Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
NATO was never meant to deter any attack anywhere in the world, nor even within Europe. That's not its function.
What clause? Did someone actually think it through way back when?I thought the UN suspended Russia's vote through a clause?
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.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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No...it's not about deterring attack against the rest of Europe. It's about deterring attack against NATO members.