TV/Movies Megathread

[Habbaku]

begs two questions

[celedhring]

My feeling is that Munich ended up indirectly provoking WWII. I've always thought that it led Hitler to overplay his hand with Poland, thinking he would get away with it again.

But I'm no expert on the matter.

[Berkut]

It does seem kind of odd to imagine that taking Czechoslovakia without a fight and losing that potential ally was worth it because GB needed that year to build up its military.

Everyone is building up their military at that point, pretty much as fast as they can, and that includes Germany. Letting Germany take a potential ally at no cost, loot them, and then incorporate that industrial base in the Third Reich cannot possible have been a net gain for those who would eventually have to fight Germany.

[mongers]

I don't know about France.

I thought that was the argument though - that actually the real baddy of appeasement was Stanley Baldwin and Chamberlain (as Chancellor) because they didn't do rearmament earlier in the 30s etc. Once Chamberlain becomes PM he launches rearmament (I think because he was told Britain could deal with a crisis in one theatre only: the Med, Far East, or Western Europe).

He just about doubles the RAF's budget, for example, but that was only done in the second half of 1937 (over Labour opposition because Labour at this point were moving from being an anti-appeasement/anti-rearmament party to anti-appeasement/pro-rearmament). In 1938 because of his decisions as Chancellor, Britain was nowhere near read for a war. By 1939 because of his decisions as PM, it just about was. There is an enormous and inadequate attempt to catch up because of the decisions earlier in the 1930s.

That doesn't necessarily mean that appeasement was right or that the allies came out ahead - I think it's that (from a purely British perspective) the decision in 1938 might have been right and justified because of all the decisions appeasement led to in the previous five years which were wrong and meant that in 1938 the UK was not in a position to fight a war.

France was significantly behind the UK in speed, but had ambitious plans, but arguably only noticeable improvements* were being made in the first half of 1940 which was too late.

* tank production was up, many nearly complete or ready but didn't get to combat units in time. Similarly more modern aircraft were appearing and the big aircraft orders from the States began arriving at the docks, but no further.

[Jacob]

If the European Allies declared war on Germany to defend Czechoslovakia, would the US have joined or would it still have stayed out until Pearl Harbour?

Another question that springs to mind is how much better France would've done against Germany if they had been part of a declaration of war against Germany to defend Czechoslovakia. It's hard to imagine they wouldn't have done better.

Yet another question is, in this scenario when would Hitler have turned on Stalin? Would he have?

[mongers]

One issue not to be forgotten is in 1938 the British public were not willing or prepared for another European war only 20 years after the slaughter of the 1st World War.

The destruction of Czechoslovakia in early 1939 meant they were now willing to go war and stick with it till victory or defeat. 

[Admiral Yi]

begs two questions

wut?

[Sheilbh]

Assuming for the sake of argument that British rearmament 38-40 made the difference in the Battle of Britain, that still begs two questions in my mind. 

Did Hitler in fact delay his next move because of the Munich "undertaking?'

No idea.

And did victory in the Battle of Britain mean the difference between winning and losing WWII?  That statement seems pretty UK-centric.

It is utterly UK-centric

But - and I know nothing about war and military matters - I thought it was essential because if the UK goes in 1940-41 is it clear how the rest of the war goes? The UK is starting to supply the USSR immediately (not vast amounts but it grows) because it is still there and because of that and the UK/Empire fighting on other fronts it mean the Nazis aren't as totally focused on the USSR as they could be if they'd knocked out Britain. But also I don't really know how the US gets involved in Europe without the UK - presumably a sort of "big" island hopping strategy from Iceland to Britain to Europe? I don't know how plausible that is and, in any event, I'd guess that without the UK constantly pushing for more attention - the US is more likely to focus on the Pacific and Japan first (after all they attacked them).

That might be wrong. But I always thought just because the UK meant there was a bit of the war going on to the west of Europe too was really important after 41 that the UK's contribution to the war might be simultaneously not particularly significant in terms of actual contribution but essential in terms of not getting knocked out.

Everyone is building up their military at that point, pretty much as fast as they can, and that includes Germany. Letting Germany take a potential ally at no cost, loot them, and then incorporate that industrial base in the Third Reich cannot possible have been a net gain for those who would eventually have to fight Germany.

The UK really isn't though. When Chamberlain becomes PM the UK is spending about 3-3.5% of GDP on defence which is a little higher than the early thirties but nothing massive (and nothing comparable with Germany or France) - Chamberlain doubles that by the time of Munich but the UK was very late to rearmament. It started significantly later than France and basically when Chamberalin became PM.

It was too laissez faire even afterthe war started - one of the major criticisms by Labour in 1939-40 which led to the coalition - was that even though we were apparently in a "total war" there was still unemployment and the government wasn't directing/planning armaments manufacturing and there were still basically non-functioning armaments manufacturers (but that was - astonishingly - better than the situation before Chamberlain became PM, when he was the Chancellor vetoing spending).

As will be familiar to people reading the Brexit thread or following this government's levelling up plans Baldwin announced that Britain would rearm, but there was no new spending to support it - plus ca change

Another question that springs to mind is how much better France would've done against Germany if they had been part of a declaration of war against Germany to defend Czechoslovakia. It's hard to imagine they wouldn't have done better.

That's key and I've no idea.

Yet another question is, in this scenario when would Hitler have turned on Stalin? Would he have?

I don't know about when Hitler would have turned on Stalin but I think it's still very likely - from the Soviet perspective - that Stalin would have looked for and liked something like Molotov-Ribbentrop. But would Hitler need to go for that in this scenario and if not, with the USSR unable to take eastern Poland that might have changed the Soviet orientation (I still think they're very unlikely to actively intervene though).

[The Brain]

Yet another question is, in this scenario when would Hitler have turned on Stalin? Would he have?

Rule 34?

[Jacob]

Yet another question is, in this scenario when would Hitler have turned on Stalin? Would he have?

Rule 34?

Why is 6 afraid of 7?

[Habbaku]

Yet another question is, in this scenario when would Hitler have turned on Stalin? Would he have?

Rule 34?

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1849000/SEX_with_HITLER/

[Syt]

Yet another question is, in this scenario when would Hitler have turned on Stalin? Would he have?

Rule 34?

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1849000/SEX_with_HITLER/

It's a shame that Ed isn't here to see this.

[Habbaku]

You took something wholesome and made it sad. 

[The Brain]

Yet another question is, in this scenario when would Hitler have turned on Stalin? Would he have?

Rule 34?

Why is 6 afraid of 7?

7 8 9.

[The Brain]

I miss Ed.