Did Britain enter World War 2 too soon?

[badgerx16]

This Tiger broke down at Vimoutiers after aiding the breakout from Falaise and there it has stayed.

 

 

 

 

 

Just imagine you're in a Sherman knowing your shells will simply bounce off the Tiger, and that bloody great cannon is trying to locate you.

[View From The Top]

I would recommend a trip to Normandy to any buff.

 

Yes do the beaches, but go and explore the battlefields around Caen and onto Falaise. It's such a small space, very quiet and very absorbing.

[pap]

The U.S. exists as a permanent war economy - the result of what Eisenhower identified as the "military-industrial complex". What drives the U.S. now (and Britain in the past) is not an altruistic drive to "police" the world, but a desire to secure its economic self-interest. More and more, in the future, this will become a struggle for natural resources: oil, natural gas, fresh water, etc.

 

Eisenhower wasn't wrong in issuing that warning. Shortly afterward, the US had the murky business of JFK which was followed by a major course shift in foreign policy. I believe that we're seeing much of the same thing now, with corporations in that sector benefiting massively from the business opportunities that a belligerent foreign policy prosecuted broadly against "the bad guys".

 

Of course, the worry is that with globalisation, weapons are one of the few things the West makes "soup to nuts" that it can sell. That puts Western nations in a massive conflict of interests when it comes to warfare, where economic stimulus is achieved through waging war, particularly if those wars have been pre-emptive. The US has been up to its nuts in meddling of all kinds since the end of the Second World War. I've met enough Americans to know that their Government's actions don't reflect the will of the people. F*ck, the people are the ones that are getting jipped. Their sons and daughters being sent off to war, their earnings being used to finance it, along with the future generations that have to foot the bill for all the borrowing that happened because the books didn't balance.

 

A real shame that Ike's warning wasn't heeded.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Of course the ever present need to obtain, and then secure, the supply of natural resources is a major 'driver' of any industrialized nation's foreign policy - and yes wars too are sometimes fought over such concerns. However when I see people arguing that the US is "only fighting about the oil" for instance - with the clear implication that such a motivation is a bad thing somehow - then that strikes me as a particularly naive thing to say.

 

One reductionist point of view is that the entire purpose of government boils down to 'keeping the lights on' as it were. Very obviously we all rely upon fossil fuel derived energy generation to maintain that standard of living. All predictions show we will continue to do so for many years to come alas. So until the happy day dawns when mankind learns to rid itself of this pernicious 'oil habit' of ours then doing everything and anything required to secure the free flow of oil remains very much a vital interest for all nations.

 

Therefore when the US (and its allies) decided to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait back in 1990, in order to remove one potential threat to Gulf oil, then I say that was a action taken in furtherance of our true national interest rather than a attempt by this sinister 'US military/industrial complex' to manipulate the world to it own ends. It seems to me those on the left who continue to object so strenuously to the hard (but sometimes necessary) measures taken to secure our current standard of living, while at the same time enjoying the many benefits that very same lifestyle entails, could be accused of hypocrisy.

 

War - the large scale destruction of property and killing of our fellow Human beings - is a truly terrible thing that all right thinking people should abhor. To justify such a terrible deed most of us would prefer to think that we fight our wars in some noble cause, such as the defeat of Fascism during WWII certainly was in my view. But outside of the student debating society and out in the real world, war is seldom some 'Crusade' (as Eisenhower put it) to rid the world of evil, but rather a grubby fight for survival.

Edited 14 December, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Toadhall Saint]

I like this; living history. Is this the original paintwork - I assume it has been repainted

 

Must have been as "Normandy" camo is not as green - all the same it's a tiger and it'll do for me. Would have been interesting if they had kept the unit info on as I'd bet it was part of the hitler youth ss regiment.

[Toadhall Saint]

Of course the ever present need to obtain, and then secure, the supply of natural resources is a major 'driver' of any industrialized nation's foreign policy - and yes wars too are sometimes fought over such concerns. However when I see people arguing that the US is "only fighting about the oil" for instance - with the clear implication that such a motivation is a bad thing somehow - then that strikes me as a particularly naive thing to say.

 

One reductionist point of view is that the entire purpose of government boils down to 'keeping the lights on' as it were. Very obviously we all rely upon fossil fuel derived energy generation to maintain that standard of living. All predictions show we will continue to do so for many years to come alas. So until the happy day dawns when mankind learns to rid itself of this pernicious 'oil habit' of ours then doing everything and anything required to secure the free flow of oil remains very much a vital interest for all nations.

 

Therefore when the US (and its allies) decided to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait back in 1990, in order to remove one potential threat to Gulf oil, then I say that was a action taken in furtherance of our true national interest rather than a attempt by this sinister 'US military/industrial complex' to manipulate the world to it own ends. It seems to me those on the left who continue to object so strenuously to the hard (but sometimes necessary) measures taken to secure our current standard of living, while at the same time enjoying the many benefits that very same lifestyle entails, could be accused of hypocrisy.

 

War - the large scale destruction of property and killing of our fellow Human beings - is a truly terrible thing that all right thinking people should abhor. To justify such a terrible deed most of us would prefer to think that we fight our wars in some noble cause, such as the defeat of Fascism during WWII certainly was in my view. But outside of the student debating society and out in the real world, war is seldom some 'Crusade' (as Eisenhower put it) to rid the world of evil, but rather a grubby fight for survival.

 

But there was a true fight over ideologies in the 30's and 40's - you only have to look at the international brigades that fought against fascism in Spain (another interesting theatre - that doesn't get to much coverage).

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Must have been as "Normandy" camo is not as green - all the same it's a tiger and it'll do for me. Would have been interesting if they had kept the unit info on as I'd bet it was part of the hitler youth ss regiment.

 

The so called 'Vimoutiers Tiger' was left abandoned in a roadside ditch until as late as 1975, but following a article published in (the excellent) 'After the Battle' magazine it was recovered and put on display in its current location alongside Route Nationale 17, the only Tiger left in all of Normandy to commemorate the battle. The current camouflage scheme is allegedly based on paint fragments found on the vehicle - if so I can only say it would seem to be a highly atypical scheme then for German armour of this period.

 

The unit this particular tank was assigned to remains something of a mystery I understand. It seems most likely however to have been a Army (Heer) vehicle rather than a SS one, possibly one belonging to Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503. Many German vehicles which had somehow manage to escape from the terrible fighting in the Falaise Pocket were found abandoned in the area - either out of fuel or broken down perhaps.

 

As per the proper procedure the crew attempted to destroy the vehicle before they fled, indeed damage can still be seen to the top of the engine covers and the turret was jammed. Subsequently, to clear it out of the way, a US army bulldozer pushed it off the road and into the ditch. A local businessman purchased the wreck after the war but then did nothing with it for some reason.

 

So there it was to remain for 30 years ... what had once been the pride of Hitler's army had become a rusting plaything for the village children.

Edited 14 December, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[View From The Top]

If you read Bevor's excellent Normandy I think he actually mentions the unit. I would go to look myself but I'm on the train to Newcastle.

[pap]

Of course the ever present need to obtain, and then secure, the supply of natural resources is a major 'driver' of any industrialized nation's foreign policy - and yes wars too are sometimes fought over such concerns. However when I see people arguing that the US is "only fighting about the oil" for instance - with the clear implication that such a motivation is a bad thing somehow - then that strikes me as a particularly naive thing to say.

 

One reductionist point of view is that the entire purpose of government boils down to 'keeping the lights on' as it were. Very obviously we all rely upon fossil fuel derived energy generation to maintain that standard of living. All predictions show we will continue to do so for many years to come alas. So until the happy day dawns when mankind learns to rid itself of this pernicious 'oil habit' of ours then doing everything and anything required to secure the free flow of oil remains very much a vital interest for all nations.

 

Therefore when the US (and its allies) decided to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait back in 1990, in order to remove one potential threat to Gulf oil, then I say that was a action taken in furtherance of our true national interest rather than a attempt by this sinister 'US military/industrial complex' to manipulate the world to it own ends. It seems to me those on the left who continue to object so strenuously to the hard (but sometimes necessary) measures taken to secure our current standard of living, while at the same time enjoying the many benefits that very same lifestyle entails, could be accused of hypocrisy.

 

War - the large scale destruction of property and killing of our fellow Human beings - is a truly terrible thing that all right thinking people should abhor. To justify such a terrible deed most of us would prefer to think that we fight our wars in some noble cause, such as the defeat of Fascism during WWII certainly was in my view. But outside of the student debating society and out in the real world, war is seldom some 'Crusade' (as Eisenhower put it) to rid the world of evil, but rather a grubby fight for survival.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with all of this. My biggest problem is all the points of truth it sets out in making a case for post-imperialist aggression, the "oil habit" being chief amongst those. If oil ended tomorrow, humanity would still continue. We'd either conjure ( or indeed, just implement ) a different means of producing energy, or society will rapidly change to meet this new reality. Yes, we want oil to perpetuate this profligate existence of endless and unnecessary production, but we don't need oil, certainly not to the extent we do now. Further, we've known that supplies are finite for decades and that oil has numerous other applications in addition to fuelling vehicles. Instead of actively planning for the end of oil, most Western efforts now seem to be focused on securing the few good supplies that are known to exist, whether it previously belonged to them or not.

 

If it's a grubby fight for anything, it's profit and convenience - not survival. I'm not sure that my standard of living is worth the deaths of all those used to secure it. Is yours?

 

The military-industrial complex cannot be ignored. Unlike the Presidents that sign it into action with vast swathes of public money, it doesn't die after two terms of office. It isn't accountable or beholden to the voting public. It can afford to lobby for certain outcomes, and in many cases, is actively supported by other lobbying interests as well. We even had the ridiculous situation of former Halliburton executives winding up in positions of power in Dubya's administration. Which company got a lot of the no-bid countries in Iraq? Hmm. Would that be Halliburton?

 

I'm not suggesting that the military-industrial complex is driving policy on its own, but its always there, ready to be used by anyone who fancies using it. Many US presidents have employed it since the end of the Second World War, the conflict which cemented the existence of the sector in the first place. From a US perspective, it had been incalculably useful in the country's elevation from isolationist giant into a true world superpower. Who'd want to dismantle that kind of operation? Particularly when there's a bi-polar arms race on.

 

The big mistake with the military-industrial complex was feeding it after the Cold War ended. The Iraqis were convinced that Kuwait was slant-drilling into the Rumaila oil fields. Seeking direction from the US State Department, Hussein was informed that the US regarded the matter as a local dispute, and would not get involved. The Iraqis duly invaded Kuwait, the US went back on their word and got involved, Hussein was laughably declared "a new Hitler", and the military-industrial machine got to roll again.

 

It's a dangerous situation when you have large parts of an economy comprised of companies that require conflict to exist, deadly when that happens to coincide with a hawkish administration. These companies are able to build up massive cash piles during wartime at taxpayer expense, often using their windfalls to produce favourable conditions for more profit. How do you separate sinister military-industrial motives from pure national interest when in the cases of Cheney, etc - it's the same actors in different roles at different times?

 

The muddying of the waters during W's administration is an example of what Eisenhower's warning was all about; the military-industrial complex becoming linked with government policy to the point of fusion. Some would argue that such symbiosis was achieved in the late 1960s, but it's irrefutable by time Dubya's administration rolls in.

Edited 14 December, 2013 by pap

[aintforever]

However when I see people arguing that the US is "only fighting about the oil" for instance - with the clear implication that such a motivation is a bad thing somehow - then that strikes me as a particularly naive thing to say.

 

Do you seriously think that starting wars is OK just because it maintains our standard of living?

[Halo Stickman]

If oil ended tomorrow, humanity would still continue. We'd either conjure ( or indeed, just implement ) a different means of producing energy, or society will rapidly change to meet this new reality. Yes, we want oil to perpetuate this profligate existence of endless and unnecessary production, but we don't need oil, certainly not to the extent we do now. Further, we've known that supplies are finite for decades and that oil has numerous other applications in addition to fuelling vehicles. Instead of actively planning for the end of oil, most Western efforts now seem to be focused on securing the few good supplies that are known to exist, whether it previously belonged to them or not.

 

If it's a grubby fight for anything, it's profit and convenience - not survival. I'm not sure that my standard of living is worth the deaths of all those used to secure it. Is yours?

 

I certainly agree with you that the world needs to address the fact that oil supplies are finite; but, if oil ended tomorrow, what changes do you envisage the world conjuring up or implementing to replace it, or to do without it? Ramp up the introduction of alternative energy supplies; build more nuclear power stations; discover completely new ways to generate power; save energy by giving up our cars, TVs and internet forums; move to self-sustaining communes, etc? If oil ended tomorrow, how rapidly, easily, fairly or peacefully do you think these changes could be implemented?

 

Oil currently supplies a vital percentage of the world’s energy needs. Perhaps I’m less optimistic than you, Pap, but if oil ended tomorrow, rather than it being simply a case of replacing it with something else, or giving up our profligate ways, I rather suspect that people would be starving, freezing and stampeding to death within days. I would fight to ensure my family was not amongst them; I’m certain you would do likewise.

[buctootim]

I certainly agree with you that the world needs to address the fact that oil supplies are finite; but, if oil ended tomorrow, what changes do you envisage the world conjuring up or implementing to replace it, or to do without it? Ramp up the introduction of alternative energy supplies; build more nuclear power stations; discover completely new ways to generate power; save energy by giving up our cars, TVs and internet forums; move to self-sustaining communes, etc? If oil ended tomorrow, how rapidly, easily, fairly or peacefully do you think these changes could be implemented?

 

Oil currently supplies a vital percentage of the world’s energy needs. Perhaps I’m less optimistic than you, Pap, but if oil ended tomorrow, rather than it being simply a case of replacing it with something else, or giving up our profligate ways, I rather suspect that people would be starving, freezing and stampeding to death within days. I would fight to ensure my family was not amongst them; I’m certain you would do likewise.

 

Alternatives to oil exist already, its just that by and large they aren't price competitive with oil at current rates. Despite what people think oil is still dirt cheap - around 43p per litre for crude. You can use hydrogen to power cars and supplies of hydrogen are limitless - just split water with electricity. You can use cellulose for packaging instead of plastics. The oil won't run out, it will gradually get more scarce - which will make it more expensive, and so alternatives will become economically viable.

[Hamilton Saint]

Eisenhower wasn't wrong in issuing that warning. Shortly afterward, the US had the murky business of JFK which was followed by a major course shift in foreign policy. I believe that we're seeing much of the same thing now, with corporations in that sector benefiting massively from the business opportunities that a belligerent foreign policy prosecuted broadly against "the bad guys".

 

Of course, the worry is that with globalisation, weapons are one of the few things the West makes "soup to nuts" that it can sell. That puts Western nations in a massive conflict of interests when it comes to warfare, where economic stimulus is achieved through waging war, particularly if those wars have been pre-emptive. The US has been up to its nuts in meddling of all kinds since the end of the Second World War. I've met enough Americans to know that their Government's actions don't reflect the will of the people. F*ck, the people are the ones that are getting jipped. Their sons and daughters being sent off to war, their earnings being used to finance it, along with the future generations that have to foot the bill for all the borrowing that happened because the books didn't balance.

 

A real shame that Ike's warning wasn't heeded.

 

There is a revolving door connecting government, industry and the defense department. Upper management figures move across these three levels of society with ease. Di ck Chaney is a good example. Many areas of industry are tied into the military (aircraft manufacturing, for example). War is good for business. The last Iraqi war, for example, seems to have been conceived by the Bush administration as a golden opportunity for U.S. corporations to "clean up" once the armed conflict had ended.

 

Another element in the situation is what people have dubbed "the technological imperative". The military-industrial complex invents, develops, and manufactures new weapons systems. These highly technical weapons get tested - but there is always the push for them to be used in actual combat: cruise missiles, for example, drones, cluster bombs, etc. "If you have 'em, then use 'em." The military is offered new toys by big business; it pushes government to provide the funds to purchase them; foreign policy is manipulated in order to push for war, so that industry can reap profits from the manufacture of more weapons. It's a cyclic system. [And, parenthetically, the U.S. gun culture is part of that, too. Private collectors are driven to acquire even more sophisticated weapons; they start with hand guns, and move up to assault rifles and machine guns.]

 

As I said before, the U.S. exists as a permanent war economy.

[Ohio Saint]

It would seem to me that Neville Chamberlain is actually more famous in the US than he is in Britain.

 

Any mention of appeasement on TV regarding absolutely any possible conflict, and the pundits all shout his name in unison. It's really quite funny. They have a sound byte or a phrase that covers any given situation.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

There is a revolving door connecting government, industry and the defense department. Upper management figures move across these three levels of society with ease. Di ck Chaney is a good example. Many areas of industry are tied into the military (aircraft manufacturing, for example). War is good for business. The last Iraqi war, for example, seems to have been conceived by the Bush administration as a golden opportunity for U.S. corporations to "clean up" once the armed conflict had ended.

 

Another element in the situation is what people have dubbed "the technological imperative". The military-industrial complex invents, develops, and manufactures new weapons systems. These highly technical weapons get tested - but there is always the push for them to be used in actual combat: cruise missiles, for example, drones, cluster bombs, etc. "If you have 'em, then use 'em." The military is offered new toys by big business; it pushes government to provide the funds to purchase them; foreign policy is manipulated in order to push for war, so that industry can reap profits from the manufacture of more weapons. It's a cyclic system. [And, parenthetically, the U.S. gun culture is part of that, too. Private collectors are driven to acquire even more sophisticated weapons; they start with hand guns, and move up to assault rifles and machine guns.]

 

As I said before, the U.S. exists as a permanent war economy.

 

 

The US has been developing nuclear powered submarines for 60 years now, they have never fired a single torpedo in anger.

 

No, apart from the fact it relies upon government contracts to a unusual extent, the Defence Industry is actually much the same as any other commercial enterprise in the capitalist system; IE it exists to generate a profit for its shareholders. Needless to say it also equips our armed forces and provides gainful employment for tens of thousands of working people by the way. If you want to level some charge at the defence industry then methinks you'd do better to question its efficiency or state that defence has far too often proved to be a amoral - as opposed to immoral - business. But even those propositions are debatable. The defence industry seems to me to be more the tool of government rather than its master.

 

The record shows that between the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the '9/11' terrorist attack on New York and Washington US defence expenditure was contracting rapidly. This situation only reversed after the US was attacked. Extreme budgetary pressures in the US mean that post Cold War contraction is now bound to resume. As for the United States maintaining a "permanent war economy" I'm struggling to reconcile that bold claim with the hard fact that US defence expenditure has reduced to 4.4% of GDP. The UK rate by the way rate is now down to a mere 2.5% and shrinking fast. Now okay that's still of hell of a lot of money when you consider just how large these economies still are, but really a 'war economy' ... this seems an exaggeration.

 

The relationship between those who control expenditure, a group we might call the 'defence establishment' for want of a better term, and the armament industry that actually produces the weapons is indeed far too 'cosy' for my liking - in that I agree with you. But in my view it's just too easy to blame the 'evil' defence industry for the pity of war. The truth is much more complicated than that I'm afraid.

Edited 16 December, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Do you seriously think that starting wars is OK just because it maintains our standard of living?

 

Well perhaps I didn't explain myself properly.

 

When I say 'standard of living' I'm not referring to the middle class being able to afford two foreign holidays most years and having a nice new Audi on the drive. No, what I mean here is having hot food in your belly, electricity in your house 24/7, and a job to go to if you're lucky.

 

Do nations go to war to ensure their populations 'enjoy' that kind of standard of living? Trust me, they have gone to war over much less than that in the past.

[pap]

Bump, and the reason for the bump is that I'm just about to finish AJP Taylor's Origins of the Second World War.

 

AJP Taylor broke ranks with this book in the 60s, largely because the central thesis diverted from the conventional wisdom of the day; "the sole reason the Second World War started was because Hitler was evil and hell-bent on world domination". Time has been kind to his work; Buchanan's book references it heavily, and as posters like VFTT have confirmed, AJP Taylor is now one of the most respected historians covering the era.

 

Taylor depicts the build-up to the war as a colossal series of miscalculations, with the treatment accorded to Poland the key catalyst for the war. Poland was a new state, forged after the settlement of 1919. According to Taylor, Hitler had no interest in invading Poland. The plan was to form a coalition with the Poles to achieve mutual objectives in Ukraine. A key obstacle was Danzig, the Free City of ethnic Germans in Polish territory, under League of Nations jurisdiction. Of all the German claims, Danzig was perhaps the least contentious. The League of Nations preached self-determination, and Memel had already decided to exercise this principle in breaking away from Lithuania. The Lithuanians recognised the legitimacy of that change in sovereignty. Danzig was a stronger claim.

 

Britain unilaterally offered both its and France's support to Poland in the event of German aggression. This had the effect of making the Polish more bellicose with their dealings with everyone, especially Germany. They were even cheeky with us; there were virtually no caveats to this guarantee.

 

Poland didn't need to negotiate over Danzig; she was "protected" by two powers come what may. Practically, the guarantee was worthless. Neither France nor Britain were in any position to make good on their promise; Poland put blind faith in a bluff and compounded the situation by provoking the Germans. She was destroyed and the vast majority of Europe suffered in the events that followed.

 

None of this legitimises the role of the aggressor and Hitler was always going east. If there is one thing to learn from this period, it's that you should never put foreign policy, particularly the decision to go to war, in another country's hands. That's exactly what we did in Poland, and rather worryingly, we're falling prey to the same sort of shenanigans now.

 

The modern-day parallels are obvious. Where Poland was guaranteed security by first power Britain, Israel is similarly backed by the first power of our age. Despite the recent and welcome thawing of relations with Tehran, Washington is still signed up to a number of Israeli "red lines", events that would plunge it into war with Iran. Isn't this the modern day equivalent of the Polish guarantee?

Edited 18 February, 2014 by pap

[Hockey_saint]

Personally, I've always found the point made earlier about Churchill's rush to declare was on it's ally Japan more interesting. We build their navy, train their pilots, give them tactics which proved very very effective in Asia and allowed them to give the Russian a right hiding...we know what they have, what tactics they use (because, like Iraq under Thatcher, we sold em half the stuff).

 

We have thousands of British Citizens living in the foreign concessions of places like Shanghai, Malaya, Hong Kong, who, once war was declared would almost seem to be sacrificed at the eagerness to get onside with the US....we also sent highly inadequate ships to defend the undefendible and completely ignore or forget the military tactics we taught them (for example, warning Japan not to wage a land war with Russia.....kinda important in the main topic here since the Trans-siberian railway was vital for Russia to resupply it's forces and obviously free them up from the Asian front).

 

So no, I don't think war with Japan was NOT unavoidable but I do think we rushed into that theatre far far too soon without any kind of plan....or rather we had one, but completely forget everything we lectured on.