History Help, please

[serryjw]

Was there every a time when the free world could have negotiated with Hitler, possibly stopped him and why didn't we?

[SteppingRazor]

1. The free world DID try to negotiate with Hitler...

Neville Chamberlain, "peace in our time," etc.

[alvarezadams]

7. That needs a caveat or two

Chamberlain indeed negotiated with Hitler but by the time of Munich it was largely for time. Britain (and France) were in no position to confront Germany at the time and the period of "appeasement" was used to create the military machine that eventually held off Hitler.

The entire "appeasement" concept is an historical red herring, inherited from contemporary political rhetoric.

[ieoeja]

12. Also, they were following the Italian lead.

During Hitler's first aggressive move towards Austria Mussolini sent the Italian military to Austria's defense forcing Hitler to backdown.

Fast forward a decade to Czechslovakia. The same Mussolini assures the UK and France that Hitler is no great threat. With a track record of opposing NAZI expansionism, Italy's opinion carried a great deal of weight.

And as you point out, the UK and France were in no position to stop Germany. Had they chosen to stand up to Germany at that point, it would have required the support of the Italians, the only other heavily militarized power in the region.

From the future side of events that sounds stupid. But prior to then Mussolini had been nominally opposed to Hitler. And nobody realized Germany's military technology was nearly as more advanced over the Italian**'s as Italy's was over Ethiopia's.


**And over the UK's, France's and the US' for that matter.

[alvarezadams]

13. LOL!

I noted Musso in another post without reading yours...

Great minds think alike, eh?

[Sanity Claws]

2. But not stopped him

Various Europeans negotiated with Hitler regarding the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia and allowed him to take it. I know this is often considered terrible and cited as an example of how you can't negotiate with someone like that.
However, what was the alternative? It merely would have started WWII earlier.

[Zynx]

3. It is documented that Hitler would not have seized the Rheinland if

the West had stood up to him on it. His troops were under orders to withdraw if they ran into resistence. He was also not willing to start a war over Czechoslovakia.

[alvarezadams]

8. Carry your thought a bit further...

... if WWII had started earlier, Germany would have won.

"Appeasement" is a simplistic and bombastic rhetorical flourish, completely without historical basis.

[Sparkly]

4. I *have* to ask...

Did this come up as a result of a discussion with a rightwinger?

Just curious.... :hi:

[serryjw]

18. Actually, not this time

I was half asleep listening to something on TV and was curious. After the last 6 years nothing I learned in school makes any sense.

[MADem]

5. There were those here who absolutely adored the creature

A book that invites more questions http://www.aish.com/holocaust/issues/The_American_Axis.asp

Indeed, based on the evidence Wallace has marshaled, it is fair to say that Ford's factories and Ford himself contributed significantly to Germany's war effort, and that Lindbergh rallied more support for Nazi Germany than any other individual in the English-speaking world. Neither "caused" the Holocaust, yet both share responsibility for its devastation. That each did so while waving an American flag and preaching patriotism should give us all pause.

Wallace's text provides an interesting counterpoint to this year's public relations hoopla surrounding the centenary of the Ford Motor Co. That celebration soft-pedals or remains silent about Henry Ford's use of Ford dealerships to circulate "The International Jew," a vicious bit of conspiratorial hate literature published in pamphlet form. Many experts agree that this publication prompted more damage to innocent people than Adolf Hitler's turgid "Mein Kampf." True, as Wallace reports, Ford eventually apologized, sort of, for his activities as America's most influential anti-Semite. But Wallace also documents that Ford privately disavowed the substance of that apology shortly after it was released. Ford's editor on the pamphlet, William Cameron, remained on the payroll for years as director of public relations, according to company archives. Henry Ford's personal politics remained largely unchanged to his death in 1947.


Lindbergh believed that social progress could be achieved through birth control for poor people and forced sterilization for those he regarded as defective.

Wallace reports that aviator Charles Lindbergh's enthusiasm for Hitler's Germany emerged from his surprisingly deep contempt for democracy and his fascination with the "scientific" racial genetics of his era. Social progress could be achieved only through tight restrictions on immigration, Lindbergh believed, along with birth control for poor people and forced sterilization for those he regarded as defective.

Not least, Wallace documents some operations of a cabal of relatively influential, anti-Semitic and frequently pro-German U.S. intelligence agents between World Wars I and II. Drawing on Joseph Bendersky's 2000 study, "Jewish Threat," and on files recently released under the Freedom of Information Act, Wallace traces the clandestine support for the "Communism Is Jewish" propaganda of extremist anti-Communist emigres, as well as the highly questionable activities of Lindbergh's mentor Truman Smith, who served as the U.S. military attache in Berlin in the years running up to World War II.

Wallace has done his homework and generally remains evenhanded when evaluating his evidence. For example, he refrains from calling Lindbergh a "Nazi" as such (although President Franklin Roosevelt did use that term) and instead makes an effort to document the aviator's many contradictions....

[Zynx]

6. Lindbergh was a disgusting human being.

Same thing with Henry Ford. Both should be more noted for how dispicable they were than what they accomplished.

[StinkyMcPinknose]

11. As I recall

Joe Kennedy was a supporter of Hitler too.

[MADem]

17. Yep, and he cheated on his wife shamelessly, too.

Plus, he was a brazen bootlegger, and a political manipulator of the first order. The good genes were the Fitzgerald ones with that crew, IMO!!!

[serryjw]

19. Thanks a bunch

you all were enlightening. Must read up more on recommended book

[enigma000]

9. We could have kept negotiating for years

But it would involve surrendering more and more land - land belonging to other countries. Hitler wasn't a hardliner looking for a just peace (Nixon, Reagan, Rabin) his vision was total victory.

Of course, if we kept negotiating and accommodating it would have saved many German lives.

[alvarezadams]

14. Regarding the Sudetens

It should be remembered that Sudetenland was largely populated with Germans, giving Hitler something of an argument regarding its inclusion in the Reich.

IF Wilson's 14 Points had been followed (especially with regards to self-determination) the world would have been a very different and much better place.

[enigma000]

15. But that would have involved giving land to Germany

Which was not a popular idea at the end of WWI. Still, that is a good observation you made there.

[alvarezadams]

10. Negotiation with psycopaths

Is it possible? Probably - since psycopaths often are restrained by expediency.

Hitler's goals and modus operandi were clear from the begining. Mein Kampf spelled them out clearly enough, Hitler's actions were hardly a surprise to Western governments.

One of the underlying reasons for the West's "appeasement" had a lot to do with a third party. Mussolini's relationship with Germany wasn't clear until Germany's invasion of France - Mussolini had threatened Germany militarily after the Anschluss and his relationship with Britain was on the verge of becoming an alliance. The issue was far more complicated than merely "negotiating with Hitler" and it is really a moot point.

If the question had been "could WWII have been averted", the answer would be yes. Many mistakes made WWII virtually inevitable by the mid 1930's - mostly due to self-serving, short-sighted and irreflexive policies of many Western leaders. Versailles was the mistake, as was the conservative submarining of Wilson both in Europe and the US.

[intaglio]

16. This is a very difficult question

Essentially you cannot ignore the effect of the Great War on the psyche of France and the UK. The term "The Lost Generation" was and is frequently used about the effects of that carnage on the population of Europe. Remember that the European powers had already been fighting for 2 years before the US joined in and it is hardly overstating the case to say that every family in the UK was personally affect by death and injury and the UK was less affected than France which lost not only people but also industry.

In 1938 it is unlikely that any French or British government could have declared war on Germany without falling within the next month. The Phony War from 1939 to 40 happeneds because neither Britain nor France could launch an attack and Hitler still believed that the people of the UK and France would overthrow their governments. The argument that the Munich Accord gave Britain time to re-arm is true but it also gave time for Germany to expand it's Airforce, the U-Boat Fleet and enlarge its Panzer (Armoured) divisions