But the Brits and French at least had military assets they could use against Hitler. A build-up of U.S. armed forces didn't really get started until after 12/7/41. So on 3/12/38 we couldn't have done anything meaningful whoever was in the White House.
Well, actually, more like the summer of '41, but you're right.
one oddity I noticed here and had never known before was that the Czechs were willing to help save Austria if Britain and France had had some stones to do the same...and what pray tell was Czechoslovakia’s reward for wanting to come to their neighbor’s aid?
On the whole - and I’m sure there will be flaming for saying this - it likely worked out for the best that Germany was successful here and in Czechoslovakia.
Yes, they created much suffering for these peoples and others. I myself have walked under the gate at Auscwitz that says “Arbeit Macht Frei.” I saw the gas chambers and crematoriums that were preserved there along with the barracks for the prisoners. I saw also the number of buildings at this one camp that were not preserved. I am capable of multiplying to draw the full conclusion of the evil.
Here, though, is why I believe that it was better on the whole that Germany was able to do what he did. One of the effects of Germany’s actions was a severly weakened Soviet Union. Many people do not realize that Stalin actually killed more of his subjects than Hitler did. He was even in the process of eliminating his Jewish population in 1953 when he suddenly died. (Thank God!) Had Germany not grown in power to the point of nearly kicking down the rotten mess as Hitler called them, the fate of not only the Jews, but also the rest of the world would have been far worse. Had Germany remained weak, I believe that communism would have eventually taken over all of Europe. All of this while the USA remained isolationist because we weren’t dragged kicking and screaming into world affairs.
Just my thoughts on how WW2 can actually be looked at as a blessing from today’s point of view.
I really enjoy reading these blasts from the NYT’s past when I catch them here. Do you have some sort of ping list for them?
I've read that in 1939 both Britain and the US were spending about 4% of their GDP’s on national defense.
Most curious, that's the same figure as the US today.
Both countries defense spending was heavily focused on their navies, and secondly air forces.
Relatively speaking, their armies were pathetic. Where Hitler was building over 100 divisions to invade Poland, the British expeditionary contribution to France in 1939 was planned as ten divisions.
But the point is, Britain and the US were diplomatically going out of their ways to appease, accommodate and smooth over relations with Hitler, not to oppose him.
The French did have 100 divisions in 1938. And standing against them, on their western front, the Germans had “five fighting divisions and seven reserve divisions,” according to German chief of staff General Alfred Jodl. (Ferguson page 362) But the French had no intention of acting alone.
As for US sentiments, please consider this: “By 1940 American direct investment in Germany amounted to $206 million, not much less than the $275 million in Britain and far more than the $46 million in France.” (Ferguson, page 333).