holy king
Deity
wow. just wow.
when i got to the part where a supply ship with with fur boots and winter coats met the fleet in madagascar i was finally convinced that this wins the thread.
Most Epic Screwups in History?
- Thread starter carmen510
- Start date
- Status
wow. just wow.
when i got to the part where a supply ship with with fur boots and winter coats met the fleet in madagascar i was finally convinced that this wins the thread.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
wow. just wow.
when i got to the part where a supply ship with with fur boots and winter coats met the fleet in madagascar i was finally convinced that this wins the thread.
The article is hilarious. Someone should make a TV comedy series about the expedition
At the time France was in no position to fight, and neither was Britain. I agree they should have pushed the issue, in hind-sight. Neither would have attacked. It would have been just like Poland: the west sits on its behind waiting as Czechoslovakia gets over-run. Heck if the Germans had went on to invade Poland the same thing would have continued.
Not to mention that the Dominions told the British that they would not support a war over the Sudetenland and based on the Allied policy of national self-determination, the Germans had every right to the Sudetenland.
The Germans likely would have been defeated if the Allies launched an offensive in 1938, especially if the Soviets joined in (but at that time we didn't want that because of the idea that once they got into Eastern Europe they wouldn't get out). Granted British air defences were hugely improved during the intervening 2 years (both RAF and Radar), but a successful war on the continent was possible negating that problem.
Ideally the Germans would have gotten crushed in 1936 after the re-militarization of the Rhineland.
Not to mention that the Dominions told the British that they would not support a war over the Sudetenland and based on the Allied policy of national self-determination, the Germans had every right to the Sudetenland.
The Germans likely would have been defeated if the Allies launched an offensive in 1938, especially if the Soviets joined in (but at that time we didn't want that because of the idea that once they got into Eastern Europe they wouldn't get out). Granted British air defences were hugely improved during the intervening 2 years (both RAF and Radar), but a successful war on the continent was possible negating that problem.
Ideally the Germans would have gotten crushed in 1936 after the re-militarization of the Rhineland.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Germany was not prepared for a war either. Even if the Western powers had only declared war and did nothing to help, it would have complicated German preparations for the "real" war. Not to mention that they would not get Czechoslovakia's industry and military equipment served to them on a silver plate and that they'd alienate their later ally, the USSR (which started helping the Germans politically only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed). Without raw material imports and enough time to recover from the war with Czechoslovakia, they wouldn't have had the strength to successfuly invade Western Europe like they did in OTL.
There was still time to do something in 1938. The war couldn't have been avoided, but it could have been shorter and much, much, much, much less bloodier.
Of course I'd not be writing this now, because most of Bohemia and Moravie would have been totally devastated and their population reduced by the revengeful Germans. Tourists wouldn't be able to see much of Praque either.
In hindsight, it is clear that Munich was bad, but from the perspective of those involved, it was much more reasonable. In fact Hitler wanted them to resist, them giving in screwed up his plans.
There was no popular support for a war in 1938. Britain would be severely weakened without the support of the Commonwealth, the RAF was essentially negligible, France simply could not fight. Based on the Versailles ideal of national self-determination, Germany should have had the right to the Sudetenland. In fact the British had no intention of giving the Sudetenland to the Czechs after a war with Germany in 1938.
As well, the Germans only major actions at this point had been the re-militarization of the Rhineland and Anschluss, both viewed as perfectly reasonable actions for a German state to undertake. Yet, despite what Chamberlain said to the people, he did expect war, but it was not seen as a viable option at the time, and they didn't see how much more effectively that the Germans would use the time.
There was no popular support for a war in 1938. Britain would be severely weakened without the support of the Commonwealth, the RAF was essentially negligible, France simply could not fight. Based on the Versailles ideal of national self-determination, Germany should have had the right to the Sudetenland. In fact the British had no intention of giving the Sudetenland to the Czechs after a war with Germany in 1938.
As well, the Germans only major actions at this point had been the re-militarization of the Rhineland and Anschluss, both viewed as perfectly reasonable actions for a German state to undertake. Yet, despite what Chamberlain said to the people, he did expect war, but it was not seen as a viable option at the time, and they didn't see how much more effectively that the Germans would use the time.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Hitler was a delusional idiot. German military wasn't so eager to go to war, since the generals were generally prone to overestimating the military capabilities of the Western powers.
I don't think it was a reasonable decision even from their perspective. Churchill was against it from the beginning and his reasons were exactly the same as those I am giving you now.
Incompetence can hardly justify a clearly wrong decision.
Yeah, and under the same treaty, Alsace-Lorraine should have remained a part of Germany. Nobody gave a damn about it, it was only used to justify aggressive foreign policy.
Again, incompetence doesn't justify making wrong choices. There was nothing that prevented the Western politicians from realizing that appeasement was a suicidal policy. In fact, many people opposed it, just not those who were in charge.
That's why I nominate is as an Epic Screwup in this thread
You still neglect the fact that the British people would not support a war, and they could not prosecute a major European war without the support of the people.
The British military was completely unprepared for war, especially the RAF. Sure Germany was weak at the time, but you can't assume your enemy is weak. And Britain alone has never been a military force on the continent without their ally, which was in even worse shape then them. Add to that the Commonwealth staying out of it and the British still had to worry about the Japanese and Italians taking advantage of the situation.
And still Hitler's aggressive expansionism only became really apparent to the people after the invasion of Czechoslovakia proper, everything else was in protecting German people, which was viewed as acceptable. While yes, the government could and did see that Germany was going towards war (Chamberlain did), even with appeasement, but they bought time for the British military that had a lot more to worry about than just Germany, and France was vastly improved in the intervening year. Unfortunately Hitler did better.
Yes they SHOULD have went to war then, or earlier, but it wasn't unreasonable to make that decision at the time.
The British military was completely unprepared for war, especially the RAF. Sure Germany was weak at the time, but you can't assume your enemy is weak. And Britain alone has never been a military force on the continent without their ally, which was in even worse shape then them. Add to that the Commonwealth staying out of it and the British still had to worry about the Japanese and Italians taking advantage of the situation.
The difference: France won the war. The point is that the British would have given the Sudetenland to a German state anyways, peacefully or after a war.
And still Hitler's aggressive expansionism only became really apparent to the people after the invasion of Czechoslovakia proper, everything else was in protecting German people, which was viewed as acceptable. While yes, the government could and did see that Germany was going towards war (Chamberlain did), even with appeasement, but they bought time for the British military that had a lot more to worry about than just Germany, and France was vastly improved in the intervening year. Unfortunately Hitler did better.
Yes they SHOULD have went to war then, or earlier, but it wasn't unreasonable to make that decision at the time.
The Hartford Convention was a dead letter, you know. After the Treaty of Ghent there was no chance in hell of a reunification, and the assertion that they wanted to go back to the Empire is, well, lunacy.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Krushchev's Virgin Lands Program. It did everything right, and worked wonderfully at first...but overfarmed the land into dust. Crop rotation is not a hard concept.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Biased? Where? When?
If I wanted to be biased, I'd have started ranting about the French traitors who threw us to the wolves or something. I didn't. Sacrificing Czechoslovakia for nothing was obviously bad for everybody for the reasons I gave. It's a sort of tragic satisfaction to know that some light tanks the Germans have captured in 1939 in Czechoslovakia were then used during the campaigns in Poland and France.
The support was not much higher when the government declared war on Germany a year later, so I think this argument doesn't have much relevance to it.
We can speculate about the circumstances - let's say the British and French are more courageous - they say "no" to Hitler and instead make a deal with Czechoslovakia - the Czechs will give the Sudeten Germans a wide autonomy. Chamberlain isn't such an idiot as he was in OTL and he sells it as a great compromise.
Hitler is screwed - if he ignores the deal and invades Czechoslovakia anyway, there will be a formal declaration of war from France. This means that the USSR probably intervenes too (they had treaties with Czechoslovakia, but their help was tied to French intervention) and Britain will most likely follow suit. Alternatively, he backs off. Germany sufferes a diplomatic defeat, Hitler's position in Germany is slightly weakened and Germany doesn't get anything from Czechoslovakia. The West has more time to prepare, and so does Czechoslovakia and Poland. If the war erupts later, Germany will have much harder time winning it.
So? Germany was much weaker than it was in 1939, which means declaring a war against Czechoslovakia and the West would be something like a suicide.
As for the Western perspective: nobody had ever believed that Germany could defeat France in few weeks. They were not overestimating the Germans, they were UNDERestimating them, even after they saw what they did in Poland and Norway. They were not scared to death of German military might, they just didn't want to go to war because, well, war was unpopular at the time.
I am not saying the Western allies were ready to fight, no. I am saying that the balance of military strength in 1938 was much less favourable to the Germans, even if I discount Czechoslovakia, which would have been a tough nut to crack if it was allowed to fight.
And you base this opinion on what, exactly? Which sources say so? (You don't have to give me links or names, I am not RedRalph. Just a general idea.) The so-called "Sudetenland" had never been a country, it had never been a part of Germany either. It was a part of Bohemia/Moravia. In 1918, there was no serious discussion about that (not even remotely as serious as the one about future Slovak borders). Bohemia and Moravia had clearly defined historical borders since the medieval times. Given the fact that the Germans in Czechoslovakia enjoyed more civic rights than the Germans in Germany itself, I don't really think that anybody could justify giving Sudetenland to Germany after a VICTORIOUS war against the German aggressor. That would be really absurd: "We defeated you, but we will give your everything you want, here..."
For the third time: incompetence or stupidity doesn't justify anything. Anybody with a brain could see where it was heading - Churchill did as well as many other people. After the Anchluss, it was obvious that Germany wanted to expand.
Anyway, the fallacy of appeasment didn't die in 1939 either, it's been a part of British/French foreign policy ever since. Just look at what happened in Kosovo, Georgia, Israel etc.
Appeasement in any form is an Epic Screwup. Burke was right, when he said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Explain to me how going to war after annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia would have been better. In 1938, Czechoslovakia had a relatively strong and determined military full of young men willing to fight the invaders. In 1939, Czechoslovakia's army was demoralized, the fortified border areas were now part of Germany and Slovakia's loyalty was seriously compromised.
It was totally unreasonable to sacrifice the only devout ally with a relatively modern and strong military that the Allies had in Central Europe. Again, anybody with some military insight could see that.
I am sure that for some spineless politicians in the West who only cared about the number of votes they'd get in the next elections, instead of long-term well-being of their countries, it seemed perfectly reasonable to ignore common sense and sacrifice some "far away country" they knew "nothing about". But then again, incompetence is no justification.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Capitulating to Hitler, when he was weak, was an epic screwup and as a result we got a German army that now had the production capacity to wage war, and they did not even had to fight for it. If that is not epic, then I don't know what is. Neville Chamberlain proclaimed that he brought peace, when all it did was just make a war, when had they shown strength against Hitler, he would have not chance to get what he wanted. Making him much less of a threat. You just do not understand how bad a mistake it was to give him that.
holy king
Deity
i think the royal navy would have had a say in that...
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
but the French and Brits werent ready for a war then!!! they said it themselves. what use is it being morally upstanding when you are just going to get creamed anyway?
It was significantly higher after the German invasion of Czechoslovakia and with the invasion of Poland.
USSR support was unlikely.
They wouldn't have went in without ACTIVE western involvement which was NOT going to happen with what forces the French and British had. And the Czechs didnt want Soviet involvement, based on the likely correct theory that once Soviet soldiers were in the country they werent leaving.
To add that the Soviets only had access to East Prussia, Poland and Romania were unlikely to get involved, especially if it meant Soviet troops within their borders.
No because the Germans could beat the Czechs either way, and the West would not take the fight to Germany, just they did historically. Maybe you have a weaker Germany, but not weakened enough to save France.
They underestimated the Germans in 1940, but in 1938 the British were effectively alone, and had no RAF or radar to defend most of Britain. France was deemed hopeless and the Dominions said they werent fighting over Czechoslovakia.
The problem is the British didnt anticipate how well the Germans would build up in that period.
More popular support at home. The people only really turned against Hitler with the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Kristallknacht.
A much stronger RAF and established radar around Britain.
Support from the Dominions, which was essential to Britain.
A more prepared France
I am sorry, I am away for reading week and dont have my sources with me (didnt really expect this discussion this week). But I believe it was Chamberlains aide, and he said essentially: no matter what happened the Czechs werent keeping the Sudetenland. That and discussions with a man with a PhD specializing in 20th Century Europe.
It was a screw-up, but it wasnt the worst that was made in the lead up to WWII. They should have pushed aggressively with the re-militarization of the Rhineland. In that case the Germans would have been a pushover, with what the British and French had at hand.
Not to mention that based on prevailing theories at the time, Germany truly did have the moral right to the Sudetenland.
Napoleon had no way of defeating Britain in any reasonable time frame. And Russia along with most of Europe was just biding its time, and Napoleon knew that. His Continental program was doomed to failure, Britain had too many other markets.
Granted it was a major screw-up and probably had a huge impact, but not that decisive as France would have ruled the world.
To expand: Napoleon abandoned his plans to invade Britain after the Wars of the Second and Third Coalition started. At one point, he had well over 100,000 men training in Normandy and was building ridiculous numbers of smaller gunboats and transports to cross the Channel and invade once the French Navy pulled enough British ships away to the Caribbean in a feint attack, but the Royal Navy did not forfeit control of the Channel. This army was then used to attack the Austrians.
On the other hand, I think Napoleon could have been successful fighting Russia. By the time this invasion occurs, France is losing its edge in military organization and discipline (or, I should say, the rest of Europe is catching up), and Napoleon's tactics went from brilliant to mediocre towards the 1810's. Fewer and fewer clever maneuvers just straightforward, frontal assaults turned into bloodly slaughters. I've read theories that he had bad medical conditions that were distracting him, but I don't know if there is a significant consensus as to why his skills diminished.
I think it is being cocky and thinking "I am so great I will win no matter what I do."
While yes, the French could have dominated Europe for some time, the only people who liked them were the Poles, Italians, and a few German states. There was so much animosity that with British money supporting them, someone would fight the French, and eventually win.
Make no mistake, I believe his stupid invasion of Russia deserves a place in this thread, it just isn't to the extent that the one poster said.
While yes, the French could have dominated Europe for some time, the only people who liked them were the Poles, Italians, and a few German states. There was so much animosity that with British money supporting them, someone would fight the French, and eventually win.
Make no mistake, I believe his stupid invasion of Russia deserves a place in this thread, it just isn't to the extent that the one poster said.
The same strategy as those who support "negotiations" with Hamas or Ahmenajad.
- Status
Similar threads
