question Neville Chamberlain

[Tony B]

Damm near happned and led to forty years of Cold War. But Paul, down your way, if Russia had been defeated, then sureley Japan, whether allied to Germany or not would have carried on expanding. What position would Australia have been in?

[ashley]

The basic idea of occupying the Sudeten land, Austria, Checoslovakia, (collective known as `The Flower Wars`by the Germans was also to return to the German Bosom territory lost through the Versilles treaty Poland was to return Brunswick (if my memory serves me right) mainly German speaking peoples.

 

As to Russia though there were great gains in regards to resources, and he obviously felt that he was `on a roll`maybe also spurned on by the positive result of the Russo -Japanese war of 1906 for the Japanese in knocking Russia`s title of a super power.

 

Japanese and Germany politico`s had great respect for each other`s fighting forces and had peaceful conferences on several occasions, Germany even managed to sell them a couple of panther tanks but i belive they never got them.

 

Maybe it was thought that by fighting the allies in the far East by the Japanese would maybe draw them away from the European theater ??

 

Ashley

[Shakey985]

Prior to Japan and America entering the war Hitler hoped that most of the Mediterranean states would stay neutral so protecting that flank.

He was happy for England to maintain its colonial states ie Suez, Burma, Singapore, Australia and Malaysia as part of the peace settlement.

But the Italians stuffed it up and he had to help them, then Yugoslavia changed sides.

 

I have 2 hats in this topic as I am a POM as well as Australian.

 

If America didn't enter the war we would of defended the Brisbane Line while we built up our armaments

 

North of the Brisbane line in the wet season, during that time,it was impassable, then during the dry there is no water. (Back to the Track)

So for Japan to sustain an army in the north would of been hard not imposable, then there is the Australians them selves who would have gone bush as we do so well to force them out.

[Tony B]

I think it proable America would have , well they did didn't they, enter the war against Japan. Simple self intrest. The US wanted Japan firmly in it's place anyway. There was similar situation to Europe of 'Phoney War' , embargos etc going on independent of any European nations.

[Shakey985]

Lets say that America didn't enter the war.

In 1941 there were no roads to Darwin only a track that was in places wheel ruts that followed the telegraph line from Port Augusta. A rail line from Port Augusta to Alice Springs and one from Darwin to Larrimah.

Another track from Mt Isa (QLD) to Tennant Creek (Three ways) all are passable in the dry season March to October.

North of a line from Rockhampton (QLD) to Broome (WA) is for most of the wet (November to February) are impassable, even in places were you would think its dried out June July its not.

Even now the road to Darwin is cut due to floods in places like Camooweal, Katherine and Adelaide River.

Back in 1941 there were a few cattle stations covering vast areas. there were more Crocs than the population of that area, so if the Japanese landed (They did land but in small groups) were would thay go.

On the East coast, Mossman or Cairns, they could of pushed down to Townsville.

Lest we not forget what we did at Kokoda by our selves, with an untrained Reserve unit, the mighty 39th Australian Infantry Battalion, that stopped the Japanese for the first time and then started pushing them back home, away from Australia.

 

But any way we were on Neville Chamberlain and if England hadn't entered the war, and there was a strong feeling with in the population that we should stay out of what was really Frances problems and the beneficiary's of the 11th November 1918 treaty.

[Tony B]

Given the Australian contribution to the Great War, I'd not have blamed them for saying 'fight your own war'. Fortunatley when the muck did enter the air conditioning, Australia and New Zeland carried on their tradition and made another huge comitment for population size.

[antarmike]

This day in history (well tommorow) 9th October 1940 Neville Chambelain resigns from the House of Commons. He dies of (bowel) Cancer 9th November that year.

[Snapper]

The big problem we are all suffering is the revisionism and modern histriography about the war, it's causes, etc etc. Shakey Paul quotes Liddell Hart, which is "old" history with his twist, while you might find yourself reading wholly newer works or watching stuff on TV. At the end of the war, winning the history was as important to the victorius protagonists as much as it was about real politik (which hadn't been invented in 1945).

 

I think it is good to follow Paul's example and read the old books which offer an evaluation prior to much of the documentation being released (especially in the UK) and then the modern stuff, revisionism and all.

 

I think Chamberlain was a weak politician. But his motive for Appeasement was to save his country and europe from another war. It has merit, but not if you are Czech or a Pole. We have been lead down the path that he was some kind of wimp idiot, suckered by the knave Adolf and that he bears a direct responsibility for the war. This ignores the rampant political chaos in France - the superpower - where as it tried to rearm, the unions were sabotaging factories to halt tank production - amongst other things.

Chamberlain was a pragmatist, he knew the west was not ready for a war. But of course he would have been seduced by the propaganda of burgeoning German militarism creating a huge unbeatable army for all time.

 

Chamberlain and co had seen what the Fascists had done in Spain with modern weapons. They had every reason to be poo scared. Britain, of course, hid behind - or counted on - depending on your viewpoint - the Royal Navy which was twice the size of both nearest rivals. But the writing was on the wall for powerful fleets devoid of air power.

 

Tha Japanese, too, were pragmatists and intensely dangerous as their culture and system went into meltdown. They could see that a still weak Britain could not hope to fight a war on two fronts and an alliance with Germany would help their ambitions. I would imagine they still thought their primary enemy would be the United States, and so it proved.

 

MB

[Tony B]

I see your points Mark. But, every time you read a book, you get the author's opinion. There is so much information that is researched, it has to be edited, and now I am preaching to the choir. The beauty of a thread like this is that people who do have a good mixed knowledge all contribute. I love reading and handaling original scource documents. Guy Gibson's book, 'Enemy Coast Ahead' published in the 1940's has cryptic refrences and 'the name of the scientist must be disguised'. We all know the story near by heart, and what happned afterwards. That's the other thing, be careful of judging with hind sight. The troubble with history is the facts are supposed to be 'Fixed', until documents such as those from russia suddenly appear. A qiuck one from Andy Robertshaw. he tells a story of interviewing a Great War vetran. The man told Andy he would tell him something he never knew. andy was suprised as he thoughjt he knew a fair amount about the misery etc, and thought that nothing he was told could shock him. then the Vetran said 'The colours'. That's the point most of us think of the Great War in black and white, but it was full of colour. Same with WW2 we don't nessacarily 'Think in colour'

If I can get onto HMVF I'll podst the vid of Andy telling the story.

[ArtistsRifles]

One of the cable channels had a program on recently with colour(ed?) film from WW1 It was fascinating to see for, as you say, I tended to think of WW1 in monochrome terms...

[Shakey985]

 

 

Review, By Paul M Sudul

 

While looking through a mate’s library for a book to read the authors name jumped out me as a leading historian of tank development and tank tactics.

 

First published in 1948 with a revised and enlarged edition in 1951, when he was able to interview those generals held by other than the British.

 

This book is written by a man that was there, and from notes taken during extensive interrogations of the surviving German Generals and staff, also the staff of officers not available, held by the British and other allied forces as soon as practical after the sensation of hostilities in 1945. He also had extensive access to documentation when questioning the prisoners’ and also indicates that he verified as best he could the details contained using direct quoits were possible.

 

It also gives you incite into the German Forces prior to the war and rise of Hitler, in there own word, the moral of the forces prior, during and near the end.

 

If there is one book that I would recommend on the history of the rise and fall of the German Army during the Second Great War (as my father would say) then this is it, as it has no Bull S*** in it, its written as soon after the event as possible from the facts as was presented to him.

 

It remove some of the stories that others have written and reinforces some that have done there research.

 

[Snapper]

I actually thought I was agreeing with the idea of stocking up on the "old" books because too much accepted history is fogging our minds. If we read all the 1960s histories of the Great War by extreme opportunists like Alan Clark or even the milder stuff from Lyn MacDonald, we would miss out on the wider picture. So I agree, it is important to read Liddell Hart or anyone else. He's a bloody good writer anyway, and in his specific case; he has suffered from being downed by the men who had the fortune to live longer than him who didn't agree with or like him.

 

I've been reading old books off and on. By that I mean the Paul Brickhill stuff and am about to start one of Monty's books. He knew all about revisionism - but I choose to read HIS words and not Nigel Hamiltons again.

 

A classic case of taking care is if you read anything about Rommel because we loved him. Try reading The Trail of The Fox by David Irving. All the British are idiots. It's a bit like watching Galipoli, whether deliberately or not you come away with the notion that only Australians died there. Subjectivity and Objectivity run a little close at times. So we should all keep up the good work. Thanks for doing the review, Paul. We should put it up front and I invite and encourage EVERYONE to dig out the "old" books - even the likes of the Longest Day or Reach For The Sky and give them a once over for a reappraisal - you'll generally find they are still bloody good, but guilty of being old. As always they were written for the audience of their time and not ours - because we are oh soooo clever aren't we! - and we know everything.

 

Tony - the thing about the colours has never left me since I heard it. Thanks a million for bringing it back to the surface. Teamwork makes this forum a happy home.

 

MB

[Tony B]

Family you get no chioce, Friends you can chose. I'm having trouble getting on the HMVf Help!, I'll post the vid of Andy. I will say that reading evryones comments and spread has made me change my views.