WHats the strategy in calling an election for BJ?

Drakon said:
I think Chamberlain was worse.
Click to expand...
No Chamberlain wasn't that bad actually, he was in a very difficult situation, it's easy to say now that he should have stood up to Hitler but Britain and France were not strong enough to do that then, this was subsequently proven by Germany's rapid defeat of France and the evacuation of British army from Dunkirk.
Boris Johnson is not dealing with Hitler or a powerful German army , everything is of his own making and his shambolic handling of it. Chamberlain has actually been very unfairly treated by history , it was easier for Churchill afterwards because it was already proven that you.couldn't deal with Hitler but Chamberlain had to try that first because nobody wanted a war .
 

I don't get the logic here.
They weren't strong enough in 1939, so they must not have been strong enough in 1938?
Maybe they weren't strong enough in either year, but in 1938 the Czech armed forces would have been on their side, far stronger and more capable than Poland's.
Germany hadn't signed the non aggression pact with the Soviets, who may well have intervened against Germany.
Between going to war in 1938 over Czech Republic or 1939 over Poland, 1938 had more plusses.

Chamberlain should have stood up to Hitler or gotten out of the way entirely and let Germany and USSR fight it out in Eastern Europe.
Why was he even there? He was in a difficult position partly because he had taken onto himself the task of sorting out the borders of Central Europe, something which Britain would not previously have considered their role. Remember in WW1 they debated going to war over the invasion of Belgium, on their doorstep.

Germany's success in 1940 proves nothing about a 1938 war, especially as their tank forces in the invasion of France included tanks produced in Czech plants.
 
Last edited:

The fact that most English people pay little attention to politics is one of the reasons they voted to Leave. Lots didn't bother even thinking about what they were voting for, just wanted to stick two fingers up to the govt.
Even though this has subsequently become clear, as has the fact that they were lied to throughout the campaign, as has the likelihood that the decision will have disastrous consequences, their continued lack of interest in politics means that Brexit will happen. Most other countries citizens would have forced a second referendum.
It's difficult to feel sorry for the English and Welsh public for this reason. It's the Scots and Northern Irish I feel for but I suspect they'll both leave the UK eventually.
An interesting decade ahead. Well for those of us who have an interest in politics anyway...
 


I agree that UK voters should think about these matters.

However, the majority view from the British channels' vox pops from all over England in particular is that people are completely fed up with Brexit and just want it over even if it means leaving without a deal.

There is widespread Brexit fatigue.
 

All of this is much easier to see in retrospect. When should other countries intervene militarily to stop aggression? Nobody intervened when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 to "protect" ethnic Russians in Abkhazia and South Assetia. Nobody intervened militarily when they invaded Crimea to "protect" ethnic Russians there. Noone has militarily intervened to stop their intervention in Eastern Ukraine. These are all posited as being on the side of ethnic Russians or Russian speakers. Is this appeasement?

Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938 was on the basis of "protecting" the ethnic German population there (who welcomed them). At the same time Poland was making demands for territory in eastern Czechoslovakia where there were Polish speaking majorities. All these borders and (some of the countries) were less than 20 years old and imposed by the Paris Peace Conference. Many were disputed.

Britain did not have any treaty obligations to Czechoslovakia in 1938 (although France had) and was probably limited in what it could do. Also overwhelming public (and press) opinion was against war. Chamberlain did subsequently try to organise a mutual defence pact with France, Russia and Poland but this was vetoed by the Poles who feared the Russians as much as the Germans. Also, both the French and British thought the Russian military had little to offer at that stage because of Stalin's purge of the officers. The Russians subsequently signed their pact with Germany.

British army recruitment increased substantially after 1938 and, importantly, the RAF was strengthened. But in retrospect not confronting Hitler earlier was a mistake.
 
Last edited:
 

In 1938 (or even prior), England were in no position to fight a ground war. And Chamberlain knew they didn't have the ability to conscript a large ground army and send overseas (they were just out of the Depression and post WW1). He also didn't have the US anywhere near willing to join - the opposite. When war was declared, there was a significant gap before fighting actually started in France and they were still wiped out pretty quickly.

He did authorise a ramp up of air and sea hardware and eventually that saved them from being overrun in the early stage of WW2. There is a good case to be made that if he had ramped up the army and not the airforce and navy, that they would have been taken out in the Battle of Britain. The strategic advantage for Britain over Germany in a war was that Britain had access to raw materials if they could keep sea lanes open. Germany didn't. So the only German tactic in any war was to build up early, hit hard and hope to win quickly. For Britain it was about surviving that initial phase.

While I don't think he was without fault, I also don't think he was the worst PM. He probably made tough decisions that laid the ground for Churchill to be a success.

As for the Soviet / German "non aggression pact" - I'm open to correction but the it is badly named as it was a lot more than a non-aggression pact. It was in effect a cooperation agreement with the aim of dividing Poland between them. It was probable that the Soviets would have gone that direction even if Britain had intervened earlier. It didn't help that the invasion of Czech Republic was welcomed by many of the people there.
 

But Chamberlain had no idea there would be that significant gap. He can get zero credit for that.

Yes, Britain increased its military resources between 1938 and 1940, but people are assuming in 1938 they would have confronted a 1940 level
Germany. But Germany was much weaker then too, it would have faced a two front conflict between France and Czechs, in that conflict Britain would not have needed the air defences of 1940.
In the gap the German strength was increased because of the munitions plants captured in Czechoslovakia in 1938 & the flow of materials from the USSR as part of the pact.

Britain's land army in 1940 was still small by Continental standards. Nobody expected Britain in 1938 to be fighting alone a ground war against Germany in Central Europe. So why was Chamberlain getting involved?
Stalin signed the pact with Hitler because he expected Britain and France to go to war versus Germany and so buy Stalin time to prepare for war with Germany.
If Britain and France had left Germany to its own devices re: Poland and Czech Republic, Stalin would have had to confront him earlier and certainly would not have signed a pact with him to supply resources and move his frontier forwards to a less defensible position. Britain and France could have waited for Germany and USSR to wear themselves out then intervened.

Or, they should have confronted Germany in 1938 along with the French, Czechs and with Germany also worried about what the USSR would do.
I don't see the case for not going to war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia and instead going to war in 1939 over Poland.

I'm still sticking with Chamberlain as a dreadful prime minister. And Lord North of the American War too.
 
Just watched Boris and Leo on the telly and I know Leo was being diplomatic with his comments about the supposed great Churchill but maybe from an Irish Leader he should not as from an Irish history perspective, Churchill was a blatant Terrorist. It was him that sent the Augillary's AKA the black and Tan's to ireland and gave them clear instructions to terrorise the People with murder and burning down towns and torture. Even the regular British army officer's complained about their actions to their superior's at the time. Churchill was not our friend and we should not apologise for calling his record out and maybe burst some bubbles about his greatness.
 

That would be a wonderfully diplomatic approach and would no doubt further progress on Brexit.
 

In 1938 the dispute was over the Sudentenland - an ethnic German region of Czechoslovakia. The Germans and Sudentans skilfully framed this as an ethnic rights issue and this got considerable sympathy (at least it neutralised a lot of hostility to them). It is the same way the Russians have framed the disputes and territorial aggression against Georgia and Ukraine more recently. Should other countries go to war over this? Is it only encouraging Putin in his ways? The answer to the latter is probably yes, but I don't think most people would see it as justifying military intervention (by their own country, at least).

Of course Hitler was only using the Sudeten issue as a ploy. The Czechs had built their military defences against the Germans in the Sudeten lands and when Hitler marched into the rest of Czechoslokakia the following years they were practically defenceless. And the Slokaks were at best ambivalent about this.

Britain had no pact committments to Czechoslovakia in 1938. The French had but abandoned them. The French from the point of view of military intervention were also weak. They had a much lower military spending than the Germans and what the did spend was on defensive strategies. The biggest beneficiary was the Maginot Line. But even leaving this aside, the prevailing French military orthodoxy was defence - this was a legacy of WW1 when their offensive tactics in the early years war were blamed for their appalling (and militarily pointless) losses, particularly in 1915. Even when war was declared in 1939 the French waited behind their defensive lines (apart from a few mild sallies) until the Germans attacked in May 1940.

Britain had a defensive pact with the Poles in 1939 - unlike with the Czechs.

Hindsight can fight many battles. Sure the Germans were stronger in 1940 than 1938 but they were still strong relative to the British and French in relation to a standing land army (and tanks) and airforce. I do think an earlier military intervention may have stayed Hitler - but at the time of the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936. It would have been against popular opinion though - which ranged from pacifism to anti defense-spending, to sympathy for the Germans ( overt and covert).
 
Early Riser said:
Britain had a defensive pact with the Poles in 1939 - unlike with the Czechs.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with anything else you have written but just pointing out they only signed that pact with Poland in March 1939.
No fundamental British interests were jeopardised by Poland being under German control, unlike say Belgium or France.
And Britain and France's ability to actually defend Poland was negligible. It was a voluntary pact which put Britain & France on path to conflict with Germany, thereby making it easier to Stalin to sit back.
If they weren't able or willing to defend Czechs in 1938, nothing had changed re: defending Poland in 1939.
The only thing that changed was British public opinion, but Chamberlain had no idea that that change would come.
 
Could the people who want to talk about the reasons for and against military intervention abroad, and the people who want to talk about the origins of WW2 please start a new thread. Please.


Neither a no deal exit nor an exit based on the WTA agreement will bring an end to Brexit dominating the news for a long time to come.

The WTA is designed as a withdrawal agreement and directly envisages a post withdrawal trade agreement being negotiated.

A no deal Brexit would mean that Britain would need to agree a framework for trade negotiations.
 
odyssey06 said:
If they weren't able or willing to defend Czechs in 1938, nothing had changed re: defending Poland in 1939.
Click to expand...

Agreed that nothing had changed - although the strenghening of the Navy and RAF did contribute in the longer term (would the RAF have withstood the Luftwaffe if the confrontation had come in 1938 -39?).

The defence pact with Poland can with some justification be viewed cynically. Neither the British or French were in a position to come to Poland's aid militarily in 1939 and they knew it. By that stage they were just buying time.

The Russians had been willing to join the Pact but the Poles rejected this because they believed that if the Russians came in to aid them they would never leave again. (Subsequent history fairly much justifies this belief). Anyway the British were wary and slow to conduct negotiations with the Russians as they didn't trust Stalin. And there was a certain belief that the Poles were at that time militarily stronger than the Russians as a result of Stalin's purge of the officers.
 
Had this very conversation at the weekend with a visiting cousin, undoubtedly there is severe fatigue in the UK regarding Brexit. Worryingly though, they do not seem to realise that "just leaving" will not put an end to the wall-to-wall coverage and the overwhelming demands of managing Brexit. Is no-one in the UK actually joining the dots on this?
 
BBC reporter suggested that Boris has the following plan. He will send a letter to EU on October 19th requesting an extension. This will be the letter dictated by Parliament. He will then send a follow up letter saying if they do give an extension he will behave like the neighbours from hell. He won't appoint a commissioner and he will veto everything etc. Cumming plan or what?
 

It occurs to me the best time for Britain to Brexit would have been during negotiations for a future EU Treaty.
But that would have required a consistent majority in Parliament biding their time to wait for that moment.
 

Agreed, but I referred to the views as expressed by people in vox pops.


You are right! I don't think anyone is joining the dots. Have you seen British news channels' coverage?

It is frustrating to watch.

They are so bogged down with the daily minutiae that they miss the big picture.

I have yet to see a decent programme/discussion/debate on the post-Brexit fall out.

So the persistent public view is that once we leave, there may be some short-term problems but nothing we cannot sort out, or that we should see Brexit as an opportunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register