Far-Right Sage wrote:How do you take the leap of logic that the Wehrmacht taking back what was theirs(the Rheinland) was the same as being "in France"?
France won it in the war.
Ibid. wrote:2. France was kicked out of the Rheinland, which was never rightfully French territory. It had the opportunity to use force to take it back at a time when the Wehrmacht was in its infancy - It chose not to. Please explain how this is the fault of England.
It turns out that I now have to look into this, thanks a lot . . .
Wikipedia, unreliably, wrote:In violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the spirit of the Locarno Pact, Nazi Germany remilitarized the Rhineland on Saturday, March 7, 1936. The occupation was done with very little military force, the troops entering on bicycles, and no effort was made to stop it (See Appeasement of Hitler). France could not act due to political instability at the time, and, since the remilitarisation occurred on a weekend, the British Government could not find out or discuss actions to be taken until the following Monday. As a result of this, the governments were inclined to see the remilitarisation as a fait accompli.
Hitler took a risk when he sent his troops to the Rhineland. He told them to 'turn back and not to resist' if they were stopped by the French Army. The French did not try to stop them because they were currently holding elections and no president wanted to start a war with Germany.
The British government agreed with the act in principle, "The Germans are after all only going into their own back garden" Lord Lothian, but rejected the Nazi manner of accomplishing said act. Winston Churchill, however, advocated military action through cooperation by the British and the French.
Well, hmm, I guess you have a point if Wikipedia were any bit reliable. I guess it is not that important, but certainly England was too nice to Hitler and this had an effect on France. I find it hard to believe that were appeasement smaller, France would have simply ceded the Rhineland.
Either way, let us not stray. I had said, like you have, that France could have taken Germany were it not for a few complications.
I suppose you are of the influence that the Rhineland had nothing to do with England, but I beg to differ and cite that internationalism was quite a political philosophy at that time and thus England, being at the forefront of the ideology along with France, may have had undue influence. But I guess this is a matter that's highly metaphysical, rather than substantial. After all, I could not answer what France would have done if there were no England. I would think that it would defend the territory, however.
What reason do you account that France had not attacked then?
Ibid. wrote:Appeasement is what led to a large European conflict, yes. You seem to think though that this was a policy guided solely by London, when that simply isn't the case. The French chose to ignore German animosity toward their country, and they chose not to stand by their European allies, such as Poland.
I think Chamberlain was shamed as a result of the policy and Chamerblain was at the head of London. Perhaps there were a Frenchman but I do believe Chamberlain the highest ranking advocate of the idea and the leader of it at that. As to Poland, I think it was the Czech that held an eastern front against Germany that England allowed for Germany to consume without a battle . . . this empowered the Germans and was likely a diplomatic message to the western World. Now, it may happen that this happened at a later time, but overall, England's diplomacy was likely symbolic if nothing else.
You can say that France had the opportunity to war, but it ignores the psychology of the world at that time.