• 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 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


Interesting that you should choose an article entitled "Strategy for Defeat" to demonstrate the might of the 1938 Luftwaffe.

The fuel situation in the summer of 1938 reflects the extent of the problem. In June of that year, supplies in storage tanks could cover only 25 percent of mobilization requirements--on the average, four months of full wartime needs. Supplies of aviation lubricants were as low as 6 percent of mobilization requirements.

Not ideal for a major bombing offensive, although I would infer they had about enough for 4 weeks' effort. But then...

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.

Remind me, was 1939 before or after 1938?

And as for the effectiveness of strategic bombing in achieving overall victory:

Conversely, Captain Heye of the Seekriegsleitung (naval high command) gained a different impression after talking with Luftwaffe officers during a 1938 visit to Spain. He reported on his return to Berlin:


Disregarding the military success accompanying the Luftwaffe's use in immediate support of army operations, one gets the impression that our attacks on objects of little military importance, through which in most cases many women and children. . . were hit, are not a suitable means to break an opponent's resistance. They seem to strengthen his resistance. . . . The memory of the air attack on Guemica by the (Condor] Legion still today affects the population and permits no friendly feelings for Germany in the population of the Basques, who earlier were thoroughly friendly to Germany and in no manner Communistic.

And as for attitudes in Britain at the time of Munich:

Nevertheless, in the final analysis, fears about the Luftwaffe probably were not decisive in molding the British response to German threats before Munich. In fact, by September 1938 many leading appeasers felt that the West could beat Germany in a war,92 while the British military in late September came around to the view that "the latent resources of our Empire and the doubtful morale of our opponents under the stress of war give us confidence as to the ultimate outcome [of a war]."

All in all, this source does a great deal to utterly demolish your claim that Germany could have defeated Britain in a week at 1938 levels of military strength.

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.

If they'd been used to attack Britain in 1938, the only thing they would have done a lot of damage to was the North Sea when they ran out of fuel and crashed into it.

Dave
 
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.
Do you by any chance mean the Ju-87 Stuka? The plane that couldn't reach Britain in 1938, that dive bomber?

Interesting that you should choose an article entitled "Strategy for Defeat" to demonstrate the might of the 1938 Luftwaffe.
Dave

No, you're not saying that Henri quoted a source that actually undermines his claims are you? That's unprecedented inevitable.

The Luftwaffe of the 1930s was created to fulfil two objectives, provide air defence of Germany and provide tactical support for the army. By the time they decided they need a strategic it was all rather too late and plagued with those 'technical difficulties'. The lack of such bombers not only hampered attacks on the UK but put much of Soviet industry out of reach of the Luftwaffe after it was evacuated in 1941. Not much use dive bombing one tank when the factories were turning out 3 or 4 replacements unimpeded.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that you should choose an article entitled "Strategy for Defeat" to demonstrate the might of the 1938 Luftwaffe.



Not ideal for a major bombing offensive, although I would infer they had about enough for 4 weeks' effort. But then...



Remind me, was 1939 before or after 1938?

And as for the effectiveness of strategic bombing in achieving overall victory:



And as for attitudes in Britain at the time of Munich:



All in all, this source does a great deal to utterly demolish your claim that Germany could have defeated Britain in a week at 1938 levels of military strength.



If they'd been used to attack Britain in 1938, the only thing they would have done a lot of damage to was the North Sea when they ran out of fuel and crashed into it.

Dave

Oh Noes!

Will nobody think of the poor fish?
 
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.

.......
Did you seriously link to that page in order to help your case? Really? That page?

Now I'm really curious. Please tell us, why on earth you thought that would support your position.
 
Oh Noes!

Will nobody think of the poor fish?

Hans' cat probably is - in Latin or otherwise.

.......
Did you seriously link to that page in order to help your case? Really? That page?

Now I'm really curious. Please tell us, why on earth you thought that would support your position.

See post #1422...
 
Hans' cat probably is - in Latin or otherwise.



See post #1422...

Yes, I read it. And by this time, I'm not really expecting anything better.

But still. Some thought must have occurred when choosing that page for linking.
I'm simply curious about said thought process.
 
Yes, I read it. And by this time, I'm not really expecting anything better.

But still. Some thought must have occurred when choosing that page for linking.
I'm simply curious about said thought process.

I think Dave Rogers had the right idea on about page 20...


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
 
Do you by any chance mean the Ju-87 Stuka? The plane that couldn't reach Britain in 1938, that dive bomber?

And had the crap shot out of them when they did attack Britain, so much of that they were withdrawn from the attack.
 
The Germans were perfectly capable of bombing Prague in 1938, and it would not have been very nice for the Czechs.


And the Blitz wasn't very nice for the English, yet Britain didn't surrender.

Churchill would not have been much help to the Czechs in that situation.


First, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Churchill was not in government in 1938, though, had Britain gone to war with Germany then, he probably would have joined the War Cabinet, as he did in 1939.

Second, as has also been repeatedly pointed out to you, the idea isn't that Britain and France (and possibly the Soviet Union) could have necessarily saved Czechoslovakia. Rather, it's that Czechoslovakia needed to put up a fight, in order to drain German (and Czech) resources, so as to pave the way for ultimate victory over the Nazis, with most likely a far smaller cost in blood and treasure than historically.

There is a bit of background to the Luftwaffe at this website:

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


And yet, when I previously introduced this document, your only comment was to claim, incorrectly, that the Empire and the dominions wouldn't have gone to war along with Britain in 1938. As for the quotation, as others have said, it only further weakens your case, such as it is.

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.


Yes, they did a lot of damage--to infantry and artillery [ETA: (and, when the pilots were properly trained, which they weren't until later in the war, ships)]. Cities and factories, not so much. And here's another quotation (p. 19) that illustrates the Luftwaffe's utter lack of readiness in 1938:

The introduction of a new generation of bombers and fighters after 1936 caused serious transition problems. High accident rates coupled with low in-commission rates continued to plague the transition program as late as the summer of 1938. At that time, Luftwaffe operational ready rates were surprisingly low. On August 1, 1938, the in-commission rate for bombers was 49 percent, for fighters 70 percent, and for the whole force 57 percent. Only after drastically reducing flying and training time could the Luftwaffe bring its in-commission rate to a respectable level by the end of September 1938, shortly before the onset of the planned invasion of Czechoslovakia. The level of aircrew training was equally deplorable. In August, the Luftwaffe possessed barely two-thirds of its authorized crew strength, and over 40 percent of the crews on duty were not fully operational. [notes omitted]​

As noted in the table following the above, availability of bomber crews in August 1938 was particularly bad, with only 378 fully operational (27%) and 411 partly operational (29%), against an authorized strength of 1407. And the situation for dive bombers wasn't much better, with 80 fully operational (27%) and 123 partly operational (43%), against an authorized strength of 300.
 
Last edited:
Dive bombers weren't conceived as strategic bombers.
They were used as airborne artillery.
Germany pushed them in to the Bob to attack precision targets like airbase and radar sites.
They were very vulnerable to attack and suffered under the guns of the RAF.
Even before the BOB they got roughly handled in the attacks on channel shipping.
 
Last edited:
Do you by any chance mean the Ju-87 Stuka? The plane that couldn't reach Britain in 1938, that dive bomber?



No, you're not saying that Henri quoted a source that actually undermines his claims are you? That's unprecedented inevitable.

The Luftwaffe of the 1930s was created to fulfil two objectives, provide air defence of Germany and provide tactical support for the army. By the time they decided they need a strategic it was all rather too late and plagued with those 'technical difficulties'. The lack of such bombers not only hampered attacks on the UK but put much of Soviet industry out of reach of the Luftwaffe after it was evacuated in 1941. Not much use dive bombing one tank when the factories were turning out 3 or 4 replacements unimpeded.

In the early days of the Luftwaffe, there were plans for a strategic bombing force, and a four engine bomber was in the advanced design stage,but in 1936 Walter Weaver, Chief of Staff of the Luftwaffe and the main advocate for such a force died in a air accident,and the program more or less died with him. It was never actually killed off,and Goring paid lip service to a strategic bombing, force, but it was given a low priority.
 
I just think you people rather complacently assume that Britain would have won any war fought in 1938 and it could not possibly have been bombed by the weak little Luftwaffe, or even invaded because it was defended by some Gloster Gladiator aircraft. Poland and Holland surrendered pretty quickly after Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed.

I have mentioned this website before and I consider it to be true:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_czechoslovakia_to_adolf_hitler_seventy.html

Historians disagree whether the British military's position relative to Germany was objectively better in 1939 than it was in 1938. The British military systematically overestimated German strength and underestimated its own in the lead-up to the Czechoslovak crisis, then shifted to a more optimistic tone in the months between Munich and the outbreak of war. Whatever the situation on the ground, it's clear that the British military’s confidence in its abilities was far higher in 1939 than it was during the Munich crisis, especially because of the development of radar and the deployment of new fighter planes. In 1939, the military believed it was ready. In 1938, it didn't.
 
Last edited:
Henri, apart from Britain being an island, and much further away, which you have studiously ignored for many pages now, what part of this do you not understand?

"The British military systematically overestimated German strength and underestimated its own"

It means the UK was in a better position than they thought.
 
I just think you people rather complacently assume that Britain would have won any war fought in 1938 and it could not possibly have been bombed by the weak little Luftwaffe, or even invaded because it was defended by some Gloster Gladiator aircraft. Poland and Holland surrendered pretty quickly after Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed.

I have mentioned this website before and I consider it to be true:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_czechoslovakia_to_adolf_hitler_seventy.html

The solution of not being in an optimal military situation in 1938 is not the destruction of the alliances you have at that moment, removing the respect other countries have in you, all the while strengthening your enemy above what you can do and ensuring that when you do finally have to fight a year later, you have fewer allies and a stronger enemy.

There was quite a large alliance against Germany in 1938, of which the UK was the very junior partner on the ground (obviously not on the sea or in the air). Larger than what was available in 1939.

Chamberlain destroyed that alliance and even had the gall to threaten Czechoslovakia that he would support Germany if they would try to fight for their independence. (just passed that passage in Shirers 'Rise and fall of the third reich')
 
Poland and Holland surrendered pretty quickly after Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed.

Stop pretending that the bombings were the only reason either country surrendered; you're not fooling anyone. Warsaw was bombed continuously from September 3rd, and was under seige by September 13th; even so, this was more than a week later. It held out till September 29th, despite the full power of the Luftwaffe bombing it. By the time Poland surrendered, most of its territory was over-run by German and Soviet forces. And it still took more than a week. The Dutch armed forces were already falling apart when Rotterdam was bombed, and the Luftwaffe was able to attack at short range with maximum bombloads and no effective opposition; a Dutch surrender was purely a matter of time, with the bombing just speeding things up a bit. The Luftwaffe inflicted vastly more damage on London in 1940/41, killing about 50 times as many people, yet that didn't cause a surrender. They wouldn't have been able to do anything like as much in 1938 because of the greater range alone, even if there hadn't been any effective defences.

Dave
 

Back
Top Bottom