• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

The Bloomsbury group is a bit of a vast complex subject, but it does seem that some of the members of it, like David Garnett and the Bells were not quite such pacifists in the second world war:

Again I have to ask Henri, do you actually read the things you quote? Your latest literally has the year 1937 mentioned within the first two sentences.

An ambulance driver or medic is a pacifist role. Brave but pacifist.

Indeed. Plenty of pacifists filled such roles in WWI and WWII, it in no way indicates any change of heart on their part.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the notion that Chamberlain was buying time at Munich for a war he thought was inevitable, I'm reading 'Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory' and it seems to have been the consensus of many of the senior British officers that the British Army that went to war in 1939 was singularly ill-equipped and lacking in training. Many of the measures taken to expand the Army from September 1939 to Chamberlain's departure from the office in 1940 seem to have been hasty, ill-thought out, last minute attempts to fix deficiencies of the army's situation that had not been addressed since the Munich agreement. Henri's favourite question 'with what?' should properly be directed at Chamberlain, either the man genuinely believed in his 'peace in our time' pronouncements or he was utterly inept in preparing for a war he saw coming.

Of course those deficiencies would have been far less damaging in 1938 when the German army was in an even worse condition. Courtesy of Munich Chamberlain probably did more to strengthen the German army than the British one...
 
Regarding the notion that Chamberlain was buying time at Munich for a war he thought was inevitable, I'm reading 'Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory' and it seems to have been the consensus of many of the senior British officers that the British Army that went to war in 1939 was singularly ill-equipped and lacking in training. Many of the measures taken to expand the Army from September 1939 to Chamberlain's departure from the office in 1940 seem to have been hasty, ill-thought out, last minute attempts to fix deficiencies of the army's situation that had not been addressed since the Munich agreement. Henri's favourite question 'with what?' should properly be directed at Chamberlain, either the man genuinely believed in his 'peace in our time' pronouncements or he was utterly inept in preparing for a war he saw coming.

Of course those deficiencies would have been far less damaging in 1938 when the German army was in an even worse condition. Courtesy of Munich Chamberlain probably did more to strengthen the German army than the British one...

....OR confronting Germany in 1935 over the Rhineland might have moved the war into much later period or short circuited Hitler's plans altogether.
 
Henri, what bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?

All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938. Ignorance is bliss.
 
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938. Ignorance is bliss.

That was not your claim. Don't pretend any different.
 
....OR confronting Germany in 1935 over the Rhineland might have moved the war into much later period or short circuited Hitler's plans altogether.

There is a discussion about this matter of the Rhineland at this forum. My own view is that the public and House of Commons and America didn't want to know about the Rhineland:

http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30191

This was a sensible posting about the matter:

If I remember correctly, it was basically because the British government didn't feel it would have support from its population and allies if it declared war on Germany for remilitarizing. Everyone knew what Hitler was going to do with his army, but no one wanted to go to war. Remember, WWI was a giant *************** that destroyed an enormous amount of territory and killed countless people. It wasn't until Hitler actually engaged in openly hostile action that the British felt they could justify conflict to their war weary population and allies.
 
Last edited:
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938.

This is the Internet equivalent of holding your breath till your face turns blue. Your claim was that Germany could have forced a British surrender within a week in 1938. The only thing Germany could have done in one week in 1938 was mount a bombing campaign using unescorted bombers at maximum range and carrying minimum bombloads; compared to later bombing offensives against Germany and Japan, which, let's remember, didn't cause either country to surrender over periods of years, it would have been pathetically ineffective.

Dave
 
Poland surrendered after Warsaw was bombed, and neutral Holland after Rotterdam was bombed.

Come on, Henri, this is a pathetic effort. Both countries had been more or less overrun by German armies at the time, which Germany couldn't possibly have done to Britain in a week in 1938. Give me an example of a modern state being forced to surrender in a week by long range bombing alone, which is the only thing Germany could conceivably have done to Britain in one week in 1938.

Dave
 
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938.


1706047f81c06ee695.jpg


And, as usual, evasion noted. As has been repeatedly explained to you, and you have repeatedly ignored, senior Luftwaffe officers themselves stated that they couldn't have bombed Britain effectively in 1938; one stated that the most they could have achieved were "pin pricks." And no one said anything about France or Czechoslovakia.

As for Spain, the planes that bombed Guernica flew from Burgos, which is less than 100 miles away by air. But any bombers flying from Germany to London would have had to have flown, at a bare minimum, 350 miles each direction, and that's assuming they all flew from Emden, which is totally unrealistic; there simply weren't enough suitable airfields in that part of Germany. It also assumes they would have flown over the Netherlands, which would likely have resulted in a Dutch declaration of war.

In order to avoid neutral countries, most bombers would have had to have flown about 500 miles to reach London, from airbases in Lower Saxony and Bremen. Additionally, large raids burn more fuel per aircraft, as time for take-off, landing, and forming up must be allowed, on top of the inefficiency of flying in formation. So such Luftwaffe operations as could have been mounted would have had to have been fairly small, and carried reduced bomb loads. These attacks would have been suicidal in daylight, and at night they would have amounted to the aforementioned "pin pricks," assuming they could have even found their targets, which is questionable in 1938 and 1939.

As for the French, with their weak air defenses, and who were much closer to Germany, please explain why the Luftwaffe didn't merely bomb them into submission in 1939 or early 1940.

Additionally, you ignore the fact that the RAF had bombers, too. The Whitley was quite capable for the time, and over 100 were active in the fall of 1938. Further, the Wellington was just entering service, and so was the less capable but far from useless Hampden. Plus the numerous Blenheims could have staged through French bases to bomb many German cities. Finally, unlike the Luftwaffe, the RAF had prepared for and practiced night bombing.

Ignorance is bliss.


:id:
 
There is a discussion about this matter of the Rhineland at this forum. My own view is that the public and House of Commons and America didn't want to know about the Rhineland:

http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30191

This was a sensible posting about the matter:

Nope they didn't have to declare war they just had to tell the Germans that if they moved into the Rhineland THEY would be starting a war.

Again you appear to be making stuff up.
 
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938. Ignorance is bliss.
Henri, all I ask is that the things you claim, you support. Thus: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?
 
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain -into surrending or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938. .

Man you do like making up implausible strawmen don't you Henry?

Sure the Germans could have sent unescorted bombers with light bomb loads to England but the English wouldn't have surrendered because they would be returning the flavor with their own bomber - probably going after the German surface units however.

Ignorance is bliss

You should make that your mantra.
 
Henri, all I ask is that the things you claim, you support. Thus: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?

Now that is not fair. Isn't asking Henri a technical history laden question like that no unlike asking a cat to explain in Latin why it likes fish?
 
Henri, all I ask is that the things you claim, you support. Thus: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?

The Amerikabomber had the range and could have taken off from Castle Wolfenstein.
 
The Germans were perfectly capable of bombing Prague in 1938, and it would not have been very nice for the Czechs. Churchill would not have been much help to the Czechs in that situation. There is a bit of background to the Luftwaffe at this website:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-1.html

I agree that the Luftwaffe had all sorts of problems, including technical problems, but its dive bombers did a lot of damage, even in Soviet Russia.

The failure of the Luftwaffe to progress further towards a "strategic" bombing capability is attributable to several factors. The first is that many within the Luftwaffe thought that they possessed sufficient capability with their twin-engine aircraft to launch "strategic" attacks against Germany's most likely continental opponents--France, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. England presented greater

--10--

problems, but even here General Felmy, Commander of Luftfotte 2 and charged with planning of an air war against Britain in 1939, saw possibilities. Concluding the 1939 spring planning effort, Felmy admitted to his subordinates that the Luftwaffe did not yet possess any of the prerequisites for a successful "strategic" bombing offensive against Great Britain.

He did suggest, however, that the panic that had broken out in London in September at the height of the Munich crisis indicated that a massive aerial onslaught directed against London might break Britain's powers of resistance.51

A second factor lay on the technical side: The engineers never solved the He 177 design difficulties. Moreover, not only did Germany not possess the economic strength and resources to build a "strategic" bombing force on the scale of the British and American effort of 1943-44 but few airmen of any nation in the prewar period had foreseen the enormous magnitude of the industrial and military effort that "strategic" bombing would require. Thus, it is not surprising that Germany was not much better prepared to launch a "strategic" bombing campaign than Britain in 1939.
 
Last edited:
The Germans were perfectly capable of bombing Prague in 1938, and it would not have been very nice for the Czechs. Churchill would not have been much help to the Czechs in that situation. There is a bit of background to the Luftwaffe at this website:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-1.html

I agree that the Luftwaffe had all sorts of problems, including technical problems, but its dive bombers did a lot of damage, even in Soviet Russia.

(speaks slowly)
Yes, Henri... Prague is in a country that shares a land border with Germany.

It is not in the United Kingdom.

It doesn't help your claim that the Luftwaffe would be able to bomb the UK into submission in a week in 1938.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom