Growth is useless without man, they will can sustain their losses?
The apathetic mindset in French army/politics was linked to losses in ww1. UK and France had demographics frozen.
Theres already talks about UK empire in crises in 30's, thats why they feared the spread of communism, they also got hit by great depression.
The Reich ecomics recovered much better than UK.
I don't see neither UK or France as strong, but as old man hit by WW1 and carried by a lot of siblings.
The video argues that yes, by 1941 UK and France would exceed Germany in both manpower and equipment.
There were some opposition, as all democracies are naturally oppopsed to war, but it wasn't as one-sided. Chamberlain misjuged 1938 but had he considered he had the power or seen the total implications of what Germany taking Czechoslovakia would mean, he would have supported Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain didn't abbadon Czechoslovakia out of a desire to abbadon Czechoslovakia. If anything, his true desire was to support Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain abbadoned Czechoslovakia out of a belief that this was impractical since UK and France were still building their forces.
While the French PM was all in favor of protecting Czechoslovakia. In fact he called the ones opposed to it "fools". But the French parliment voted against protecting Czechoslovakia by just 1 vote. Imagine that, just 1 vote could have changed the course of history. Talking about the butterfly effect.
While UK feared communism, their main enemies were always Germany, Italy, Japan. Namely, an alliance between these 3. They wanted to avoid an alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan towards Britain at all costs. Therefore why they tried to appease Germany and Italy at some points. Hoping, that after getting enough at least one of them would be thankful and stop with their warmongering ways. For Italy he thought it was Ethiopia, after Albania he realised that wasn't enough. For Germany it was Austria, after demanding Sudetenland he realised that wasn't enough. It was really then when appeasement died, the rest was just buying time.
Not really, the Reich's economy was a paper tiger. Streteched to the maximum and only sustained by constant conquests.
That's not really how UK or France were.
@
Gran Strategist
l'll give it that, it's apologetic, but does make a lot of sense within the context and considering his actions, as well as his private letters showing these were his feelings. Rather than the naive appeaser he's made out to be.
It was an interesting situation that France could hardly do much without Britain and Britain could hardly do much without France. They both had to trust the other, either they both get into the war or they get into the war at a significant disadvantage, which is why they hold back in some areas, they were anxious whether the other would follow. Since it was all about national self-interest.
Yes, originally, that was the plan after WW1, but Germany, Italy and Japan became a growing threat in the interwar. And after Austria and Albania they became the main threat rather than USSR. UK considered working with USSR as early as 1938.
Yeah, appeasement never seems to work in my opinion as well.
Chamberlain never had any illusions about Germany being "good". But the hoped to avoid a German - Italian - Japanese alliance which would really threaten UK if France wouldn't intervene, so he tried to play both sides, when it was clear after Austria and Albania that both sides can't be played, he switched from appeasement to just buying time.
I don't think he made the right call, the right call would have been supporting Czechoslovakia in 1938, but he made one of the best calls he could have made, his only real fault was starting the war in 1939 when it was really the worst possible moment you can start the war, talking about bad timing. But these things are very difficult to anticipiate, it's easy to criticize him with handsight, but this was very difficult to predict at the time.
I agree with you that he would have made a better peace time prime minister. But I don't think his war time as as terrible as today's general consensus makes it up to be, he adapted after he saw appeasement can't work, the 1938 was a misplay but it was very difficult to see the right move at that time, and buying time would have worked in theory but he stopped following his original course and misplayed right in 1939. It was a combination of bad luck but I don't think we can attribute it to general incompetence.
Churchill supported both defending Czechoslovakia and an alliance with USSR as early as 1938, so he would have been a better PM than Chamberlain. But Chamberlain wasn't as set in stone as today's general consensus makes it out to be either, he hated communism, and that may have clouded his judgement, but in spite of this he was still willing to talk with USSR about an alliance in 1938. Churchill would have been just more assertive about it.
And alliance how? Poland and Romania hated communism as much as Chamberlain if not more so they would have never allowed USSR troops through their territory.
I don't think it was a reactionary action but rather his main plan of action. That was the plan all along, he just changed it in 1939 much to his own downfall.
Yes, Hitler was indeed bluffing in regard to the Rhineland, but there were hopes that if given what they want, the Germans will come back to a quote "European community" and leave the potential alliance between Germany - Italy - Japan since they already got what they wanted. He indeed misplayed it here. He should have read "Main Kampf" which made it clear Hitler was not going to stop there.
Yeah, I remember reading about Germany's shock and Hitler's initial thought that they lost the war. And if France had advanced, they would have indeed lost the war. But at that time the Allies were still following the "buy time until 1941" strategy despite already declaring war over Poland. "Inflexible Strategist" as the Hoi4 general trait.
I agree that Germany was lucky to have succeeded in its conquest of France. The German army was clearly supperior to the French one, just not that superior. It's not as easy as in Hearts of Iron 4. But having to be lucky all the time just won't make for a good WW2 game so they made France weaker to always lose.
They still followed the 1941 plan. But the irony of the matter is, not following the 1941 and wanting to advance into Belgium was what made the encyrclement possible to being with. It's such a string of bad luck. I would argue bad luck over incompetence because it was difficult to predict. What were the chances that the Germans would invade with tanks in a forest area because they are on drugs? even when I say it out loud is ridiculous.
Turns out, still trying to buy time when you're in a war doesn't work.
Action works, even if bad you can adjust, inaction kills.
I agree that Churchill was a far better war leader than Chamberlain exactly because he was more aggressive. Going to act, to do something about it, not to react.
The defense of Greece was more of a statement than opperation. Even Churchill admitted in a private letter that it was pointless, but it will send strong message to minor nations that they will not have to share Czechoslovakia's fate and they will have British support. Making them more likely to lean towards the Allies and the Axis less likely to invade them out of the fear they would lean towards the Allies. It was a message of "we protect our friends".
And yes, Churchill correctly predicted that at one point Germany and USSR will fight one another. He just didn't know when. But he knew that because of this Germany cannot afford to fully commit to the invasion of Britain, it would leave her too exposed to USSR.
