Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[Henri McPhee]

It was Stalin who was deceived by Hitler. Stalin thought he could come to an agreement with Hitler to seize the Baltic states and carve up Poland. In March 1938 the British military chiefs of staff produced a report that concluded that Britain could not possibly stop Germany from taking Czechoslovakia, and that Britain was not prepared for war.

I don't think the mainstream media at the time told the British public what a very narrow shave it was. It was a typical British all must be well attitude. My own father when he was alive once made the remark that Britain could not possibly be defeated because of the British Navy. I don't think he ever counted up the number of Spitfires in service in 1938.

It still annoys me that Hitler occupied the Channel Islands. I don't like seeing old film of British policemen saluting Nazi soldiers there. All it needed was for hare-brained Churchill to choose between war and dishonour and we all would have ended up in concentration camps.

There is a bit about the matter in that Peter Calvocoressi Top Secret Ultra book published in 1981:

Quote:
The most convincing volume of evidence about Hitler's plans for 1941 came from signals intelligence and Ultra. I have already described how the monitoring of undecyphered wireless traffic disclosed the movements of Luftwaffe units to eastern Poland, and this intelligence was supplemented by Ultra which reported a massive shift of both air and ground forces from the western and Balkan fronts to the Russian front. Even the German Army's General Staff was transferred from Berlin eastward, a fact which we knew from Ultra before the beginning of 1941.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My own father when he was alive once made the remark that Britain could not possibly be defeated because of the British Navy. I don't think he ever counted up the number of Spitfires in service in 1938.

That's rather a non sequitur, don't you think? Britain couldn't be invaded because the Royal Navy had such a great superiority over the Kreigsmarine that it was impossible to safeguard an invasion fleet for the 24 hours it would take to cross the Channel; the only hope Germany had was for the Luftwaffe to be so effective at anti-shipping operations that it could deny the Channel totally to British warships, and it simply didn't have even the beginnings of that capability until about 1941. Even then, a fast-maneuvering destroyer was a hell of a difficult thing to sink, and the barges envisaged for an invasion fleet would have been swamped simply by the bow wave of a destroyer making a high speed pass. And then, put a force ashore, and then what? An armoured division needs about 100 tons of supplies per day to operate effectively; that logistical capability didn't exist for Germany at any time.

Whether Britain could have been defeated by German bombers simply obliterating everything south of the Thames is a different question, and one that Spitfire numbers are relevant to. But even so, Germany survived for a couple of years under a level of bombing almost beyond the imagination in 1940, and far beyond German capability in 1938.

It's a classic mistake of amateur historians to deduce imbalances in strength by comparing capabilities of two countries at different times. Comparing British capabilities in 1938 with German capabilities in 1940 is one of the commonest examples.

Dave

 

[ddt]

And then, put a force ashore, and then what? An armoured division needs about 100 tons of supplies per day to operate effectively; that logistical capability didn't exist for Germany at any time.

IOW, they could have been checked and driven back into the sea by Dad's Army?

Whether Britain could have been defeated by German bombers simply obliterating everything south of the Thames is a different question, and one that Spitfire numbers are relevant to. But even so, Germany survived for a couple of years under a level of bombing almost beyond the imagination in 1940, and far beyond German capability in 1938.

But Germany developed far too late big strategic bombers like the four-engine Lancaster and B-17. They simply didn't have the capability to obliterate Britain on the same scale as the UK and USA would do to Gerrmany, not during the Battle of Britain and not afterwards.

It's a classic mistake of amateur historians to deduce imbalances in strength by comparing capabilities of two countries at different times. Comparing British capabilities in 1938 with German capabilities in 1940 is one of the commonest examples.

And those 1940 German capabilities included Czech tanks like the 38t.

 

[Dave Rogers]

IOW, they could have been checked and driven back into the sea by Dad's Army?

There's a story I've heard, possibly apocryphal, that Sandhurst war-gamed a German invasion in 1940 in which the forces available to Britain were Snoopy in his Sopwith Camel, Captain Pugwash and the Black Pig, and the Walmington-on-Sea platoon of the Home Guard, and the German invasion still failed. Germany's logistical planning was virtually non-existent; their plans involved requisitioning the entire stock of barges in northern Europe (handwaving away the economic effects), towing them in strings across the channel, working up to full speed before releasing them to turn inland and hit the beach by momentum alone, blowing the bows off with explosive bolts to land the troops, then re-using the same set of beached, bowless barges for a daily cargo lift until they could capture a major port in good enough shape to use it - something they later found wasn't all that difficult to prevent. Plus, the Army demanded a large scale attack on multiple fronts, while the Navy could barely scrape together a plan for a single landing. There never seems to have been a coherent enough plan for any of it to be more than just a colossal bluff.

Dave

 

[jimbob]

There's a story I've heard, possibly apocryphal, that Sandhurst war-gamed a German invasion in 1940 in which the forces available to Britain were Snoopy in his Sopwith Camel, Captain Pugwash and the Black Pig, and the Walmington-on-Sea platoon of the Home Guard, and the German invasion still failed. Germany's logistical planning was virtually non-existent; their plans involved requisitioning the entire stock of barges in northern Europe (handwaving away the economic effects), towing them in strings across the channel, working up to full speed before releasing them to turn inland and hit the beach by momentum alone, blowing the bows off with explosive bolts to land the troops, then re-using the same set of beached, bowless barges for a daily cargo lift until they could capture a major port in good enough shape to use it - something they later found wasn't all that difficult to prevent. Plus, the Army demanded a large scale attack on multiple fronts, while the Navy could barely scrape together a plan for a single landing. There never seems to have been a coherent enough plan for any of it to be more than just a colossal bluff.

Dave

Operation Sealion probably would have shortened the war

I am reminded of the old saw, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics".

The Western Allies were the only armies with entirely motor-based logistics

The Axis and the Russians had lots of mules etc.

 

[ddt]

There's a story I've heard, possibly apocryphal, that Sandhurst war-gamed a German invasion in 1940 in which the forces available to Britain were Snoopy in his Sopwith Camel, Captain Pugwash and the Black Pig, and the Walmington-on-Sea platoon of the Home Guard, and the German invasion still failed.

Where have I heard that before? Oh, here on 15 December 2009:

There's a legend that Sandhurst, who regularly wargame Sealion, tried a scenario where the forces available to the defence were the Walmington-on-Sea platoon of the Home Guard, Captain Pugwash in the Black Pig, and Snoopy in a Sopwith Camel. The Germans still lost.

Dave

Googling suggests that the story originates with a certain Alison Brooks, who claims to have been involved. But he has Snoopy just lying on the roof of his kennel. I guess he lost his biplane to the Red Baron. He also has an amusing write-up why Operation Sealion would have been an unmitigated disaster.

And this was the same vaunted German war machine that exercised for a year how to capture Eben-Emael.

 

[carlvs]

I am reminded of the old saw, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics".

The Western Allies were the only armies with entirely motor-based logistics

The Axis and the Russians had lots of mules etc.

Though to be fair - thanks in large part to Lend-Lease - the USSR forces eventually came close to Western forces in this arena...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Where have I heard that before? Oh, here on 15 December 2009:

Yeah, thought I might have mentioned that before, and that's probably where I read it originally.

Dave

 

[Henri McPhee]

That's rather a non sequitur, don't you think? Britain couldn't be invaded because the Royal Navy had such a great superiority over the Kreigsmarine that it was impossible to safeguard an invasion fleet for the 24 hours it would take to cross the Channel; the only hope Germany had was for the Luftwaffe to be so effective at anti-shipping operations that it could deny the Channel totally to British warships, and it simply didn't have even the beginnings of that capability until about 1941. Even then, a fast-maneuvering destroyer was a hell of a difficult thing to sink, and the barges envisaged for an invasion fleet would have been swamped simply by the bow wave of a destroyer making a high speed pass. And then, put a force ashore, and then what? An armoured division needs about 100 tons of supplies per day to operate effectively; that logistical capability didn't exist for Germany at any time.

Whether Britain could have been defeated by German bombers simply obliterating everything south of the Thames is a different question, and one that Spitfire numbers are relevant to. But even so, Germany survived for a couple of years under a level of bombing almost beyond the imagination in 1940, and far beyond German capability in 1938.

It's a classic mistake of amateur historians to deduce imbalances in strength by comparing capabilities of two countries at different times. Comparing British capabilities in 1938 with German capabilities in 1940 is one of the commonest examples.

Dave

The point any amateur strategist can appreciate is that the Germans would have had to have had air superiority before they made an opposed landing in Britain. It's like D-day. A bridgehead is not much use unless you can stay there.

Guderian's blitzkrieg tactics relied on the Stuka dive bomber. That was very effective in Spain, France and Poland, and probably in Russia, and a danger to British shipping and the British Navy. Against Spitfires, the Stuka was described by the Germans as a flying coffin:

here their weakness showed the Stukas lacked the range and payload capability needed to inflict real damage on the British air defence. Slow as they were they were no match for the RAF fighters.

Winston Churchill and Lloyd George can be accused of appeasement from their public quotes in the 1930s, and not Chamberlain, There is a quote somewhere, which I now can't find, that Hitler blamed Chamberlain for Germany losing the war. From a Wikipedia Hitler quotes website:

On February 9, 1934, J. F. Rutherford, the president of the Watch Tower Society, sent a letter of protest to Hitler stating these words. As the Nazi rage against Jehovah’s Witnesses reached new heights, the Witnesses’ denunciations became ever more scathing. The May 15, 1940, issue of Consolation stated: “Hitler is such a perfect child of the Devil that these speeches and decisions flow through him like water through a well-built sewer
”.
One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.
Winston Churchill, "Hitler and His Choice" in The Strand Magazine (November 1935).

We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation.
Winston Churchill, "Hitler and His Choice" in The Strand Magazine (November 1935).

[W]hen Hitler says that “the State dominates the nation because it alone represents it,” he is only putting into loose popular language the formula of Hegel, that “the State is the general substance, whereof individuals are but accidents.”
Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State, Caldwell, ID, The Caxton Printers (1950) pp. 21-22, first published in 1935

He [Hitler] is a very great man. "Fuhrer" is the proper name for him, for he is a born leader, yes, and statesman.
David Lloyd George, A. J. Sylvester's diary entry (4 September 1936), Colin Cross (ed.), Life with Lloyd George. The Diary of A. J. Sylvester 1931-45 (London: Macmillan, 1975), p. 148.

I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country.
David Lloyd George, Daily Express, September 17, 1936.

I have just returned from a visit to Germany. … I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. Whatever one may think of his methods — and they are certainly not those of a Parliamentary country — there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvellous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook.

One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will, and a dauntless heart. He is the national Leader. He is also securing them against that constant dread of starvation which is one of the most poignant memories of the last years of the war and the first years of the Peace. The establishment of a German hegemony in Europe which was the aim and dream of the old prewar militarism, is not even on the horizon of Nazism.
David Lloyd George As quoted in The Daily Express (17 November 1936).
Hitler is a prodigious genius.
David Lloyd George, A. J. Sylvester's diary entry (7 July 1940), Colin Cross (ed.), Life with Lloyd George. The Diary of A. J. Sylvester 1931-45 (London: Macmillan, 1975), p. 275.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The point any amateur strategist can appreciate is that the Germans would have had to have had air superiority before they made an opposed landing in Britain. It's like D-day. A bridgehead is not much use unless you can stay there.

The point any logician can appreciate is that this is denying the antecedent. It's perfectly clear that Germany could not have carried out a successful landing without air superiority; this does not, however, imply that Germany could have made a successful landing with air superiority. Stukas were very effective against land armies, but against freely maneuvering warships they were very much less so; the Luftwaffe could not have prevented enough of an all-out assault by the Royal Navy against an invasion fleet to make the result anything less than an outright military disaster for Germany, and based on the RN's record in WW2 it's difficult to imagine they'd do anything less.

Dave

 

[Craig B]

Please also identify your sources, which by the way don't look very impressive.

I asked you to do that, and I'm disappointed with your response.

There is a quote somewhere, which I now can't find, that Hitler blamed Chamberlain for Germany losing the war.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I asked you to do that, and I'm disappointed with your response.

My previous quotes have come from Adolf Hitler-Wikiquote under Google.:

There is an internet article from Maynooth University about the unpublished Nazi Caucasus campaign. It's interesting but a bit hard going. I can't get these websites to link with this forum:

In a way Germany won the war. Germany now has a unified Europe with Germany on top. German war criminals like Dr Mengele and Barbie, who I suppose was French, went unpunished and are now dead. Russia gained Eastern Europe for a time which caused ruction with America to this day.

 

[theprestige]

In a way Germany won the war. Germany now has a unified Europe with Germany on top. German war criminals like Dr Mengele and Barbie, who I suppose was French, went unpunished and are now dead. Russia gained Eastern Europe for a time which caused ruction with America to this day.

In no way did Germany win the war. Disagreement between Russia and the US was not a war goal, and anyway had already started in the 30s. As a result of the war, Germany was destroyed, invaded, occupied, and divided. Half of it was enslaved and tormented by the Soviet Union for a generation. Germany's present condition is the benefit that accrues to a peaceful democracy that engages with its neighbors in good faith through economic and diplomatic means. Germany today is a new nation, that with the help of its former conquerors--and even against their malign interference--built itself up from the rubble of the Germany that was destroyed. It bears no responsibility for the war entered into, and utterly lost, by the evil regime that preceded it.

It is hard to imagine a nation losing a war more completely and decisively than Germany did. Carthage, maybe?

 

[Craig B]

In a way Germany won the war. Germany now has a unified Europe with Germany on top.

Read about the Nazi occupation, compared to the EU alliance, and be ashamed of yourself for the idiocy you are expressing.

Are you by any chance a supporter of Brexit?

If it wasn't for us they'd be talking Kraut in Berlin now! Oh, they are talking it, are they? So Hitler must of won the war then.

 

[jimbob]

Read about the Nazi occupation, compared to the EU alliance, and be ashamed of yourself for the idiocy you are expressing.

Are you by any chance a supporter of Brexit?

If it wasn't for us they'd be talking Kraut in Berlin now! Oh, they are talking it, are they? So Hitler must of won the war then.

Well said

 

[ddt]

In a way Germany won the war. Germany now has a unified Europe with Germany on top. German war criminals like Dr Mengele and Barbie, who I suppose was French, went unpunished and are now dead. Russia gained Eastern Europe for a time which caused ruction with America to this day.

Ahem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Barbie:

Nikolaus "Klaus" Barbie was born on 25 October 1913 in Godesberg, later renamed Bad Godesberg, which is today part of Bonn.

and

Barbie was identified as being in Peru in 1971 by the Klarsfelds (Nazi hunters from France) who came across a secret document that revealed his alias.
[...]
In 1984, Barbie was indicted for crimes committed as Gestapo chief in Lyon between 1942 and 1944. The jury trial started on 11 May 1987 in Lyon before the Rhône Cour d'Assises.
[...]
The court rejected the defense's argument. On 4 July 1987, Barbie was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. He died in prison in Lyon four years later of leukemia and cancer of the spine and prostate at the age of 77.[25]

I'd have thought his trial and conviction was common knowledge.

 

[theprestige]

German war criminals like Dr Mengele and Barbie, who I suppose was French, went unpunished and are now dead.

I'd have thought his trial and conviction was common knowledge.

Henri, why are you always wrong?

 

[Henri McPhee]

Ahem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Barbie:

and


I'd have thought his trial and conviction was common knowledge.

I don't know much about Barbie. I remember the case in the newspapers, when it happened, but I didn't take much notice at the time. The newspaper reports never mentioned that Barbie murdered people by throwing them into a lime pit.

There is a bit of background to all this in a book called The Secret Hunters by
Anthony Kemp published in 1986. This is a quote from Prince Galitzine:

In fact I thought that we were being far too soft and I still do actually.. I think that a lot of the people that were caught by any of these war crime teams in Europe had committed the most terrible crimes, and we couldn't understand why they were given a year, four years, six years imprisonment. very few of them got life and it was really a question of getting either a short term of imprisonment or being hung.

If really one feels that war crimes are a crime against humanity then I think the death penalty should have been inflicted and a lot of us were surprised at the leniency shown.

The derisory sentences, he felt, were not due to a sense of justice:

I think there was a natural reaction against killing and against all the horrors of war. And I think because the British nature is forgiving and tolerant there was a feeling among the judges that having caught the people, having actually indicted them and having imprisoned them, that they would - when they got back to their own country - be branded as marked men and therefore they would never be able to live it down.

Time as shown, however, that the culprits did live it down, rapidly re-emerging into public life in Germany.

I still think Germany came out on top, with Britain,and even America just being left with currency and property speculation, and football, and bank fraud.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Please also identify your sources, which by the way don't look very impressive.

That article about the Germans in the Caucasus comes from D. Galbraith at Maynooth university, which is Irish would you believe. It's rather hard going but it seems to be comprehensive:

www.academia.edu/11902948/1_Defence_and_Evacuation_of_the_Kuban_Bridgehead_January_-_October_1943

 

[Craig B]

... Maynooth^WP university, which is Irish would you believe.

Yes I would believe that. It became exceedingly well known as the subject of anti-Catholic agitation in the mid nineteenth century, when the UK government granted funding to it, causing indignation and consternation among extremist Protestants. See link.

It was also the source of the Maynooth Catechism^WP, well known to Catholic Irish schoolchildren.

... It was "ordered by the National Synod of Maynooth. . . . for General Use throughout the Irish Church" in 1882 ... In the 20th century in Irish schools it was known as the "Green Catechism" from the colour of its cover. The James Joyce short story "A Painful Case" references this catechism.​

It was revised and republished in 1951.