"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (9 Viewers)

[Thumpalumpacus]

With a massively outnumbered, outperformed and outgunned fighter force, zero strategic bombers, and an outnumbered army, it's tough to see what Britain could have done to deter Hitler in 1938.

I think that's exactly the lesson we should draw, using hindsight, when analyzing the 30s. And you're right that this wasn't Chamberlain's fault, in the sense that Defence had been left to languish long before he took office. That too is a lesson we should draw.

Deterrence needs the potential of force to make it useful. If the force is not there, deterrence is hollow.

 

[buffnut453]

Aw c'mon, man! I was composing a similar post mentioning Sir Neville buying time. I was going to throw in Chain Home. I was even about to write "Sir Neville gets a lot of stick..."
Oh well, I'll add my uninformed thoughts.
Sir Neville Chamberlain gets a lot stick for being an appeaser. From various posts and links on some threads, I was made aware of PM Chamberlain's accomplishments.... aw, the heck with it. You guys brought it up before so I'm reminding you guys of what you made me aware of.
So there!

I'll check with you to confirm that I may speak before writing my next post.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll check with you to confirm that I may speak before writing my next post.

Pre-checking my posts with Rob has saved me a couple of embarrassing moments. Why, I once almost posted that the Buffalo was a dog, but Rob set me straight.

 

[GrauGeist]

Blame should not be placed on Chamberlain, but rather squarely on tje shoulders of the League of Nations.

Their special sessions, conferences and assemblies acheived diddly-squat.

No one single nation could have deterred Germany from it's wants, but banded together, the LoN could have easily put Hitler in check with their collective military and economic power.

 

[SaparotRob]

I think that's exactly the lesson we should draw, using hindsight, when analyzing the 30s. And you're right that this wasn't Chamberlain's fault, in the sense that Defence had been left to languish long before he took office. That too is a lesson we should draw.

Deterrence needs the potential of force to make it useful. If the force is not there, deterrence is hollow.

On the point of deterrence, Dimlee's post # 2339 of the NATO SACEURs panel, addresses it. I don't want to boil the link down because I can't do it justice. ONE of the many items discussed was that The West never offered a credible threat. Rather, NATO says what it won't do. It has backed down so as not to appear provocative. It hasn't worked. Many interesting ideas were floated. If Putin truly is afraid of having his empire nuked, then perhaps some avenues are open. The combat and logistical effectiveness of the RF forces has been laid bare to the West, Asia and more importantly, Vlad himself. Really, check it out. Four generals, sixteen stars. What could be bad?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

On the point of deterrence, Dimlee's post # 2339 of the NATO SACEURs panel, addresses it. I don't want to boil the link down because I can't do it justice. ONE of the many items discussed was that The West never offered a credible threat. Rather, NATO says what it won't do. It has backed down so as not to appear provocative. It hasn't worked. Many interesting ideas were floated. If Putin truly is afraid of having his empire nuked, then perhaps some avenues are open. The combat and logistical effectiveness of the RF forces has been laid bare to the West, Asia and more importantly, Vlad himself. Really, check it out. Four generals, sixteen stars. What could be bad?

I haven't had the time to watch that vid yet, but I bookmarked it as soon as I saw Dimlee's post. Until then I can't offer any informed opinion on it. I should be able to get to it tomorrow.

 

[buffnut453]

On the point of deterrence, Dimlee's post # 2339 of the NATO SACEURs panel, addresses it. I don't want to boil the link down because I can't do it justice. ONE of the many items discussed was that The West never offered a credible threat. Rather, NATO says what it won't do. It has backed down so as not to appear provocative. It hasn't worked. Many interesting ideas were floated. If Putin truly is afraid of having his empire nuked, then perhaps some avenues are open. The combat and logistical effectiveness of the RF forces has been laid bare to the West, Asia and more importantly, Vlad himself. Really, check it out. Four generals, sixteen stars. What could be bad?

C'mon Rob. NATO has NOT backed down. It is simply abiding by it's established purpose. It is meant to deter attack against member nations. It clearly has done that successfully for most of its history. NATO was never meant to deter any attack anywhere in the world, nor even within Europe. That's not its function.

The problem is that any other international intervention (e.g. via the UN Security Council) can be vetoed by Russia. Clearly, having Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council gives Putin an unusual degree of latitude - he can take aggressive action and then veto any attempts to counter it within the UN. I think it's time for the UN to consider removing Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council until such time as the Kremlin can show some consideration for constructive engagement with the international community. Doing so would enable a vote from the remaining members which could allow peacekeeping forces to deploy into Ukraine under the UN banner.

Of course, the UN is unlikely to remove Russia's permanent member status...but I hope they're at least exploring the option.

 

[GrauGeist]

I thought the UN suspended Russia's vote through a clause?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

NATO was never meant to deter any attack anywhere in the world, nor even within Europe. That's not its function.

I would disagree with this. Deterrence was NATO's raison d'etre from its very foundation in 1949.

 

[SaparotRob]

Like I said, I can't do it justice. See what happens when I "boil down" a complex series of actions and events into a pithy phrase?

 

[SaparotRob]

I thought the UN suspended Russia's vote through a clause?

What clause? Did someone actually think it through way back when?

 

[JDCAVE]

I'm specifically talking about the appeasement prior to WW2. Europe was still recovering from the horrors of WW1. Nobody wanted another costly war.

You and I have the benefit of hind sight, and the ability to objectively judge the actions taken. Had an entire genetation of our sons been butchered in the trenches, we might be thinking this differently.

I am referring to American Isolationist sentiment, by diverse groups including the America First Committee headed by Roger Wood and other industrialists, together with star figures such as Charles Lindberg and others. These groups were still highly influential right up until December 1941. Sorry, but the war was well underway for 2 years before America became involved. The Isolationist policy had little to do with appeasement after the invasion of Poland.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the clause was a suggestion made upthread. There's no requirement for any Security Council member to recuse itself from a vote on its own actions.

The UN should take this advice, though.

 

[buffnut453]

I would disagree with this. Deterrence was NATO's raison d'etre from its very foundation in 1949.

But only deterrence against attack on the member nations. NATO has no charter to deter attack anywhere else. From NATO's own website:

Safeguarding the freedom and security of its members

NATO's essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Collective defence is at the heart of the Alliance, as set out in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. NATO's greatest responsibility is to protect and defend Allied territory and populations against attack in a world where peace and security cannot be taken for granted.

Deterrence is a core element of NATO's overall strategy: preventing conflict and war, protecting Allies, maintaining freedom of decision and action, and upholding the principles and values it stands for – individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Free societies and the rules-based international order need to be backed by credible transatlantic defence.

NATO's capacity to deter and defend is supported by an appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional, and missile defence capabilities, which complement each other, and is underpinned by an array of civil and military resources to support these capabilities and the posture more broadly. NATO also maintains the freedom of action and flexibility to respond to the full spectrum of challenges with an appropriate and tailored approach.


The capitalized term "Allies" has a specific meaning and relates solely to those countries who are party to the NATO treaty. Other nations who align with NATO but are not signatories of the treaty are termed partners...and you'll note that "partners" does not appear in the description.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But only deterrence against attack on the member nations. NATO has no charter to deter attack anywhere else. From NATO's own website:

Safeguarding the freedom and security of its members

NATO's essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Collective defence is at the heart of the Alliance, as set out in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. NATO's greatest responsibility is to protect and defend Allied territory and populations against attack in a world where peace and security cannot be taken for granted.

Deterrence is a core element of NATO's overall strategy: preventing conflict and war, protecting Allies, maintaining freedom of decision and action, and upholding the principles and values it stands for – individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Free societies and the rules-based international order need to be backed by credible transatlantic defence.

NATO's capacity to deter and defend is supported by an appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional, and missile defence capabilities, which complement each other, and is underpinned by an array of civil and military resources to support these capabilities and the posture more broadly. NATO also maintains the freedom of action and flexibility to respond to the full spectrum of challenges with an appropriate and tailored approach.


The capitalized term "Allies" has a specific meaning and relates solely to those countries who are party to the NATO treaty. Other nations who align with NATO but are not signatories of the treaty are termed partners...and you'll note that "partners" does not appear in the description.

Right. But it was deterrence all the same against an attack from the [then] Soviet Union, so the statement "NATO was never meant to deter any attack anywhere in the world, nor even within Europe" just isn't accurate. NATO came together specifically to deter a Soviet attack into Western Europe by tying those countries together and presenting the USSR with a united front. The very passage you quote refers to NATO's mission of deterrence.

That was its entire purpose: deterring a Soviet attack upon the rest of Europe.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The other factor is that, in 1938, Britain was in no fit state to go to war against Germany. At that time, Fighter Command comprised just 25 squadrons, most of which were still biplanes. At the time of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had 63 fighter squadrons, almost all equipped with Hurricanes and Spitfires. The speed with which Britain was re-arming in the late-1930s often gets forgotten. It was galloping to regain some sort of parity with Germany, and it was a race it barely won even with the outbreak of war in September 1939 when there were just 18 Hurricane squadrons in Fighter Command.

With a massively outnumbered, outperformed and outgunned fighter force, zero strategic bombers, and an outnumbered army, it's tough to see what Britain could have done to deter Hitler in 1938. It's particularly hard to see how Britain could have stopped Germany advancing into the Sudetenland. The only option would have been to band together with France and attack Germany...and that was not politically viable given the vivid memories of the Great War.

Chamberlain gets a lot of stick but he bought critical time for Britain to continue re-arming. It's also worth remembering that no other leader of a major power was doing anything more aggressive to deter Hitler. Lumping all the blame on Chamberlain's shoulders is unfair.

I can agree with all of that. Its all very complicated. As I said, we have the luxury of looking at it decades later from our armchairs.

 

[buffnut453]

Right. But it was deterrence all the same against an attack from the [then] Soviet Union, so the statement "NATO was never meant to deter any attack anywhere in the world, nor even within Europe" just isn't accurate. NATO came together specifically to deter a Soviet attack into Western Europe by tying those countries together and presenting the USSR with a united front. The very passage you quote refers to NATO's mission of deterrence.

That was its entire purpose: deterring a Soviet attack upon the rest of Europe.

No...it's not about deterring attack against the rest of Europe. It's about deterring attack against NATO members. If Russia (or the USSR) decided to roll into Finland or Sweden, or drop bombs on Switzerland, we'd be having EXACTLY the same discussion. None of these European nations are members of NATO and hence the Treaty nations are under no obligation to respond. Putin has painted NATO as a threat to Russia, hence if NATO responds outside its established limits then it's doing exactly the same thing that Putin's doing (i.e. not following the established treaties).

Putin knows that NATO cannot respond if he doesn't directly attack the member nations, which is exactly why he's pursuing this policy. He also knows that Russian veto in the UN prevents military intervention by other means. The only other approach is to assemble a "coalition of the willing" but that would have to happen outside UN approval....and we all know how well that would be received. The very nations complaining about Russia not abiding by the rule of law would, themselves, be breaking that rule of law.

Now, of course things aren't always that cut and dried. NATO can, theoretically, engage in operations outside its borders. Examples include the air attacks on the Former Yugoslavia which were initially conducted in support of UNPROFOR (UN Protection Force). Later operations were done without UN sanction and drew strong criticism, with questions remaining about their legality.

If some means could be found to insert UN forces into Ukraine, then there could be the opportunity for NATO to get involved if the UN approved the employment of force.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I can agree with all of that. Its all very complicated. As I said, we have the luxury of looking at it decades later from our armchairs.

We also have the obligation to learn from it so that no other generation suffers again what those folk, the world over, suffered between 1937 and 1945.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am referring to American Isolationist sentiment, by diverse groups including the America First Committee headed by Roger Wood and other industrialists, together with star figures such as Charles Lindberg and others. These groups were still highly influential right up until December 1941. Sorry, but the war was well underway for 2 years before America became involved. The Isolationist policy had little to do with appeasement after the invasion of Poland.

Sure, but you were responding directly to a post about appeasing Germany for temporary peace, not American isolationism.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

No...it's not about deterring attack against the rest of Europe. It's about deterring attack against NATO members.

Well, that sounds like deterrence to me.

You had written: "NATO was never meant to deter any attack anywhere in the world, nor even within Europe".

NATO was certainly intended to deter an attack against member nations, 10 of the original 12 being located in Europe.