Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[theprestige]

I still think it's complacent to suggest that there was no danger of Britain being invaded in 1938, or that Britain could not be bombed into submission in 1938.

But there was no danger of Britain being invaded in 1938. The Germans didn't have the sealift capacity to bring sufficient troops across the Channel. And they didn't have the naval strength to force the passage anyway.

Nor could Britain have been bombed into submission in 1938. The Germans didn't have enough bombers to effect the necessary reduction. And they didn't have the air combat strength to protect the bombers anyway.

 

[jimbob]

I still think it's complacent to suggest that there was no danger of Britain being invaded in 1938, or that Britain could not be bombed into submission in 1938. Baldwin had the right idea with his "the bomber will always get through" theory even though what actually happened was that there were large bomber losses and casualties by the German and British and American air forces later on. I agree that there were disagreements within the RAF about fighter aircraft tactics, but Chamberlain had right judgment to provide time for the RAF to get organised for war. Churchill took the political credit as usual for the Spitfires and Hurricanes, when in fact he had nothing to do with it.

There is an interesting website which discusses Baldwin and his bomber will get through theory:

https://airminded.org/2007/11/10/the-bomber-will-always-get-through/

I love the highlighted part.

I think it might work in theory even though in practice it was a disaster.

 

[Garrison]

I still think it's complacent to suggest that there was no danger of Britain being invaded in 1938 or that Britain could not be bombed into submission in 1938

It's not complacent to point out facts. There was zero possibility of an invasion in 1938 and the Luftwaffe was incapable of delivering the kind of bomb loads required to bomb Britain into submission during the Blitz night bombing campaign with bases in France in 1940. The notion they could do so in 1938 flying from Germany is absurd, and are you planning to withdraw the blatant falsehood that the bombers were unescorted during the BoB?

 

[Garrison]

I love the highlighted part.

I think it might work in theory even though in practice it was a disaster.

Yes somehow Baldwin's theory was right, even though every practical experience of trying it proved it wrong.

 

[jimbob]

I still think it's complacent to suggest that there was no danger of Britain being invaded in 1938 or that Britain could not be bombed into submission in 1938

It's not complacent to point out facts. There was zero possibility of an invasion in 1938 and the Luftwaffe was incapable of delivering the kind of bomb loads required to bomb Britain into submission during the Blitz night bombing campaign with bases in France in 1940. The notion they could do so in 1938 flying from Germany is absurd, and are you planning to withdraw the blatant falsehood that the bombers were unescorted during the BoB?

Henri, would it be too much to ask how exactly Germany was going to invade Britain (successfully or otherwise) in 1938?

Would it be too much to ask how Germany was going to bomb Britain into submission without nuclear weapons? That is the only occasion in history where bombing int submission has actually worked.

The Germans tried it in the Blitz, the RAF and USAAF also tried to bomb Germany into submission with far more capable bombing forces. The USAF tried it in Vietnam.I'm sure I have missed out a few examples. but none- apart from the two atom bombs actually forced a surrender.

 

[theprestige]

Has there ever been a nation that surrendered solely due to artillery bombardment of any kind besides nuclear?

(I am considering ground attack aircraft as a kind of artillery, for the purpose of this question.)

Henri, at this point, you should probably just say that you meant *1948*, and leave it at that.

 

[Garrison]

Henri, would it be too much to ask how exactly Germany was going to invade Britain (successfully or otherwise) in 1938?

Would it be too much to ask how Germany was going to bomb Britain into submission without nuclear weapons? That is the only occasion in history where bombing int submission has actually worked.

The Germans tried it in the Blitz, the RAF and USAAF also tried to bomb Germany into submission with far more capable bombing forces. The USAF tried it in Vietnam.I'm sure I have missed out a few examples. but none- apart from the two atom bombs actually forced a surrender.

And even in the case of Japan the bombs came on top of a Soviet declaration of war.

 

[jimbob]

Has there ever been a nation that surrendered solely due to artillery bombardment of any kind besides nuclear?

(I am considering ground attack aircraft as a kind of artillery, for the purpose of this question.)

Henri, at this point, you should probably just say that you meant *1948*, and leave it at that.

There might have been some city states somewhere - I suppose.

 

[Craig B]

There might have been some city states somewhere - I suppose.

Nearest I can think of is the Ottoman siege of Rhodes in 1522. The Knights of St John capitulated following severe artillery bombardment, and a failed Ottoman assault. The Ottomans threatened that if they were compelled to storm the city again, they would kill or enslave everyone in it, but if it capitulated the terms of surrender would be generous. The civilian population put the Knights under great pressure to accept this offer, and at last prevailed.

The Knights were permitted to depart with their possessions, and the civilians could migrate to the Venetian Republic if they didn't want to remain in Rhodes under Muslim rule. Both sides kept their bargain, it must be recorded to their credit, and no final assault took place.

 

[jimbob]

Nearest I can think of is the Ottoman siege of Rhodes in 1522. The Knights of St John capitulated following severe artillery bombardment, and a failed Ottoman assault. The Ottomans threatened that if they were compelled to storm the city again, they would kill or enslave everyone in it, but if it capitulated the terms of surrender would be generous. The civilian population put the Knights under great pressure to accept this offer, and at last prevailed.

The Knights were permitted to depart with their possessions, and the civilians could migrate to the Venetian Republic if they didn't want to remain in Rhodes under Muslim rule. Both sides kept their bargain, it must be recorded to their credit, and no final assault took place.

Thank you. Now if you could add a link to say the Fall of Tenochtitlan as supporting evidence, for example, it would be an ideal answer

 

[Aber]

Has there ever been a nation that surrendered solely due to artillery bombardment of any kind besides nuclear?

Zanzibar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

 

[HansMustermann]

NO country could be just bombed into submission. As I was saying, as early as the Spanish Civil War, there was a report on the terror bombing there, and the conclusion was that it just strengthens the will to fight of the people you bomb. You know, the opposite of wanting to submit.

The best theory anyone could come up with during the war, on how to use strategic bombing, was to cripple the war economy by targeting key areas that would affect everything else. The best example that worked was targetting the German refineries and oil depots, which did more to cripple Germany than all the terror bombing during the whole war, and cost only a fraction of the bombs and lives. And then there were examples that didn't really work, like trying to cripple the ball bearing production.

UNFORTUNATELY:
1. It was the allies who came up with that, not the Germans. And even the allies took a while to get that idea.

but more importantly

2. It depends on a series of key conditions, some of the most important being the existence of such concentrated key industries, your ability to reach them, and your ability to actually bomb them again and again to keep them out of use.

The latter was a huge problem for Germany. Even the Norden sight wasn't nearly as accurate as in the propaganda, and actually needed huge amounts of planes and bombs so some actually hit the intended industrial installation. But the Germans didn't even have that sight, nor the huge amount of airplanes to take out industry by carpet bombing.

More importantly, they didn't have the REACH for that. Britain is a big place, and if you can only reach the south-eastern coast, there's a lot of place where they can put their key industries so you can't even get to them. And in fact, that was already the case before the war even started.

Hell, even during the Battle Of Britain, when they could cover a LOT more of Britain than in '38, you may notice that the Germans hammered on airfields and whatnot in the south to try to cripple the RAF, but they couldn't (and didn't even really try to) cripple the factories that produced those planes, or any other industries that would hamper the input to those factories.

 

[HansMustermann]

Nearest I can think of is the Ottoman siege of Rhodes in 1522. The Knights of St John capitulated following severe artillery bombardment, and a failed Ottoman assault. The Ottomans threatened that if they were compelled to storm the city again, they would kill or enslave everyone in it, but if it capitulated the terms of surrender would be generous. The civilian population put the Knights under great pressure to accept this offer, and at last prevailed.

The Knights were permitted to depart with their possessions, and the civilians could migrate to the Venetian Republic if they didn't want to remain in Rhodes under Muslim rule. Both sides kept their bargain, it must be recorded to their credit, and no final assault took place.

The KEY factor there, though, is that the Ottomans did have enough boots on the ground for such an assault to be a credible threat. If it were ONLY the artillery and no boots on the ground, the siege could continue to this day, and still nobody would capitulate.

 

[Craig B]

The KEY factor there, though, is that the Ottomans did have enough boots on the ground for such an assault to be a credible threat. If it were ONLY the artillery and no boots on the ground, the siege could continue to this day, and still nobody would capitulate.

Yes I agree.

 

[ddt]

I protest - that is an accurate statement supported by your link. I hope you spotted what my link was.

My apologies. I didn't look at your link, it was late and I was tired. And this thread gets confusing fast as to who posts with fake evidence and who not. Looked at your link - LOL.

 

[jimbob]

My apologies. I didn't look at your link, it was late and I was tired. And this thread gets confusing fast as to who posts with fake evidence and who not. Looked at your link - LOL.

As far as I know, my link was accurate... utterly irrelevant, but accurate.

Meanwhile, I refer you to Dave Roger's post - which I think is accurate and relevant.

I think I may try explaining fighter ranges and the difference between escorted and unescorted bombers to my cat. He's not the brightest of cats, but I think he'll at least be aware that I'm talking to him.

Dave

 

[Garrison]

NO country could be just bombed into submission. As I was saying, as early as the Spanish Civil War, there was a report on the terror bombing there, and the conclusion was that it just strengthens the will to fight of the people you bomb. You know, the opposite of wanting to submit.

It's amazing how long the idea of bombing the enemy into submission clung on, even when the British had their own direct experience of it failing miserably. It always seemed to be the case that it just needed more planes, more bombs and it would work. The Allies had the luxury of indulging in the creation of a strategic airforce while pursuing their other goals, Nazi Germany never did.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The jury is out about that. You could argue that Holland and Poland surrendered after Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed by the Germans, and the Czechs also gave up when Hitler threatened to bomb Prague. The Stuka dive bomber did a lot of damage in France, but it was no match for the British Spitfire. If Britain had lost the Battle of Britain, and it was a close run thing, it's more than likely that there would have been 'shooty-bangs' on the British mainland, which would have been countered with Churchill's 'with what' strategy and powerful oratory. The IRA would most likely have invaded Northern Ireland.

In more recent times you could argue that Israel won the Six Day war by surprise bombing, and also Nato in Libya. Bombing seems to have recently got rid of Isis in Syria and Iraq, apart from their underground tunnels, though many of Isis have now fled to Libya and Afghanistan and Turkey. There are people on the internet who now seem to think Stealth bombers would win a war against Russia and North Korea and China, though personally I think that's crazy.

There is a bit about all this in that Russian Outlook book by Sir Giffard Martel published in 1947:

Finally we come to the very difficult question as to whether too large a
proportion of our national effort was expended on building up a great bombing fleet for the air force. The subject is one on which a whole book could be written. R.A.F. propaganda had been intense on this subject for many years before the war. They were insistent that they could win the war by bombing alone. At a very early stage in the war a detailed study of this subject under a neutral chairman was essential. I think they would have come fairly near to estimating the real power of a large bombing fleet. But this was never done. A Defence Minister could have done so. The Prime Minister could not spare the necessary time. There were of course. many discussions and many papers were written on each side. In the end the Prime Minister remarked that the R.A.F. proposals were worth a trial! What was the final result? Right up to the end of the war the German army was very well equipped in spite of the bombing of the munition factories, and they only gave in because they were defeated by the Allied armies on the battle-field. Of course the air bombing was a tremendous help to the Allies, but it never came near to being the main factor in winning the war. It may or not be true, but it is quite reasonable to argue that we would have won more easily if we had put 25 per cent less effort into the air and 25 per cent more on the armies and their equipment.

 

[Klimax]

The jury is out about that. You could argue that Holland and Poland surrendered after Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed by the Germans, and the Czechs also gave up when Hitler threatened to bomb Prague. The Stuka dive bomber did a lot of damage in France, but it was no match for the British Spitfire. If Britain had lost the Battle of Britain, and it was a close run thing, it's more than likely that there would have been 'shooty-bangs' on the British mainland, which would have been countered with Churchill's 'with what' strategy and powerful oratory. The IRA would most likely have invaded Northern Ireland.
...

First, we had very ill president after Beneš went into exile in GB and thus was much easier to pressure. Second, thanks to crapshow called Munich by certain Chamberlain, we lost bulk of natural and prepared defenses! Our position after loss of Sudetland was indefensible.

You are literally rewriting history!!! Stop that idiocy!

 

[Henri McPhee]

It's not complacent to point out facts. There was zero possibility of an invasion in 1938 and the Luftwaffe was incapable of delivering the kind of bomb loads required to bomb Britain into submission during the Blitz night bombing campaign with bases in France in 1940. The notion they could do so in 1938 flying from Germany is absurd, and are you planning to withdraw the blatant falsehood that the bombers were unescorted during the BoB?

That's patently untrue.

http://ww2today.com/15th-august-1940-the-luftwaffes-black-thursday

The 15th August saw some of the fiercest fighting of the Battle of Britain as the Luftwaffe launched a series of raids aimed mainly at RAF bases. This was intended as the knockout blow that had been envisaged on ‘Eagle Day’, although the results were not as anticipated. The resources of the RAF were far from being as depleted as the Luftwaffe intelligence suggested, and scored some notable successes, particularly when German bombers were unescorted by fighters.