Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "TimeGhost History" channel.

  1.  @davidw.2791  Indeed.
    2
  2. Incidentally, the United States practiced its own version of appeasement. It was called isolationism.
    2
  3. People love to forget how the Nazis got there. Without Hitler holding the party together they would have been just another fragmented German nationalist party. Hitler capitalised on economic hard times and did best during the hyper inflation period and the Great Depression. But his elevation to chancellor came with deals cut with conservatives. The left wing parties in Germany might have underestimated him but at least they opposed him. The conservatives argued that they were hiring Hitler (von Papen) to fight socialism, Marxism and communism. It was a deal done with the devil.
    2
  4. Ask why Benes capitulated.
    2
  5. What army goes into battle without an exit strategy? Only a stupid one.
    1
  6. I disagree with the conclusion. Pretty much everyone who criticises appeasement postulates that Germany could not have withstood a simultaneous war with Czechoslovakia and France, especially if Britain joined the fray. But it’s not possible to make that case. It’s equally possible that it would only have made for a longer war. Germany was mainly configured for a land war so it would have tended to play into her hands, particularly when the French strategy was built around the Maginot Line, which, itself, could not be effectively used to attack and in 1938 was far from complete anyway. Britain was a in a very different position. Insulated from the Continent of Europe by the Channel and with her defence mostly configured around her Navy and Air Force, she wasn’t really in a position to do much about it. Add to that the internal pressure from British nationalists (not just Moseley) not to get involved in another continental war, her rearmament was entirely configured for the defence of the realm. So too was Chamberlain’s responsibility: defence of the realm was his biggest concern. Finally there is the Czech response to invasion. The Czechs, for all the military power they supposedly had, did nothing to prevent it. Six months later, Poland resisted but by then appeasement was no longer being considered as a response and everybody knows what happened. So why did the Czechs do nothing? Why did the government of Benes capitulate when conventional wisdom says they should have stood their ground? Incidentally, be careful with the use of the term “democracy” when talking about pre-war Europe. Poland - often cited as an example - was a sham and most other countries were at least as bad. Only France was still democratic but she was unstable and governments came and went, making cohesive policy difficult. Remember too that Europe at the time saw Hitler as a lesser threat than Stalin. You have to look no further than the alliances of Spanish Civil War to see what they really thought. Stalin supported the Republic - as a lot of people did - but European governments supported Franco, directly or indirectly. That included Germany. So, even as late as 1939, the European powers and Britain were still aligned with Hitler, rather than against him.
    1
  7. It's only a mistake if you accept the Churchillian version of events (remember, he wasn't in Munich but he made sure everyone knew what his opinion was). Remember that Chamberlain and Daladier had one job: to act in the best interests of Britain and France and nobody in those countries believed that going to war over Czechoslovakia - a country which was far away and provided no resistance of her own - was in their interests. Why did the Czechs not fight back? The Poles did, despite knowing that neither Britain or France would have time to come to her aid. Secondly, there is this unfounded assumption that declaring war of Germany in 1938 would have pricked Hitler's expansionism in Europe. That is purely conjectural and without basis in fact. Finally - and most tragically - Munich and appeasement have been cited as the opposite position in every war the west has been involved with since. All that has ever produced is a litany of foreign policy failures (we're dealing with one right now). Anyone who thinks there are only two possible views here probably shouldn't be allowed out after dark.
    1
  8. Why did Czechoslovakia not fight? The Poles did.
    1
  9.  @vlanAlf  "Poland had France and Britain on their side Czechoslovakia had no one, their allies abandon them." Poland also knew there was nothing the French and British could have done in time. Secondly, what army just throws up its arms and surrenders before the battle, then blames someone else? I'm not accusing the Czechs of cowardice here either. The decision was made by those higher up. "Czechoslovakia government was informed that they are going to be blame for any potential conflict and will carry consequences (war reperations, embargoes etc.)." How is that any different from anyone else? And in the end, how much difference did it make? The Czechs were still badly treated by the Nazis.
    1