From our other sites
The story
Before World War II, Britain and France pursued a policy of appeasement, believing that tolerating some German territorial expansion could prevent war — but that decision ended up letting Hitler push his invasions even further. A news article recounting this history drew comments on 5ch drawing a parallel to today’s world, with some saying “the same thing happened when Crimea was handed to Putin,” while others countered that “with punishment that harsh, war would have broken out even without Hitler,” pointing to the crushing weight of the reparations imposed on Germany at the time — opinions were split on whether the concessions were right. The discussion also spilled over into debates about Japan’s own path to war, including how to judge Tojo Hideki and the events of the Manchurian Incident.
“Give in to Hitler, and war can be prevented.”
On the eve of World War II, that’s exactly what Britain and France believed, and they chose a policy of appeasement, tolerating some German territorial expansion. But far from preserving peace, that decision only opened the door to further invasions by Hitler. (abridged)
● World War II: 1930s–1945
Source: news.yahoo.co.jp / Original article here
What people said
Exactly.
A dictator's greed knows no limit.
There's no such thing as a dictator who gets forced into resigning his whole cabinet.
This.
He stepped down once, but since nobody else would take the job,
he just became PM again.
On reparations, the line was "squeeze them until the pips squeak" — wring out even the lemon seeds.
Same with Japan — how does someone like that end up on top?
The 'feel' in "economic confidence" (景気) uses the same kanji 気 as in "mood" (気分)
He was just good at putting the public in the right mood.
When Japan advanced into southern French Indochina,
Tojo Hideki straight-up admitted
it was to steal oil from the south, lol.
That's the real objective right there.
The difference is whether you won the war or lost it.
Well, first of all —
Britain, despite being on the winning side, actually reflected on its past afterward: it embraced Black people, recognized LGBT rights, recognized the Chinese, gave up imperialism,
and set an example for the world.
You clearly don't get that.
was just one decision after another that can only be called incompetent.
The strategy was sound, but the tactics and logistics were full of unthinkable blunders —
meaning there were a lot of traitors involved.
It was obvious that fighting would mean massive losses lol
France was so scared that when it finally fought, it got crushed and had to endure the humiliation of losing its own capital, Paris lol
Without the almighty US stepping in, they'd have lost lol
They call themselves "victors," but in reality they were pushovers who couldn't have won without America lol — same goes for China lol
I think Britain was actually the country that lost the most territory (counting its empire) in WWII.
Wrong.
Paris was never actually captured in battle —
France said it didn't want to turn Paris into a battlefield and just surrendered right away like a coward, lol.
The fact that he did a 180 once he became PM and moved to avoid war with the US doesn't excuse him one bit.
If anything, having a hardliner like Tojo become PM only reinforced America's belief that Japan wouldn't hesitate to go to war (this is documented to death in period official records).
The Pearl Harbor strike force was already massing at Etorofu on the very day Japan received the Hull Note — and people still have the nerve to say Japan was "just provoked" by America.
The Emperor later made excuses about the army "running out of control" and so on, but really, the ringleaders of the Manchurian Incident should have been punished.
If Japan had executed the ringleaders of the Manchurian Incident (those army staff officers) and apologized to China, the Pacific War would never have happened.
The annexation of Manchukuo was legal and recognized by the international community, so Manchuria would have remained Japanese territory even after the Pacific War.
Manchuria stopped being Japanese territory because Japan renounced its claim to it under the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
Under that same treaty, Japan also renounced its claims to southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, including the Northern Territories.
Japan also interfered with US arms shipments to the Soviet Union, though.
It was Germany that tore up the German-Soviet non-aggression pact.
And it was Japan that kept supporting Germany even after the USSR was at war with it, effectively tearing up the Japan-Soviet non-aggression pact.
Background and Key Points of This Discussion
The textbook example of appeasement is the 1938 Munich Agreement, in which Britain and France accepted Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland. That concession rested on Hitler’s promise to make “no further demands,” but it failed to stop the invasion of Poland the following year — and arguably only hastened the outbreak of war. Where opinions in the thread diverged was over whether the concession itself was the mistake: some drew a parallel to today, saying “the same thing happened when Crimea was handed to Putin,” while others pointed to the crushing reparations imposed on Germany after World War I, arguing that “with punishment that harsh, war would have broken out even without Hitler.” What’s hard to grasp from the article alone is that the failure of appeasement isn’t simply a matter of “concession equals mistake” — even among experts, the real debate is over how accurately the other side’s true intentions could have been read at the time.
*This article is an excerpt and summary from the 5ch (Newsplus) thread “‘Give in to Hitler, and war can be prevented’ — that was the idea. What was the fatal miscalculation that pushed the world toward war?“
Leave a Reply