating in their strategy is a well worn trope and was even voiced more or less overtly by Stalin during the war.

I encountered it when I was visiting Volgograd (Former Stalingrad) and I fell into a conversation with a couple of Russian at the 'Mother Russia' monument. (It's pretty impressive). After discussing the horror of Stalingrad and the huge losses incurred by the Soviet Union, my interlocutor brought up the delay by the Western Allies in invading fortress Europe from the west. After all, he reasoned, the English channel is only 20 some miles wide....but the calculating and spineless allies decided to sit it out while the Nazis butchered heroic soviet citizens.

It seemed churlish to point out that no matter how narrow the English Channel is, it is still a lot wider than the river Vistula, where the Soviet army bided its time from August 1944 to January 1945 while such lovelies as the Dirlewagner brigade went on a rampage of bloodshed and destruction that has few parallels in history and hundreds of thousands of Varsovians were killed.
(Also I didn't want to get punched..the burly Russian fellow I was speaking to warmed to his task and became quite agitated!! It's possible he had been drinking.)

Regarding the pre-war accommodations made by both the west and the Soviets, I remember Madelene Albright quoting her father, a Czechoslovak diplomat at the time. Regarding the disgraceful sell out at Munich he prayed that the British would 'have the strength to withstand the thrashing they so thoroughly deserved.'

logical bob wrote:Quick fire riposte there.

I am not the most prolific of posters, it is fair to say. And unfortunately, the response is to someone who has seemingly withdrawn from the forum.

jamest wrote:With hindsight one can say that acting against Germany in [say] 1936 would have been the correct course of action, but notwithstanding the fact that they didn't know the extent of Hitler's plans back then it is still utter folly to call the British & French spineless after the nightmarish horrors and losses both had endured during WW1 just two decades earlier. Indeed, once they had become fully aware of the extent of Hitler's plans, both threw themselves into the fray once more. Calling Britain and France spineless is utterly unwarranted.

You are making the same mistake as Spearthrower. Acting against the Germans in March 1936 was NOT the same as another full-scale war. The allies knew the strength of the Germans and they would have routed them. Yes, the previous war was horrific and if they had had any spine, they would have quelled any chance of it re-curing by standing up to Hitler instead of appeasing him.

And they would have had good legal cause to dismantle the German army and impose fresh sanctions and occupation if that was deemed necessary.

Instead, they gave the Germans three more years to re-arm and implied that they were unwilling to stand up to any threats.

It is NOT unwarranted to argue that the allies lacked spine at this crucial juncture in history.

don't get me started wrote:The narrative that the western allies were spineless and also calculating in their strategy is a well worn trope and was even voiced more or less overtly by Stalin during the war.

Of course the allies were not always without a stomach for armed intervention. But they surely lacked the guts when it mattered and of course, we are talking about a select set of politicians.

don't get me started wrote:I encountered it when I was visiting Volgograd (Former Stalingrad) and I fell into a conversation with a couple of Russian at the 'Mother Russia' monument. (It's pretty impressive). After discussing the horror of Stalingrad and the huge losses incurred by the Soviet Union, my interlocutor brought up the delay by the Western Allies in invading fortress Europe from the west. After all, he reasoned, the English channel is only 20 some miles wide....but the calculating and spineless allies decided to sit it out while the Nazis butchered heroic soviet citizens.

Stalin was full of praise for Operation Overlord after it took place. And he knew about Operation Sledgehammer.

don't get me started wrote:
Regarding the pre-war accommodations made by both the west and the Soviets, I remember Madelene Albright quoting her father, a Czechoslovak diplomat at the time. Regarding the disgraceful sell out at Munich he prayed that the British would 'have the strength to withstand the thrashing they so thoroughly deserved.'

And a disgraceful, spineless sell-out it was. And a thrashing they did receive along with a horrendous loss of their global power.

don't get me started wrote:
I encountered it when I was visiting Volgograd (Former Stalingrad) and I fell into a conversation with a couple of Russian at the 'Mother Russia' monument. (It's pretty impressive). After discussing the horror of Stalingrad and the huge losses incurred by the Soviet Union, my interlocutor brought up the delay by the Western Allies in invading fortress Europe from the west. After all, he reasoned, the English channel is only 20 some miles wide....but the calculating and spineless allies decided to sit it out while the Nazis butchered heroic soviet citizens.

It should be pointed out that the Soviet Union and Germany not only had a pre-war pact but that Stalin was complicit in carving up Poland with Germany.

Koolaid drinkers are more rife here than expected for a 'skeptics' forum. I haven't seen or read about the Stone history. For a well documented, very alternative view of US history, a far more honest, reliable view, you can't do much better than Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States
You can watch actors and other public figures reading pieces from the book and its sources here. Or read the book here. An example of the history you won't be taught in school, on what Columbus wrought:

When he arrived on Hispaniola in 1508, Las Casas says, "there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it...."

It isn't at all difficult to understand how thoroughly the US population is propagandized, you only have to look at how the general consensus on the Israeli terrorist actions against the Palestinians is almost devoid of facts, a consensus manufactured in the media. A new movie is out about how much of a fiction this is, The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States, the link is for the website for the film where you can watch it by supporting it. There is a good, 3-piece video on the film with Roger Waters of Pink Floyd on RealNews. The first part:

Galactor wrote:

jamest wrote:With hindsight one can say that acting against Germany in [say] 1936 would have been the correct course of action, but notwithstanding the fact that they didn't know the extent of Hitler's plans back then it is still utter folly to call the British & French spineless after the nightmarish horrors and losses both had endured during WW1 just two decades earlier. Indeed, once they had become fully aware of the extent of Hitler's plans, both threw themselves into the fray once more. Calling Britain and France spineless is utterly unwarranted.

You are making the same mistake as Spearthrower. Acting against the Germans in March 1936 was NOT the same as another full-scale war. The allies knew the strength of the Germans and they would have routed them. Yes, the previous war was horrific and if they had had any spine, they would have quelled any chance of it re-curing by standing up to Hitler instead of appeasing him.

And they would have had good legal cause to dismantle the German army and impose fresh sanctions and occupation if that was deemed necessary.

Instead, they gave the Germans three more years to re-arm and implied that they were unwilling to stand up to any threats.

It is NOT unwarranted to argue that the allies lacked spine at this crucial juncture in history.

I'm not questioning the [with hindsight] judgement that Britain & France probably should have acted quicker against Germany (even though beating Germany in 1936 would NOT have been a "rout"), but the fact that you've called these people "spineless" for not doing so. These people lived through The Somme & Verdun, etc., and/or had lost husbands/brothers/sons/friends. So what I'm really questioning is your inability to connect emotionally with people who lived through these worst of times. I myself have nothing but the utmost respect for these people, unlike yourself, sitting in your comfortable armchair condemning them for being hesitant and unsure less than two decades after those horrors which they had to endure, also deprived of the gift of hindsight. You really need to have a word with yourself, because without a doubt almost all of them exhibited their spine more so than you've ever had the need to do so. You really need to have a deep think about the shit that you are posting. An apology - to them - is utterly necessary. They made an error in judgement, probably, but these people were not spineless. The fact that they declared war on Germany just a few years later, when Germany was strong, bears testimony to this fact. So please, retract the offensive nonsense from your commentary. It's bollocks and if you can't see that then you should abstain from historical commentary altogether.

I have incredible sympathy for what soldiers were put through in the absurdity that was WWI. The leadership all around should have been rounded up and mustard gassed. Of course, that's true of most wars, the soldiers are forced into slaughtering each other for the games of the elites. It's never noble, it's never admirable, there should be no memorials, no holidays, it should be a day of shame and ridicule.

jamest wrote:
I'm not questioning the [with hindsight] judgement that Britain & France probably should have acted quicker against Germany (even though beating Germany in 1936 would NOT have been a "rout"),

Staggering, breathtaking ignorance and stupidity.

Even a cursory glance at the history books would show what nonsense jamest has written.

From the Wikipedia page on the Rhineland re-militarization with a few highlilghts:

The Rhineland coup is often seen as the moment when Hitler could have been stopped with very little effort. The American journalist William L. Shirer wrote if the French had marched into the Rhineland,

that almost certainly would have been the end of Hitler, after which history might have taken quite a different and brighter turn than it did, for the dictator could never have survived such a fiasco...France's failure to repel the Wehrmacht battalions and Britain's failure to back her in what would have been nothing more than a police action was a disaster for the West from which sprang all the later ones of even greater magnitude. In March 1936 the two Western democracies, were given their last chance to halt, without the risk of a serious war, the rise of a militarized, aggressive, totalitarian Germany and, in, fact-as we have seen Hitler admitting-bring the Nazi dictator and his regime tumbling down. They let the chance slip.

Hitler:

The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance.

Additionally:

A German officer assigned to the Bendlerstrasse during the crisis told H. R. Knickerbocker during the Spanish Civil War: "I can tell you that for five days and five nights not one of us closed an eye. We knew that if the French marched, we were done. We had no fortifications, and no army to match the French. If the French had even mobilized, we should have been compelled to retire." The general staff, the officer said, considered Hitler's action suicidal.[120] General Heinz Guderian, a German general interviewed by French officers after the Second World War, claimed: "If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen."

jamest should really think a little bit more before posting such rubbish.

jamest wrote:
I'm not questioning the [with hindsight] judgement that Britain & France probably should have acted quicker against Germany (even though beating Germany in 1936 would NOT have been a "rout"), but the fact that you've called these people "spineless" for not doing so. These people lived through The Somme & Verdun, etc., and/or had lost husbands/brothers/sons/friends. So what I'm really questioning is your inability to connect emotionally with people who lived through these worst of times. I myself have nothing but the utmost respect for these people, unlike yourself, sitting in your comfortable armchair condemning them for being hesitant and unsure less than two decades after those horrors which they had to endure, also deprived of the gift of hindsight. You really need to have a word with yourself, because without a doubt almost all of them exhibited their spine more so than you've ever had the need to do so. You really need to have a deep think about the shit that you are posting. An apology - to them - is utterly necessary. They made an error in judgement, probably, but these people were not spineless. The fact that they declared war on Germany just a few years later, when Germany was strong, bears testimony to this fact. So please, retract the offensive nonsense from your commentary. It's bollocks and if you can't see that then you should abstain from historical commentary altogether.

Does jamest really think that I am talking about people other than the politicians, civil servants and general staff?

Does he think I am talking about Tommy Atkins or something?

Doesn't jamest know how "goverment" works?

Doesn't jamest know that when historians use words like "the allies" or "the axis powers" they're talking about the relevant decision makers?

What a fucking joke!

The so-called guilty men, who themselves will likely have had bereavements from the first world war, were even culpable insofar as they didn't have the spine to admit to themselves that they weren't up to the task of persuading the general public that military intervention was necessary and to subsequently resign and do gardening for the rest of their lives. They were - in the face of the threat confronting them - spineless and gutless.

It should be pointed out that there were others who did advocate military action but were gainsaid by people like the guilty men.

It should be pointed out that Stanley Baldwin was by and large a good politician as far as domestic policies go. And no doubt were the other men competent in their positions in government. But in the matter of the threat from Germany, they were .... SPINELESS!

And the allied politicians were concerned and frightened about the developments in Germany, way before Hitler marched into the Rhineland.

jamest should climb off his moral high-horse, retract his silly remarks about my apologizing and his perceived nature of the substance of my comments, and then start reading a bit of history before he embarrasses himself again.

crank wrote:I have incredible sympathy for what soldiers were put through in the absurdity that was WWI. The leadership all around should have been rounded up and mustard gassed. Of course, that's true of most wars, the soldiers are forced into slaughtering each other for the games of the elites. It's never noble, it's never admirable, there should be no memorials, no holidays, it should be a day of shame and ridicule.

Presuming that it is not meant to be satirical, I don't think I could hold more contempt for this post.

Galactor wrote:Presuming that it is not meant to be satirical, I don't think I could hold more contempt for this post.

Is anyone supposed to give two shits about this?

Or that anyone is remotely moved by someone writing their opinion of "spineless" over and over again, should amount to an argument worthy of a response?

Sendraks wrote:

Galactor wrote:Presuming that it is not meant to be satirical, I don't think I could hold more contempt for this post.

Is anyone supposed to give two shits about this?

Or that anyone is remotely moved by someone writing their opinion of "spineless" over and over again, should amount to an argument worthy of a response?

Yeah. You're supposed to give two shits about it.

And I can argue and opine in any way I fucking like. And if you don't like it, that's just too bad. Go and read something else.

You know what I really hate about people who don't know their military history? It's that they write shit equivalent to saying that your voice and opinion is worthless. Which is what you have done. And what jamest did. While he was mouthing off about how much sacrifice was made (presumably for him and you to have freedom of speech but to deride my right to it).

Detestable.

Galactor wrote:Yeah. You're supposed to give two shits about it.

I'm "supposed to" am I?
Pray tell who is "supposing" this and why should I give two shits?

Galactor wrote:And I can argue and opine in any way I fucking like. And if you don't like it, that's just too bad. Go and read something else.

You indeed can and no one need give a shit. And I can come here and say that.

Galactor wrote:You know what I really hate about people who don't know their military history? It's that they write shit equivalent to saying that your voice and opinion is worthless. Which is what you have done. And what jamest did. While he was mouthing off about how much sacrifice was made (presumably for him and you to have freedom of speech but to deride my right to it)..

Whereas I simply find individuals who think their opinions on military history should be treated as fact, are simply laughable.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

Sendraks wrote:

Galactor wrote:Yeah. You're supposed to give two shits about it.

I'm "supposed to" am I?
Pray tell who is "supposing" this and why should I give two shits?

Galactor wrote:And I can argue and opine in any way I fucking like. And if you don't like it, that's just too bad. Go and read something else.

You indeed can and no one need give a shit. And I can come here and say that.

GALACTOR
Here is my opinion.

SENDRAKS
Who gives a shit about your opinion?

GALACTOR
On a forum where opinions are proffered, Sendraks thinks his opinions are more worthy of consideration than others.

Sendraks wrote:

Whereas I simply find individuals who think their opinions on military history should be treated as fact, are simply laughable.

There are good arguments and evidence to substantiate the opinion that the guilty men were spineless. I have never held the position that it is fact that these men were spineless. I proffer the opinion, on a forum that is open to proffering an opinion, that these men, based upon certain evidence, can be held as being spineless.

And all Sendraks does is question why people should care about my opinions on a forum where people exchange their opinions!

Is it because they should care about HIS opinion and not mine?

That would be bigotry!

Sendraks wrote:
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

Gosh, what a brilliant plagiary.

Perhaps even Sendraks's opinions could be compared to assholes. Or are his opinions above everyone else's?

Galactor wrote:

crank wrote:I have incredible sympathy for what soldiers were put through in the absurdity that was WWI. The leadership all around should have been rounded up and mustard gassed. Of course, that's true of most wars, the soldiers are forced into slaughtering each other for the games of the elites. It's never noble, it's never admirable, there should be no memorials, no holidays, it should be a day of shame and ridicule.

Presuming that it is not meant to be satirical, I don't think I could hold more contempt for this post.

I have a great deal of contempt for those who think war and combat are somehow admirable, noble deeds. Do you want to defend that? Can you name many wars that were not a mass-slaughter of mostly the young and less well-off for the purposes of increasing the wealth and power of the elite? How many wars didn't involve the mass slaughter of innocents, usually for little to no reason? Even WWII, much of it resulted from BS, like the treatment of Germany after the stupidity and horrors of WWI, like what's been described above. A lot of the bullshit we're dealing with in the MidEast can be seen as stemming from the arrogant, ignorant, self-serving partitioning inflicted on the region post-WWI. The American Civil War, while a seeming noble cause, it still flowed from the ugliness of slavery along with the cowardice and greed of earlier politicians to deal with adequately, and the very few elites in the South that owned slaves wanting to keep their horrific institution, a slavery far more brutal and degrading than most historic forms of it. Don't think the Northern politicians didn't have a lot to do with prolonging the situation, just like they abandoned protecting blacks not too long after the war, there was plenty of self-serving accommodation for decades before the war.

Who do you think actually cares about soldiers more, the patriots who wave flags glorifying their service, their sacrifice, or those who try desperately to keep them from having to go to war in the first place? The biggest killer in the military over recent years is suicide, how noble is that? We're still blessed with way the fuck too many of the aholes and idiots that perpetrated the Iraq war, still subjected to their pontificating nonsense, shame and ridicule isn't strong enough, tar and feathers would help too.

Galactor wrote:
And all Sendraks does is question why people should care about my opinions on a forum where people exchange their opinions!

Well if you were offering an opinion, rather than trying to shout down those who disagreed with you via applications of snide condescension, you might be able to get a discussion going. As it stands, you're just on your high horse of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong."

Galactor wrote:Is it because they should care about HIS opinion and not mine?

That would be bigotry![/quote]

Cute strawman you're building.

Galactor wrote:Gosh, what a brilliant plagiary.

Perhaps even Sendraks's opinions could be compared to assholes. Or are his opinions above everyone else's?

Awfully sensitive about your asshol- I mean you're opinion aren't you?

You're the one who got up on his high horse, don't go blaming me if the thought of falling off bothers you.

crank wrote:I have a great deal of contempt for those who think war and combat are somehow admirable, noble deeds. Do you want to defend that? Can you name many wars that were not a mass-slaughter of mostly the young and less well-off for the purposes of increasing the wealth and power of the elite? How many wars didn't involve the mass slaughter of innocents, usually for little to no reason? Even WWII, much of it resulted from BS, like the treatment of Germany after the stupidity and horrors of WWI, like what's been described above. A lot of the bullshit we're dealing with in the MidEast can be seen as stemming from the arrogant, ignorant, self-serving partitioning inflicted on the region post-WWI. The American Civil War, while a seeming noble cause, it still flowed from the ugliness of slavery along with the cowardice and greed of earlier politicians to deal with adequately, and the very few elites in the South that owned slaves wanting to keep their horrific institution, a slavery far more brutal and degrading than most historic forms of it. Don't think the Northern politicians didn't have a lot to do with prolonging the situation, just like they abandoned protecting blacks not too long after the war, there was plenty of self-serving accommodation for decades before the war.

Who do you think actually cares about soldiers more, the patriots who wave flags glorifying their service, their sacrifice, or those who try desperately to keep them from having to go to war in the first place? The biggest killer in the military over recent years is suicide, how noble is that? We're still blessed with way the fuck too many of the aholes and idiots that perpetrated the Iraq war, still subjected to their pontificating nonsense, shame and ridicule isn't strong enough, tar and feathers would help too.

So much tripe that I hardly know where to start.

I'll begin with this:

I have a great deal of contempt for those who think war and combat are somehow admirable, noble deeds.

Is crank really suggesting that, for example, the actions of the so called "few" in the battle of Britain was not an admirable and noble deed and that contempt is warranted?

And that we shouldn't have memorials to the dead?

Perhaps crank should make a start by asking the members of the various old soldiers organisations whether or not there should be memorials to their dead.

Perhaps he should look them in the face while he tells them of his contempt for their sacrifices in these wars.

It really is contemptible what he has written.