Comments by "Not Today" (@nottoday3817) on "Why Britain wouldn’t just let Hitler go East" video.
-
This is not a 'could be' this is a fact.
The history of the 1930s is taught from an anti-communist perspective, even here in Eastern Europe (for... obvious reasons). As such, many 'ugly' parts are burried under a thick rug of propaganda and idealism. Of course, you won't find any Western historian or politician admitting that they willingly helped Hitler to make a warmachine out of Germany the same way Russian historians are reluctant to aknowledge Ribentrop-Molotov. I mean, seriously, who would come up and say: "Hey, my nation proudly helped Hitler exterminate millions of people?"
However, you can do the job of a historian yourself and piece the puzzle back together. If you look in the dark annals of the early 1900s history, you can quickly realise that what Hitler did was, horriffyingly, nothing special. Everything from his racist theories to concentration camps to 'Lebensraum' were not singular to Germany. Lebensraum is nothing more than good ol' colonialism implemented by Western Europe for centuries. (Even Millenia if we include Romes expansion). And colonialism took some time to dismantle even after WW2: 'Belgians in Kongo' (Billy Joel reference to a real life reference). So you cannot claim that Lebensraum was something out of the ordinary with the times. Oh, and Italy had a similar concept too. Anti-semitism? Social-darwinism has been around since the late 1800s. It was widespread in the US and UK as well. Concentration camps? Second Boer War. And the Belgians in the Kongo, round 1. This is just the begining, showing that the ideea of Britain being incapable of helping Hitler out of some 'moral highground' consideration was pure and utter BS. Anyone defending it should have the same credibility as a Holocaust denier.
So, the moral framework existed. How about actions? Well, let's look again at the claim that 'Appeasement was born out of feear of another total war in Europe'. Oh, really? Then, if you are really afraid a nation could start a total war in Europe, would you allow that nation to remilitarise itself in the League of Nations conference of 1932? If you were afraid Germany would start a war in Europe, would you throw Versailles out the window in 1935? If you were afraid Germany would start a war in Europe, would you help them defend their opponents in a proxy war in Spain? If you were afraid Germany would start a war in Europe, would you hand out the industrial region of Czechoslovakia to Hitler for notihing but a piece of paper (not good enough to serve even as toilet paper), and, in doing so, ignoring all the please for an anti-Hitler coallition, INCLUDING GERMAN GENERALS THAT TOLD YOU ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS TO SAY 'NO!' AND MAKE AN ANGRY FACE? If you were afraid of a war in Europe, wouldn't you demand an advanced payment of Germanys debt? Wouldn't you put pressure on it's allies to stop trading with them? Wouldn't you stop your own aristocracy giving Hitler publicity and donations?
Plus, Germany was not the only British 'project' in this direction. Intermarium was also a British attempt to create a meatshield in Eastern Europe against USSR.
For as much damage as Ribentrop-Molotov had done to my Eastern European country, I would say the pro-Soviet historians still have better factual arguments for signing it than anyone could come up to defend this 'appeasement', but, again, I doubt you could find any 'reputable' sources to actually state this.
6
-
3
-
Well, as it's usually the case with history, it wasn't a single factor.
Perhaps the biggest problem for the US was Britains debt from WW1. If Britain fell, they couldn't help recuperating the money. Not gonna go into details of why not choosing Germany instead.
Another issue is logistics. Britain was easy to supply. They could just send the stuff to Canada (British territory) and be done without firing a bullet.
Now, for more details. It was a perfect financial/economic scheme combined with geo-political considerations. Britain needed two things to fight in the war: money and supplies. So the US companies and gouvernment bascially started a nice scheme. Britain was already buying supplies like raw materials or food from US companies, even without Lend-Lease. The US Gvt and banks agreed to lend Britain money. Britain would then use the loan to pay for US goods send through Lend-Lease and such, so basically the cash returns in the US. And, after the war, Britain would have to pay back the debt it took. So US would get twice the money it would invest in Britain, thus boosting its economy.
Now, about geo-politics and why getting involved directly in the war. A first thing would be securing the supply chains to Britain. On 'grand strategy', Roosevelt realised that the Monroe doctrine and the focus on Latin America became kinda obsolete. The European nations were devastated by economic problems (With France reduce to the status of a puppet state), so they could have made no pressure on the American continent. American nations themselves were not a threat to US plans in the region anyways (Maybe, mayyyybe Brasil could be a thick thorn in the side, but not one that could not be dealt with). However, US would stand to gain much more if they helped stabilise Europe as they could create a bunch of strong economic trade partners which would be de-facto dependent on the US to survive and thrive, giving US companies good opportunities for trade.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1