If the Spanish Civil War had gone the other way...

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Pyrenees would have been a benefit to an Allied invasion of Spain since they would have had almost complete command of the sea. If they reached the Pyrenees a German counteroffensive would have been difficult, but the Allies would have been able to make further amphibious attacks at short range.

So, the benefit of holding Spain would be as a convenient base for amphibious attacks?

Okay. But that's a minor benefit. Presumably, ATY was referring to Spain being a base from which to march into France en masse.

Originally posted by sh76
So, the benefit of holding Spain would be as a convenient base for amphibious attacks?

Okay. But that's a minor benefit. Presumably, ATY was referring to Spain being a base from which to march into France en masse.

No; I was thinking of it as a naval base.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That option was no longer available was it?

They did send a military mission to Moscow trying to persuade the Soviets to enter the war if Poland was attacked (even though Poland flat out refused to even consider allowing Soviet forces transit EVEN IF Poland was invaded!). The Soviets asked pointed questions about what military measures the ...[text shortened]... hat does not mean their leaders didn't do everything they could to provoke a German-Soviet war.

There's no question that the Allies botched the negotiations with the USSR in 1939. But if they really wanted to see Hitler invade Russia in 1939, they would have let Poland fall to the Nazis. Without the Allied guarantee to Poland in March, the pact with Stalin may not have been necessary. With no threat in the West, Hitler probably would have invaded Poland with or without a pact with Stalin. Remember, people didn't think much of the Red Army at that time...

The British and French owned copies of Mein Kampf, presumably. If what they were after was a Nazi-Soviet war, the way to do it was to leave Hitler to his own devices and he would have eventually attacked the USSR; not to do their best to scare Hitler into not attacking Poland in the first place.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No; I was thinking of it as a naval base.

So then why didn't you say that when I mentioned the Pyrenees as an obstacle rather than that silly comeback about the Maginot line?

Originally posted by sh76
There's no question that the Allies botched the negotiations with the USSR in 1939. But if they really wanted to see Hitler invade Russia in 1939, they would have let Poland fall to the Nazis. Without the Allied guarantee to Poland in March, the pact with Stalin may not have been necessary. With no threat in the West, Hitler probably would have invaded Poland w d the USSR; not to do their best to scare Hitler into not attacking Poland in the first place.

Let me put it this way; they preferred a Nazi-Soviet war to any war they might get involved in against the Nazis EVEN one with the Soviets on their side. There's no logical other way to read Munich or Eden's preference to have Franco win the Spanish Civil War.

EDIT: Mein Kampf, unless I'm badly mistaken, rather clearly states that France must be dealt with before Germany obtains Lebensraum in the East.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let me put it this way; they preferred a Nazi-Soviet war to any war they might get involved in against the Nazis EVEN one with the Soviets on their side. There's no logical other way to read Munich or Eden's preference to have Franco win the Spanish Civil War.

EDIT: Mein Kampf, unless I'm badly mistaken, rather clearly states that France must be dealt with before Germany obtains Lebensraum in the East.

Yes, he says that France has to be knocked out because the French would never allow Germany a free hand in the east. Presumably though, if the French had given Hitler a free hand in the east, there would be no need to knock them out first.

Originally posted by sh76
So then why didn't you say that when I mentioned the Pyrenees as an obstacle rather than that silly comeback about the Maginot line?

Because it's obvious. The Western Allies were naval and air powers and they always did major invasions amphibiously. The lesson of the Maginot line is that you just go around barriers - which in this case means amphibious attacks, the West's specialty anyway.

Originally posted by sh76
Yes, he says that France has to be knocked out because the French would never allow Germany a free hand in the east. Presumably though, if the French had given Hitler a free hand in the east, there would be no need to knock them out first.

That's a heck of a presumption one that I'm reasonably sure Hitler wouldn't have made. He hated the French; after all they did gas him in WWI.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Because it's obvious. The Western Allies were naval and air powers and they always did major invasions amphibiously. The lesson of the Maginot line is that you just go around barriers - which in this case means amphibious attacks, the West's specialty anyway.

Okay; I'll take your word for it...

Nice observation, ATY! 😉

Originally posted by sh76
Yeah, that's the old Soviet line.

It's complete BS, of course. Chamberlain and Dadlier caved at Munich because they had no stomach for another war and were either blind to the Hitler threat or chose to ignore it. Obviously, the theory that the British and French wanted Hitler to turn east is belied by the fact that they did end up going to war over Poland months later.

Actually, the Chamberlain-as-wimp line is also old and a gross oversimplification. Chamberlain was a political conservative heavily influenced by the Cliveden Set. They didn't see Hitler as a threat, but as a potential ally.

The Soviets did act selfishly, but they were on record pushing for unfired opposition to Hitler's expansion. Regardless of Chamberlain's motivations, it's not altogether unreasonable to expect the Soviets to take the "everyone for himself" message of Prague to heart. The rest of the world certainly wasn't doing anything, and Stalin's advisers (those who managed to survive the purge) warned him that the Soviet Union would bear the largest burden in the fight against Germany - a premonition which eventually held up.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
The Social Democrats were in charge of Sweden throughout the war... leading an all-party coalition, granted... and selling iron ore to the Germans, to be sure... hmmm... maybe they don't count after all...

On the other hand, they did provide sanctuary for Jewish refugees (Denmark moved 7000 out of Copenhagen and into Sweden in the course of a single night, just before they were invaded) and cover for Norwegian resistance, suggesting that they weren't happy with their position.

Originally posted by infomast
The old Soviet line is the truth, though.

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible." Harry Truman in his 1941 speech. This was the prevalent mood among Western politicians at the time.

Further example of this was the British-French-Sovi ...[text shortened]... ble and then used the stalling and delaying tactics to ensure the failure of the negotiations.

I wasn't aware of that quote in particular, but as brutal as Stalin was, he wasn't stupid.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
On the other hand, they did provide sanctuary for Jewish refugees (Denmark moved 7000 out of Copenhagen and into Sweden in the course of a single night, just before they were invaded) and cover for Norwegian resistance, suggesting that they weren't happy with their position.

True enough. And I suppose it was fairly clear than if they didn't extend some tacit cooperation to Germany they would be invaded in their turn, and Germany would get the iron ore anyway - as well as the strategic potential of a Scandinavia wholly under German control.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Actually, the Chamberlain-as-wimp line is also old and a gross oversimplification. Chamberlain was a political conservative heavily influenced by the Cliveden Set. They didn't see Hitler as a threat, but as a potential ally.

The Soviets did act selfishly, but they were on record pushing for unfired opposition to Hitler's expansion. Regardless of Chamb ...[text shortened]... he largest burden in the fight against Germany - a premonition which eventually held up.

After Hitler broke the Munich Pact, Chamberlain was as angry at and tough on Hitler as anyone would have been.

I don't think Chamberlain was a wimp, I think he was a bad judge of character. He staked his and his country's future on the premise that Hitler could be pacified. After Hitler occupied Moravia and Bohemia, the scales finally fell from his eyes and that's when he issued the guarantee to Poland. This is not consistent with his viewing Hitler as an ally against the Soviets.

Originally posted by sh76
After Hitler broke the Munich Pact, Chamberlain was as angry at and tough on Hitler as anyone would have been.

I don't think Chamberlain was a wimp, I think he was a bad judge of character. He staked his and his country's future on the premise that Hitler could be pacified. After Hitler occupied Moravia and Bohemia, the scales finally fell from his eyes and ...[text shortened]... tee to Poland. This is not consistent with his viewing Hitler as an ally against the Soviets.

Oh, I don't think he viewed Hitler as a potential ally, but the Cliveden Set did, and they were key Chamberlain backers.