3 ms·

This takes a too limited a view of the situation. These decisions were likely made on far more more factors than one of purely material. Geopolitically Germany

by Guthur 6y ago

This takes a too limited a view of the situation. These decisions were likely made on far more more factors than one of purely material. Geopolitically Germany had the the advantage of singular national focus, it had no allies to coordinate with either strategically or tactically (at this stage). The UK and France were two very separate and independent states, who were not necessarily strongly aligned, there would have been a deep rooted sense of mistrust (which has existed for centuries). Another aspect is military doctrine; France had a decidedly defensive doctrine at the time, based of the perceived success of WW1 (the victor always fighting the previous war and all that). The UK military was also very much geared for holding onto an empire and not necessarily fighting large scale military operations across Europe. A decisive military strike was just not in the nature of the nations at the time, they lacked the necessary aggressiveness and sense of purpose to carry it out. All up the French and British were a little too risk adverse, rightly so I suppose because they had a lot to lose. Unfortunately taking no action was a decision as well and one that would cost them in the long run far more dearly than they might have imagined at the time.

stevula 6y ago
I don’t think the author is trying to make the point that the UK and France were right or wrong to pursue appeasement. Rather he is trying to debunk a very specific argument that they went with that strategy in order to buy themselves time to mobilize. In fact, they were not significantly more prepared for war in 1939 than in 1938 and ended up on worse footing, according to his argument. So I think your point stands, but we can also question when someone justifies the appeasement strategy by saying that UK/France needed more time to mobilize. In fact, they were probably more taking a gamble to see how things would play out.
DenisM 6y ago
> These decisions were likely made on far more more factors than one of purely material. That's the same point the author is making: If the decision was made based on logistics the war would have to have started in 1938. So the decision was made on something else and only rationalized later with the "time to prepare" argument.
- Guthur 6y ago
  Yes, I was being a little unfair to the author. Though I'm actually not convince there is any prevaling narrative that the goal of appeasement was rearmament, most narratives are that it was born from a policy of pacifism with a desire for geniunely avoiding a conflict that some in the UK felt could not be sustained. Churchill was very much a Hawk all through the 1930s and was pretty much ignored, Chamberlain was Dove through and through not playing some game buying time for a decisive strike.
lovelyviking 6y ago
> Geopolitically Germany had the advantage ? What do you mean by this? Why “ Geopolitically”?
- Guthur 6y ago
  UK was unlikely to take on Germany alone, it couldn't mount a unilateral invasion of Germany imo. Therefore the UK needed to coordinate with a foreign power (France) both strategically and operationally. There are some examples in the battle for France where comms and coordination between UK and France General Staff was pretty woeful. Germany made one agreement with USSR to divide Poland and then basically shipped it's Army around mainland Europe stomping everyone west of Poland.
lostlogin 6y ago
> Geopolitically Germany had the the advantage of singular national focus, it had no allies to coordinate with either strategically or tactically (at this stage). I’d argue this was an advantage to Britain, not a disadvantage. Many of Britain’s ‘allies’ did as they were told and while theoretically had control of their troops destiny, actually did not. Having supplies and manpower that could be built up and trained with little or zero threat of attack was very helpful.
- Guthur 6y ago
  Which allies are you referring to? those that made up the dominion of the empire such as Canada and Australia? then yes. But they can only really supply some troops and resources. The UK needed France and they were not nearly as cooperative with each other as you might think, and France had little to no interest in an offensive war.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    > The UK needed France If the war started early, perhaps. But later on, not really. Britain and the dominion had one hell of a lot of resources. There is a good book on this topic by David Edgerton titled ‘Britain’s War Machine’. It’s largely debunking the idea of the plucky underdog and shows the great strength of Britain relatively to Germany. It was more a question of how long it would take Germany to fall, rather than anything else. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13647996 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13647996
    - Guthur 6y ago
      An invasion of mainland Europe was tough. Not only logistically but also geopolitical, as hard is might be to believe there could be a large push back from an unilateral British invasion of Europe. Also the UK had great access to men and resources, definitely better on the latter than Germany. But did it have industrial capacity necessary is the question. Most of the manufacturing was concentrated in mainland UK, by design as that's how the empire made its wealth. The UK had to purchase a lot of both naval and land assets from the US.

by Guthur 6y ago

stevula 6y ago

I don’t think the author is trying to make the point that the UK and France were right or wrong to pursue appeasement. Rather he is trying to debunk a very specific argument that they went with that strategy in order to buy themselves time to mobilize. In fact, they were not significantly more prepared for war in 1939 than in 1938 and ended up on worse footing, according to his argument. So I think your point stands, but we can also question when someone justifies the appeasement strategy by saying that UK/France needed more time to mobilize. In fact, they were probably more taking a gamble to see how things would play out.

DenisM 6y ago

> These decisions were likely made on far more more factors than one of purely material. That's the same point the author is making: If the decision was made based on logistics the war would have to have started in 1938. So the decision was made on something else and only rationalized later with the "time to prepare" argument.

Guthur 6y ago
Yes, I was being a little unfair to the author. Though I'm actually not convince there is any prevaling narrative that the goal of appeasement was rearmament, most narratives are that it was born from a policy of pacifism with a desire for geniunely avoiding a conflict that some in the UK felt could not be sustained. Churchill was very much a Hawk all through the 1930s and was pretty much ignored, Chamberlain was Dove through and through not playing some game buying time for a decisive strike.

lovelyviking 6y ago

> Geopolitically Germany had the advantage ? What do you mean by this? Why “ Geopolitically”?

Guthur 6y ago
UK was unlikely to take on Germany alone, it couldn't mount a unilateral invasion of Germany imo. Therefore the UK needed to coordinate with a foreign power (France) both strategically and operationally. There are some examples in the battle for France where comms and coordination between UK and France General Staff was pretty woeful. Germany made one agreement with USSR to divide Poland and then basically shipped it's Army around mainland Europe stomping everyone west of Poland.

lostlogin 6y ago

> Geopolitically Germany had the the advantage of singular national focus, it had no allies to coordinate with either strategically or tactically (at this stage). I’d argue this was an advantage to Britain, not a disadvantage. Many of Britain’s ‘allies’ did as they were told and while theoretically had control of their troops destiny, actually did not. Having supplies and manpower that could be built up and trained with little or zero threat of attack was very helpful.

Guthur 6y ago
Which allies are you referring to? those that made up the dominion of the empire such as Canada and Australia? then yes. But they can only really supply some troops and resources. The UK needed France and they were not nearly as cooperative with each other as you might think, and France had little to no interest in an offensive war.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  > The UK needed France If the war started early, perhaps. But later on, not really. Britain and the dominion had one hell of a lot of resources. There is a good book on this topic by David Edgerton titled ‘Britain’s War Machine’. It’s largely debunking the idea of the plucky underdog and shows the great strength of Britain relatively to Germany. It was more a question of how long it would take Germany to fall, rather than anything else. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13647996 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13647996
  - Guthur 6y ago
    An invasion of mainland Europe was tough. Not only logistically but also geopolitical, as hard is might be to believe there could be a large push back from an unilateral British invasion of Europe. Also the UK had great access to men and resources, definitely better on the latter than Germany. But did it have industrial capacity necessary is the question. Most of the manufacturing was concentrated in mainland UK, by design as that's how the empire made its wealth. The UK had to purchase a lot of both naval and land assets from the US.