Aragorn2002

Here's what Peter Hitchen has to say on that; "But it is still true that an important part of the war myth, that the Left wanted to fight the Nazis, and the Right wished to appease Hitler, not just because he was strong, but because they actively liked his regime, is unsound. This view, well articulated in the Left Book Club’s 1940 bestseller Guilty Men, simply is not accurate, though it is still quite widely believed. By 1938, only a few eccentrics and wild men on the Right actively sympathised with Hitler or Mussolini. Many more (and they were not confined to the British upper class) originally saw Hitler as a possible ally against Stalin. But Stalin was no direct threat to British interests, and that fantasy finally dissolved with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Left was a ‘hero in safety’, demanding a policy for which it would not provide the men or the weapons. In the end, Halifax’s Polish guarantee forced that Left into support for a war it would once have despised. It did this through a series of very clever chess moves. First, it encouraged Poland to resist what might otherwise have been a workable compromise with Germany. Next, it manoeuvred Germany into an unwanted but unavoidable confrontation with Poland, a former ally. Finally, it obliged Britain to declare war on Germany, and Germany alone, if Poland did then (predictably) resist, and if Germany (predictably) reacted by attacking Poland. The manoeuvre made an entirely voluntary war look like a response to aggression and a matter of honour. Had Halifax or Chamberlain known that a Nazi–Soviet pact would be made in August 1939 or that France would collapse in weeks once attacked, they would never have done this. But they did not know, and so an attempt to reassert our position as a Great Power in Europe ended in a world war. And at the end of that world war, we were no longer a Great Power in Europe or anywhere else, and very lucky to have escaped having to sign a humiliating peace with Hitler. But the chess game worked well on its own terms. Opinion in Britain moved from reluctance to go to war to a grudging but definite feeling that Germany must be fought. The transformation was very extensive. Some of those who had been near-pacifists in early 1939, such as George Orwell, became warlike patriots, drilling with the Home Guard in the summer of 1940. Orwell was perhaps quicker than some on the Left to do so, because his experiences in Spain had alerted him to the real, cynical nature of pro-Soviet Communism. Those whose main concern had been the survival of the USSR became patriots a little later, in the summer of 1941, when Hitler invaded the USSR and turned Stalin, whether he or we liked it or not, into our gallant ally. The Left still like to think that the 1939 war belongs to them, that it was their outrage at Hitler which finally drove the appeasers into action. This is one of the reasons why they have since sentimentalised the war and falsified its history. But it is not true. It was in fact Neville Chamberlain’s Tories who rearmed the country and manoeuvred Britain into its first People’s War."

Neither am I by your comment.

Better read 'The war that had many fathers' instead.

I don't like Churchill either. I think Chamberlain had a lot more decency. But a lot less luck.

Yeah, that's pretty clear. For Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc only the last option remained. As Molotov must have thought during 1970s interview.

Until 1937 few people saw the necessity of rearming, since Germany wasn't a threat in any way. After 1937 Chamberlain made sure the British military at least partly recovered from years of neglect in a time that most left wing politicians were against his policy of appeasement, but also against spending more money on arms. No Spitfires without Chamberlain.

Not sure what you mean by so-called occupation. Are you by any chance Russian? The Russian attack on Poland was part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Stalin was smart enough to wait until the Germans had done most of the fighting.

Or English...

In my experience lots of books on ww2 are for the most part opinions and to a lesser degree based on new historical research, but I know what you mean. What I do like about Hitchen is his fresh, revisionist approach. While still reading his book I'm fascinated by his conclusions and hardly can put it down, which doesn't happen often to me. One example is his analysis of the British promise in 1939 to the Poles to defend Poland (itself territorially aggressive, despotic and very anti-semitic, even during the war the Poles in exile in London tried to get rid of the jews after the war) in case of an enemy attack. That promise was strictly aimed at Germany as was described in a secret protocol. When the Poles asked the British for help against the invading Russians in 1939, they were pointed to that secret protocol. Another known, but unpopular fact is that Chamberlain did much more to save Britiain, by building up the neglected British armed forces between 1937 and 1939, than all the Britisch pacifists, communists and socialists combined. Hitchen doesn't claim to bring new facts, but he sure gives us a lot to think about. Highly recommended.

Would be very interesting.

My bad. Forgive me. And thank you for correcting that.

Another recommendation with very refreshing insights: The Phoney War by Peter Hitchens. "Was World War II really the 'Good War'? In the years since the declaration of peace in 1945, many myths have sprung up around the conflict in the victorious nations. In this book, Peter Hitchens deconstructs the many fables which have become associated with the narrative of the 'Good War'. Whilst not criticising or doubting the need for war against Nazi Germany at some stage, Hitchens does query whether September 1939 was the right moment or the independence of Poland the right issue. He points out that in the summer of 1939 Britain and France were wholly unprepared for a major European war and that this quickly became apparent in the conflict that ensued. He also rejects the retroactive claim that Britain went to war in 1939 to save the Jewish population of Europe. On the contrary, the beginning and intensification of war made it easier for Germany to begin the policy of mass murder in secret as well as closing most escape routes. In a provocative but deeply researched book, Hitchens questions the most common assumptions surrounding World War II, turning on its head the myth of Britain's role in a 'Good War'."

Logistics and industrial capacity. Which is basically the same thing.

I understand, Dan. And you're right as usual. But it's hard to imagine a German victory in the east, even in 1941. Reaching Moscow would only have resulted in a super Stalingrad and a pyrrhic victory at best. Stalin had calculated the loss of his capitol and would through terror and mass executions have prevented the collapse of his regime. What most people underestimate is how well Stalin prepared his country for war. Killing many talented officiers may have weakened the Red army, but tightened his grip on his armed forces. Most Wlassows already lay in their graves when Barbarossa began. And only Russia could have beaten Russia.

And neither should I. But being married to a splendid and free minded Afghan lady in a time when we see city after city fall in a terrified country returning to the darkest middle ages I can't help thinking how little has been learned from two world wars. I apologize for derailing this thread, chuckdyke. My emotions got the better of me, as usual.

Indeed. In the meantime the Western Allies could have reached Berlin, Budapest and Vienna and keep Stalin's thugs out of Europe. But that was never Roosevelt's plan unfortunately. He was convinced Stalin was a democrat at heart. Another fact about Lend Lease is that the Soviets traded some deliveries with the Japanese in exchange for raw materials and such. With such friends you don't need enemies.

Based on Soviet information probably. Lend Lease was vitally important. It's incredible how much was delivered by Roosevelt to Stalin, without any payment or conditions. Thanks to the traitor Harry Hopkins it even included shipments of uranium 235!

Lend lease solved that problem. And others.

It's a lot more complicated than that. I recommend to read Stalin's Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt's Government and Operation Snow. Also The war that had many fathers. The US practically was already at war with Germany in 1941. Hitler just made it official, so to speak, which was indeed very stupid, but didn't change much. He was a reckless gambler and Barbarossa was his biggest gamble. The war was lost from the very start. Germany never stood a chance. Never. Not at any moment.

The grace of God most certainly had nothing to do with it. Rather the luck of the devil.

I think it looks superb. I love all this variety, so keep up the good work!

I agree. Bloody awful. As most dutch movies are.

Exactly my point, LLF. Same as you I know the stories well, heard many of them out of the mouth of people who've experienced the suffering, including some family members, who are now long gone. For the sake of not derailing this thread even further I will say no more, but it's clear we understand each other perfectly.

Kohlenklau, you....you...Gandalf!

By sacrificing yet another country to (communist) tyranny. Yes, sounds like a plan to me. Fortunately lesson learned as Afghanistan shows us.