The American Spectator

Tim| 3.8.10 @ 8:41AM

If this were fiction no one would believe it. History lauds great leadership but generally under appreciates the role of great fools in shaping events. Thanks for the reminder Mr. Colebatch.

Alan Brooks| 3.8.10 @ 9:50AM

"Guilty Men, which created the enduring myth that the British Tories had been solely responsible for Britain blundering into the War disarmed, and the ill-equipped British Army being driven into the sea at Dunkirk."

The Tory Chamberlain bought exactly eleven months-- from 10/01/38 to 09/01/39-- for Britain to prepare.

Alan Brooks| 3.8.10 @ 3:48PM

Chamberlain probably did the best he could-- the limits of foresight reckoned with.

I changed my mind about Chamberlain, and Nixon;
Nixon's presidency was ruined by LBJ in advance. LBJ crapped in the bed and Nixon had to lie in it.

JimE| 3.9.10 @ 12:04AM

" Those too stupid to heed the lessons of history are doomed to vote for Obama".

Christopher Holland| 3.8.10 @ 6:28PM

Don't you ever bother finding out what you are talking about? Chamberlain did NOT talk about buying time, he talked about peace in our time, he thought a war could be avoided forever. Saying that it bought time is creative history, written after the event. And it is wrong - Germany benefited much more from Munich than the British and the French. Munich was a catastrophe, it led directly to World War 2. Your comments are, as usual, ridiculous.

David Jack Smith| 3.9.10 @ 4:27AM

"Munich was a catastrophe, it led directly to World War 2."

So, you are claiming that World War 2 was caused by Neville Chamberlain.

Hey, Chamberlain had eggs, bacon, black pudding, sausage and fried bread for breakfast that morning. That led directly to World War 2, too.

History. It's all so simple once you know the facts.

Well here's a fact. Chamberlain or no Chamberlain, Hitler was bent on world domination and the extermination of the Jews. The world at war happens with or without the Munich "agreement."

Stuart Koehl| 3.9.10 @ 9:03AM

Would that this were true. However, the respite between Munich and the invasion of Poland worked mostly to Germany's advantage. It allowed Germany to integrate the large Czech inventory of tanks (especially the excellent PzKw 38(t)) into their Panzer divisions, for the more advanced Bf.109E fighter to enter service, for the operational and logistic deficiencies revealed by the Anschluss to be rectified, and for Germany to mobilize more divisions.

The correlation of forces was more favorable for France and Britain in September 1938 than in September 1939. Moreover, after declaring war, France and Britain frittered away eight months in the Sitzkrieg or "Phony War", during which time Germany was able to assimilate the lessons of the Polish campaign and make up the very significant losses in tanks and aircraft that the Poles, against the odds, managed to inflict on the Wehrmacht. The German army was considerably stronger and much more battle ready in May 1940 than in September-October 1939.

So, while Labour's overt pacifism was a major contributer to the political environment that made appeasement a politically popular policy in the UK, it is false and revisionist history to say the Munich sell out "bought time for Britain to prepare".

basur| 10.27.10 @ 9:14AM

I am not surprised that none of this was mention.

Bostonian| 3.8.10 @ 9:01AM

I agree with Tim -- thanks for the article. After Churchill led Britain to victory in WWII, the British sacked him and voted for Labor -- led by Clement Attlee.

Steve Davies| 3.17.10 @ 6:39AM

It's Labour, not Labor. The Labour Party is a British political party, not American, so spell it correctly
please! Why I am surprised by this error in a Spectator debate I don't know.... but I do continue to read it in the vain hope that the US will stop being an insular, arrogant waste of oxygen. It hasn't yet.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 9:04AM

Well stated, Tim.
One thought: If we "restorationists" cannot prevail in November 2010..........and then follow through with a vengeance, we are going to see the US follow Britain down the tubes, or ...we are going to witness a massive citizen revolt.

I woke up this morning with my very first thought being: "Pushback is going to be a bitch!"

Roy| 3.8.10 @ 1:18PM

We are never going to see a "massive citizen revolt". Too many are on the government's payroll. What we see now is as big as that will ever get.

Alan Brooks| 3.8.10 @ 3:43PM

Roy knows social progress is finished.
And people want to give thousands to each of their wealthy grandparents, but they don't like govt??

JP| 3.8.10 @ 11:15AM

One of the myths about the The Battle of France was the notion that the allies were out-manned and out-gunned. France can complain all it wants to and revise history to its liking. But a cool assessment of the campaign fought in May-June 1940, dispels much of this.

Man for man, and tank for tank, theAllies were equals to the Germans. In many respects, thier equipment for superior to the Germans. The Wehrmacht grew from a force of 7 infantry divisions in 1934 to 65 infantry divisions in 1939. Only 11 mechanized of those were mechanized (9 Panzer divisions, 2 motorized infantry divisions); the vast majority of its supplies were delivered by horse drawn carts; and in many cases its 1st line infantry division had significant problems when compared to its French and British counterparts (This should be expected of any Army which expanded at the rate the Wehrmacht did). The French Somua, and the British Matilda were superior tanks to the German PzKw IIIs and IVs, and many German infantry regiments lacked heavy weapons (again, this was to be expected). When German infantry encountered Allied infantry, the Allies usually gave a good to very good accounting.

The Allies problem laid with tactics, and the use of armour. That, and the German Army was staffed with young, exceptional mid level officers who spent 2 decades not only learning why they lost WWI, but studying how to win the next war. The big difference was in the use of armour (what is ironic was the fact that the idea of the deep armour thrust orginated in Great Britain; strategic air power with the US, and combined arms with the USSR. The Germans adopted foreign ideas much better than did the foreign nations). The Germans, under the guidance of men like Guderian, and Lutz created a force of combined armour, motorized infantry, and mobile artillery into one cohesive unit, that had the ability not only to overwhelm opposition but act independently of higher command (the Germans, contrary to popular belief, demanded that commanders and junior level officers alike take the initiative when oppurtunity afforded itself). Rommel was probably the best example.

Luck also played a big role in the campaign. Everything that could have gone right for the Germans did, and about everything that could have gone wrong for the Allies did -that is until Hitler's famous Halt Order near Dunkirk.

The British had a small professional army which goes back to the days before Wellington. Some of the finest infantry outfits in the World (The Irish Guard, the Scottish Highlanders) owe much of thier success to the fact that thier numbers were small, and their training exceptional. The one time the British expanded thier rolls through conscription (WWI), the results were less than pleasent. Many people forget that it was the small, professional force of the UK (the BEF) which turned the tide against the Kaiser in September 1914.

Roy| 3.8.10 @ 1:16PM

Maybe they were "equal" man for man, tank for tank, but all that means is that if Neville Chamberlain had not caved to the Left they would have been vastly superior.

And maybe still lost, of course. We'll never know that.

JP| 3.8.10 @ 2:44PM

You cannot seperate the French from the English (as far as thier alliance was concerned). Politically both nations chose to ignore Hitler and the threat he created. However, to thier defense, their thinking as far as Germany was concerned was very much stuck in the Victorian Era. As cynical as Bismark was,he was no Hitler. Even in the darkest days of 1916, the Allies knew there were "Good Germans". Despite what reporters like William Shier wrote about the Nazis, the political and military classes never really understood what kind of revolution was taking place in the Reich between 1933 and 1939. It all happened so quickly.

KevinMeath| 3.8.10 @ 5:13PM

Enjoyed the post, think you are giving to much credit to the BEF 'Old Contemptibles' in 1914, Their performance was out of all proportion to their tiny size was very important but the French did do most of the fighting. The Conscript army by 1918 was after several years of bitter experience a very effective force.

Stuart Koehl| 3.9.10 @ 9:12AM

JP is on the mark in his assessment. The principal German advantage was not in materiel, but in doctrine and training. The British army had a superior tank in the Matilda Mk.2, and was motorized to an extent never reached by the German army in all of World War II. The French likewise had more and better tanks than the Germans, and more aircraft, most of which were at least equal to German types.

But the Germans had a mature and well considered combined arms operational method, as well as a more aggressive and flexible style of command and control. One decisive factor overlooked by many historians is the German superiority in radiotelephony. While the French and the British were still reliant upon land lines, the Germans had gone all in for 2-way radios. Every German tank had one, while in the French and British armies, only platoon and company commanders had 2-way radios, and many tanks had no radios at all. German generals commanded their forces from radio-equipped half-tracks and tanks, which allowed them to maintain better situational awareness and intervene at the decisive point, again and again. At lower echelons, German officers and NCOs of all ranks were trained to take the initiative, rather than wait around for orders, meaning that fleeting opportunities were seldom missed--in contrast to the Allies, who were unable to respond quickly enough to exploit German mistakes.

All of this goes, among other things, to demonstrate that technical superiority is seldom decisive and conveys only a fleeting advantage; victory goes to the side that knows how to put together the available tools in winning combinations.

DaisyW| 3.8.10 @ 11:57AM

Winston Churchill was a warmonger and an egomaniac and that is what drove him to war against Germany and the ultimate destruction of the Great British Empire and the death of millions upon millions of people. It was good that he was finally kick out of office but by then it was too late. The biggest mistake the British people ever made was going to war against Germany.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 12:32PM

Daisy, hi.
Are you German?
Do you speak German?

You are honestly too dumb to debate.
Please do not embarrass yourself further.

DaisyW| 3.8.10 @ 12:43PM

Thanks Old Texican. I will continue to debate and I would suggest you do some reading of history. Reading may not be a required skill where you come from but I would highly recommend it.

Thanks again!

Alan Brooks| 3.8.10 @ 3:39PM

Daisy, you were born too late-- you can't suck Hitler's dick.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 7:11PM

Alan,
That was your best post to date.
I'm still spilling my wine laughing.
Good one!

darcy| 3.8.10 @ 7:21PM

DaisyW:
Your conclusions are unfounded and betray an abysmal lack of knowledge as well as a peculiarly noxious revisionist bent.
Moreover, your comments are intended to incite and vex, not to shed light.
Begone.

Ted| 3.9.10 @ 8:54AM

There's hope for Alan yet!

njoriole| 3.8.10 @ 5:11PM

No Ken, et al., Daisy isn't (or may not be) a German; she's probably a Pat Buchanan-ite. You know, Pat "The Unneccessary War" Buchanan, who asserts that WWII was entirely the fault of Churchill (and the Jews themselves). This is, of course, an absurd and disgusting historical revision, but one that is not altogether unexpected from certain circles, especially ones that are determined to draw particular conclusions about current events (eg, those nasty, war-mongering Israelis). According to Buchanan (and his acolytes like Daisy), the world would have been SO much better off if only Britain and the US had JOINED Hitler in his glorious crusade against Stalin. Well, we'll never know of course, but somehow I doubt it.

Stuart Koehl| 3.9.10 @ 9:13AM

How odd that Buchanan can denounce World War II as immoral and unnecessary while at the same moment extolling the Mexican War as one of the few "just wars" waged by the U.S. There is a certain Alice in the Looking Glass feel to the man.

KevinMeath| 3.8.10 @ 5:20PM

Churchill wasn't in power when Britain declared war on Germany. Chamberlin finally declared War after betraying Czechoslovakia because he believed it was a cost worth paying to avoid the millions of deaths a war would cause. He disliked Hitler but also misjudged him assuming he could be bought off, he was wrong Hitler wanted war. Hitler needed a war he had built up a war machine it had to go somewhere, he also believed in War.

martin j smith| 3.8.10 @ 12:10PM

The history of politics and war in Great Britain should be required study in High School and up . Of Course it will never be--too much contradiction to the Left's dogma But, I think a movie about the disastrous results of appeasement could be very helpful and instructive. And, the British seem to have learned nothing from their own history. Its time for a review of what happened then because BHO and his advisors are leading down to another disaster.

DaisyW| 3.8.10 @ 12:51PM

Can anyone tell me how many people actually died as a result of WWII? Also how many people died at the hands of Stalin and the number killed and enslaved as a result of the cold war?

Do any of you actually know this information. Come on Old Texican you must know this.

Roy| 3.8.10 @ 1:14PM

Um..millions? Any particular point?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 7:19PM

Gosh, Daisy, I don't know how many people died as a result of WWII. Can you tell me?

Cold war? Gosh I don't know. Can you tell me?

Enslaved? ............I am shocked.....shocked... who was enslaved? Gambling? I'm shocked!!!
(Casablanca folks)
Please tell us uninformed persons, Daisy...please.

Stuart Koehl| 3.9.10 @ 9:36AM

I can, though it's a rather pointless exercise. Approximately 80-100 million people died in World War II as a result of combat or from disease or starvation resulting from military operations. The majority of these were civilians; most of them were Russians and Chinese.

Stalin was responsible for the deaths of some 20 million people (exclusive of World War II), between the 1930s and 1953. Mao Tse Tung was responsible for killing upwards of 60 million in the Chinese Civil War, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Figures for the Kims of North Korea are not available; Pol Pot did in about 2 million. The brushfire and proxy wars of the Cold War period accounted for perhaps 2-3 million more.

Stalin was right: one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

Roy| 3.8.10 @ 1:13PM

So, the Left fought the Right, while the Right fought the war. When it looked like the war was going badly, the Left blamed the Right to the roaring cheers of the media, "historians", and the credulous.

Sound familiar? Iraq, maybe?

JP| 3.8.10 @ 2:49PM

Actually the Left fought the war and won. It was one of the Left's crowning achievements. And Leftists were great Cold Warriors compared to Conservatives. Eisenhower was a quiet agnostic, and Nixon wanted Peace with Honor. Reagan, was nothing more than a New Deal Conservative (in the words of George Will). Truman, JFK, and LBJ waged the Cold War pretty well.

bernardo| 3.8.10 @ 1:16PM

This is yet another example of the successful use of the big lie by leftists. We in America are seeing a version of the same thing with respect to the Cold War. Our domestic leftists are saying either that the Cold War was no big deal (despite having said right up to the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union that it was so powerful that it could never be defeated ) or that it was won by a strong, united consensus of Americans of all political parties and beliefs – ignoring the fact the Democratic Party was AWOL from the struggle from the mid- to late 1960’s on and that much of the American left was actively anti- anti-Soviet at least from the mid-1950’s on.
It is useful to remember the tactic and the lack of respect for truth when listening to other big claims from the lefties, on global warming for example.

Joe| 3.8.10 @ 3:19PM

I am not surprised that none of this was mention. The truth when inconvient to LEFT WING NUTS LIKE OBAMA, COPYLEFT AND FOOT are never mentioned.

KevinMeath| 3.8.10 @ 5:05PM

Judging peoples actions and opinions during the 1930's from a 21st century perspective is to say the least a dodgy practice. I would love to think that I am completely anti-nazi and if I were around in the 1930's I would have fought them all the way, if I did the biggest anti-nazi forces were the communists, would I joined the communist party? I would like to think not but who knows. The USA was staunchly isolationist, how many conservative American held that opinion? and how many welcomed Hitlers anti-communist stance? I am honest enough to realise if I was born at the 'wrong' time in Germany I would ,most likely been a Nazi. I would like to believe that I would have joined the (very small) underground but the son of a public official most likely seen him ruined by the 1920's. Patriotic enough to have a sense of hurt pride about Germanys defeat in WWI --- no doubt quite happy to hear extremist parties claim that there was no such defeat but rather a stab in the back by democrats/communists/catholic/jews/gays etc. Plus away camping, enjoying the countryside and playing sports , with my teenage ego being massaged be told how bloody wonderful I was. So its the Nazi party for me! Very glad I wasn't born then decades later and can approach middle age without the slaughter of WWII, but facing a different set of problems.

Stuart Koehl| 3.9.10 @ 11:46AM

A quick read through Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" will show that many Americans are still prone to the totalitarian temptation, whether from the left or the right.

Rich Rostrom| 3.8.10 @ 7:16PM

KevinMeath: "the biggest anti-nazi forces were the communists..."

At certain times, yes, but at other times the Communists were de facto or even explicit allies of the Nazis.

In Weimar Germany, the Communists (at Moscow's direction) devoted most of their energy to attacking the Social Democratic Party, which they labeled "social fascists". They refused to join or support any coalition government. Since the Nazis and Communists had over half the Reichstag seats between them, this made parliamentary government impossible without the Nazis. The Communists openly welcomed the Nazi takeover - it would trigger the great revolutionary struggle which of course Communism would win.

Then for a while in the mid-1930s, Communists joined "Popular Fronts" to oppose Nazism and fascism.

And then in 1939, Stalin made his famous deal with Hitler. Communists became vehement foes of the "imperialist war" against Germany. The CPUSA incited strikes at U.S. plants producing war goods for the Allies, and Pete Seeger recorded an album of anti-war "folk songs".

Then Hitler invaded the USSR. Then (and only then) did Communists all become dedicated enemies of Nazism.

Kevinmeath| 3.9.10 @ 12:39PM

Fair point, perhaps I wouldn't have had to become a communist -- who I would be no fan of and always found their devotion to Moscow pathetic, but my main point is its easy to have 20:20 vision with hindsight. I do take your point however.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 7:27PM

OKOK!
This thread has gone ......."Daisy". ie: stupid.
Daisy is stupid. Answering her is stupid.
(On the other hand, heh, laughing at her is sorta' fun.)

MisterB| 3.8.10 @ 8:35PM

Chamberlin was the Prime Minister when England declared war against Germany on Sept. 3, 1939. Churchill was not even in the cabinet at that time. He was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty on Sept 3rd as part of the new War Cabinet. Chamerlin remained PM until May 1940 and Churchill replaced him at that time.

darcy| 3.8.10 @ 9:11PM

MisterB:
Please note that it is C h a m b e r l a i n, not Chamberlin. Cordially, darcy

Bassboat| 3.9.10 @ 10:32PM

Were the Allies lucky that Chamberlain caved to Hitler in Munich? Of course we'll never know but if Hitler had been deterred for a couple of years by Chamberlain, that could have been a disaster in the making. Imagine Germany with jet aircraft, atomic bombs and time to further hone its infrastructure. These are just "what ifs", I understand that but it has always been an idea of mine to write a book about World War II if it had been started in 1942 or '43. Of course a more patient Hitler could have done that himself but narcissists want immediate gratitude. Had Chamberlain gone to Munich with guns a blazing and forced Hitler to back off it is my contention that the world have a far different face.

greg| 3.11.10 @ 2:59AM

Well done! Nice shoe

MKV to iPad| 11.15.10 @ 8:39AM

MKV to iPad is the best solution to sharing MKV files on iPad. As we know, the newly developed iPad can only surport MP4 format, so if you want to play MKV video on iPad, you have to convert MKV to iPad with an additional software.My personal recommendation is to use this MKV to iPad Converter. The biggest difference between this all-in-one MKV to iPad and other similar ones is that it can not onvert general video format to iPad, but can also convert HD video to iPad for sharing high-defination video everywhere mobile movie theater.

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 11:57AM

This is the best post on this topic i have ever read.I am really very impressed with it.Keep bloggingmesothelioma attorney

yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 2:49PM

HI YANYAN IN WHAT WAY THAT YOU IMPRESSED THE TOPIC ABOVE?

malibu real estate| 10.11.11 @ 2:11AM

This post creates great impression into my mind, the explanation, content quality, purpose are very good and very much helpful.

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:38PM

This is a good post. This post gives truly quality information. I’m definitely going to look into it. Really very useful tips are provided here. Thank you so much. Keep up the good works.zoloft lawsuit

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 8:47PM

Your work is very good and I appreciate you and hopping for some more informative posts. Thank you for sharing great information to us
yaz recall

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 12:38PM

Thanks for the posting. Loads of excellent writing here. I wish I had found this site sooner
L Tod Schlosser

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 10:43AM

Great, thanks for sharing this blog post. Fantastic

silver spot price

wow| 10.17.11 @ 1:05PM

Great thanks also to those people share their comments about this article.
actos lawsuit

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 9:01PM

Well written article on your website, thank you for sharing the information, I will come again. Best wishes for you!

fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:27PM

I also like posting comments because helps build community.
actos lawsuit

love| 10.20.11 @ 5:43AM

I am trying to run my own weblog but I think its too normal and I want to focus more on smaller topics. Being all issues to all folks just isn’t all that its cracked as much as be
Actos side effects

yanyan| 10.20.11 @ 4:24PM

accident attorney dallas

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 1:36PM

Hi, There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points.this is very useful information. I actually appreciate your own position and I will be sure to come back here.

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:55AM

Admiring plenty of time and energy you'd put within the blog and more information you are offering!

filipina girls

chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:31AM

Will be sure to come back again and bookmark. Keep up the great work!! Thanks a fortune for sharing, love your web site and content, it was wonderful to read.

zoloft lawsuit

Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 4:02AM

I found so many interesting stuff in your blog!! especially its discussionLaugh ing From the tons of comments on your articlesSmile I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment hereSmile Keep up the excellent work!!
mesothelioma lawyer