Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[Garrison]

So much wrong in so few sentences:

I just think you people rather complacently assume that Britain would have won any war fought in 1938

Other posters believe that Britain and France and Czechoslovakia and the USSR would have had a much better chance of winning a war starting in 1938 at far lest cost in time, resources and lives than the one that started in 1939. They do so based on the evidence of the relative military strengths of the potential combatants in 1938. You on the other hand simply respond by repeating your claims with no evidence.

and it could not possibly have been bombed by the weak little Luftwaffe,

At this point this can only be deliberate obtuseness on your part. What has been claimed is that the Luftwaffe could not mount a strategic bombing campaign capable of achieving your claim that Britain would be defeated in a week, or indeed of defeating Britain at all on its own. The Luftwaffe didn't believe this was possible, why do you insist they could?

or even invaded because it was defended by some Gloster Gladiator aircraft.

Again not what anyone has claimed. they couldn't invade in 1938 because they had neither the means nor bases for such an invasion. If they did somehow occupy the French coast in 1939 they would be facing Hurricanes and Spitfires, not Gladiators. Oh and of course the weight of the Royal Navy versus a flotilla of river barges.

Poland and Holland surrendered pretty quickly after Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed.

Why do you have such difficulty understanding that 'after' is not equal to 'because of'? Both countries had been largely overrun by German ground forces. At no point did any country surrender merely because of strategic bombing (no not even Japan).

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

It may well be true, it also contradicts your claims, so par for the course really.

 

[Garrison]

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

In fact during the night bombing of the 'Blitz' the Luftwaffe not only mounted attacks on a scale impossible for it to mount in 1938 but faced a far weaker air defence owing to the lack of effective night fighters and AA artillery. I suspect in 1938 they would probably have been focused on daylight attacks, but I stand to be corrected.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I just think you people rather complacently assume that Britain would have won any war fought in 1938 . . .

No. We have presented considerable evidence that Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia were in a much stronger military and political position with respect to Germany in 1938 than Britain, France, and Poland were in 1939. But you have either attempted to handwave away this evidence, or simply ignored it.

. . . and it could not possibly have been bombed by the weak little Luftwaffe . . .

Straw man. No one said that Britain couldn't have been bombed in 1938. We've said that Britain couldn't have been forced to surrender by bombing in 1938 (or at any other time during the war, for that matter). As I mentioned up-thread, London was hit by 24,000 tons of bombs during the Blitz. Why don't you explain to us how the Luftwaffe was going to drop that many bombs on the city in the fall of 1938? Remember, they have to fly from Lower Saxony and Bremen, and avoid violating Dutch airspace.

. . . or even invaded because it was defended by some Gloster Gladiator aircraft.

Germany couldn't have invaded Britain in 1938; it simply wasn't possible, given the Wehrmacht's available resources and the distance involved. If you disagree, then explain, in as much detail as you can, how such an invasion could have been accomplished.

Poland and Holland surrendered pretty quickly after Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed.

Just to add to what Dave wrote, by the time Rotterdam was bombed, the Dutch government and royal family had already fled, given permission for the commander of the army to surrender at his discretion, and directed him to avoid any pointless sacrifice of life. So your implication that the bombing was somehow decisive is clearly false.

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

And, as has been pointed out to you, this was written by a journalist (not a historian) who favors the appeasement of Iran, and therefore wishes to rehabilitate the appeasement of Nazi Germany. His argument, although more coherent than yours, is no more persuasive, as has been thoroughly demonstrated in this thread.

I won't go through and point out every error and fallacy in the entire article, or even the passage you quoted, but I will give one illustrative example: "Historians disagree whether the British military's position relative to Germany was objectively better in 1939 than it was in 1938." Even granting, arguendo, that this is true, (even though it's not), that's not the issue. As I mentioned above, the issue is, were Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia in a stronger military and political position with respect to Germany in 1938 than Britain, France, and Poland were in 1939. And the answer is unquestionably yes.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In fact during the night bombing of the 'Blitz' the Luftwaffe not only mounted attacks on a scale impossible for it to mount in 1938 but faced a far weaker air defence owing to the lack of effective night fighters and AA artillery. I suspect in 1938 they would probably have been focused on daylight attacks, but I stand to be corrected.

AAA didn't do much until radar direction and proximity fuses came along. It wasn't a matter of numbers as such.

 

[jimbob]

AAA didn't do much until radar direction and proximity fuses came along. It wasn't a matter of numbers as such.

I think that is what Garrison meant by lack of *effective* AAA and night fighters (also fairly ineffective without radar)

 

[Henri McPhee]

No. We have presented considerable evidence that Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia were in a much stronger military and political position with respect to Germany in 1938 than Britain, France, and Poland were in 1939. But you have either attempted to handwave away this evidence, or simply ignored it.

Personally, I think Chamberlain's strategy was that he knew Hitler intended aggressive war, and an invasion of Soviet Russia, even if that was a secret to Stalin and not to be believed by Stalin. Whatever you people say, delaying a declaration of war gave us another year to get organised, which could have been crucial in a military conflict.

There is a bit of background to this appeasement business in a book called The Devil's Decade by Claud Cockburn 1973. He was known as a communist when he was alive, which might make him biased, but this makes sense to me:
I hope it's not too academic for this forum:

Just over a fortnight after the occupation of Prague the Government took the step of guaranteeing Poland against aggression. This action was spectacular in the contrast it presented with the refusal of the same Government - except during the brief interlude of May 1938 - similarly to guarantee Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia had been a strong military and industrial state, with a strategic frontier which by nature and fortification was the most defensible in Europe. It had a long record of uncompromising resistance to German expansion. Poland had no such frontiers. Its Army, though the courage and patriotism of its personnel were highly praised, was, in terms of modern equipment and training, largely obsolete. Its government, realistically enough, had always sought to maintain cordial relations with the Nazi regime and had shared with Germany, the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. The British offer of a guarantee had in fact been precipitated by the news that Poland was about to ally with Hitler.

There was one other outstanding point of difference between the two states: Czechoslovakia had been in close political and military alliance with the Soviet Union and a British guarantee would have involved joint military action, or the threat of it, with the Soviet Union. For sufficient political, social and nationalistic reasons no such links existed, or could exist, between Moscow and Warsaw.

 

[Hans]

It is kinda fun watching Henri running around making up strawmen, misrepresenting what you all say and basically telling whoppers.

You do know he doing this because he lost the argument but refuses to concede? He'll keep this up in the hope you'll get frustrated and quit.

Have fun!

 

[Garrison]

Personally, I think Chamberlain's strategy was that he knew Hitler intended aggressive war

And yet he said the opposite publicly and privately and did nothing to prepare the army until after the occupation of Prague, but of course you won't let facts stand in the way of your opinion.

and an invasion of Soviet Russia, even if that was a secret to Stalin and not to be believed by Stalin.

It wasn't a secret to anyone.

Whatever you people say, delaying a declaration of war gave us another year to get organised, which could have been crucial in a military conflict.

And again you attack a strawman. That year was useful to the British, it was crucial to the Germans. And of course Chamberlain largely squandered that extra year to address the deficiencies of army training and equipment.

There is a bit of background to this appeasement business in a book called The Devil's decade by Claud Cockburn 1973. He was known as a communist when he was alive, which might make him biased, but this makes sense to me:

And again you offer a quote that contradicts your claims.

I hope it's not too academic for this forum:

Henri, this sniping at other posters who actually offer facts when you offer nothing but waffle is beyond tiresome now.

 

[Garrison]

It is kinda fun watching Henri running around making up strawmen, misrepresenting what you all say and basically telling whoppers.

You do know he doing this because he lost the argument but refuses to concede? He'll keep this up in the hope you'll get frustrated and quit.

Have fun!

And you would think after his dismal failure with the same tactic in the 'Jeffery McDonald' thread he would know better, but he seems unwilling or unable to learn.

 

[theprestige]

Personally, I think Chamberlain's strategy was that he knew Hitler intended aggressive war, and an invasion of Soviet Russia

Henri, I didn't ask about what you think Chamberlain knew. I asked what you know about the possibility of a German attack on Britain in 1938. Specifically: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?

 

[Klimax]

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')

Thanks for confirming what i remembered from my history classes. Wasn't sure how well I remembered that bit.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Henri, I didn't ask about what you think Chamberlain knew. I asked what you know about the possibility of a German attack on Britain in 1938. Specifically: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?

There is a bit of waffle about this matter at this forum:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/german-bomber-design-rational.45896/

Sure, they could be used to bomb supply points or bridges/road junctions and supply columns but they could also be used against most opponents, cities, factories and ports. Russia being an exception but then NOBODY had planes in 1937-41 that could fly distances needed to attack much of Russia is squadron numbers. (Whitley perhaps excepted)

The HE 111B as in the top photo used DB 600 engines (with carbs) and had 950hp for take-off and 910hp at 13,120ft. There is only so much you can do with engines of that power. max range with 1653lbs of bombs was 1030miles and range with max bomb load (3,307lbs) was 565 miles.
Max range of a JU-87B Stuka with an 1100lb bomb was 370 miles.
Tactical radius of these planes was ?????

A 400 mile radius was sufficient for a German bomber to hit most of France with the Brest peninsula and the Pyrenees mountains excepted. It was enough to reach all the way across Poland. And it was enough to Hit a good part of England. It is about 380-385 miles from Essen to Sheffield. It was just possible to hit Liverpool from German soil with a 400 mile radius but the airfield would have been very close to the border. It was likewise just about 400-410 miles from German soil to Bergen Norway. It is just about 400 miles form the German border (now) to the Romanian border, flying over Austria and Hungary.

This means that the Germans could threaten most if not all of her likely enemies with air attack over a large percentage of their countries with planes having an operational radius of 400 miles or so. AS Germany acquired more territory (Austria, the Sudetenland, etc) the reach of the bombers increased.
As engines got more powerful the range and bomb load increased.

edit. top photo may be of a He 111E with 1010hp Jumo 211 for take-off. range 932 miles with 2200lb of bombs.

Given the continental distances the need for bombers with 600-800 mile of operational radius was actually minimal. And given the fact that it is about 700 miles from Warsaw to Moscow a plane that would be capable of strategic bombing against the Russians, even if Poland was captured, required a rather large leap in capability/engine power.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There was another interesting posting on that forum:

Shortround6 said:
↑
Everybody in the 1930s made 3 assumptions that proved false.
a. everybody over estimated the damage bombs would cause which made them think that bombers with small bomb loads would be effective.
b. everybody over estimated the tendency of the population at large (civilians) to panic under bombardment and riot in the streets bringing about the fall of the government/s under bombardment and the suing for peace.
c. everybody overestimated the ability of the bomber to "always get through" the enemy air defenses. This meant slow bombers and bombers with weak defensive armament were judged to be OK.

In a broad sense I don't think these are necessarily false. While it does seem that the effectiveness of conventional bombs was over-estimated before the war, one thing most academics were planning on was a no-holds-barred conflict where a good proportion of bombs loaded with some pretty horrifying chemical agents were very much on the table.

There are many that would argue that we might have seen things play out differently if one side decided to go all-out.

 

[Andy_Ross]

There is a bit of waffle about this matter at this forum:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/german-bomber-design-rational.45896/

And as has been pointed out, if they flew to Britain they would have done it without an escorts.

 

[jimbob]

There is a bit of waffle about this matter at this forum:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/german-bomber-design-rational.45896/

And these would have been escorted by what? And how many were there available.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is a bit about the origin of the term appeasement in that Claud Cockburn book The Devil's Decade:

A few years earlier, Anthony Eden, British Foreign Secretary, had spoken of the 'appeasement' of Europe. he used the term in the first sense of the word 'appease'. as given in the dictionary: "To bring to peace, settle (strife, etc.); to calm (persons).' Chamberlain continued to use the word, indicative of a laudable endeavour. But by 1938 the word had assumed, and was universally seen to have assumed its second dictionary meaning: "To pacify (anger etc.)...To propitiate (him who is angry)....To pacify, by satisfying demands.)'

 

[theprestige]

There was another interesting posting on that forum:

Henri, that post is interesting only because it contradicts your ideas about Germany defeating Britain in one week in 1938 through bombing alone.

Specifically: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?

 

[theprestige]

There is a bit of waffle about this matter at this forum:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/german-bomber-design-rational.45896/

Henri, feel free to cite whatever sources you want, but please answer my questions in your own words. Specifically: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?

 

[Garrison]

There is a bit about the origin of the term appeasement in that Claud Cockburn book The Devil's Decade:

Sorry, not seeing where this quote explains how the Luftwaffe would carry out a strategic bombing campaign the Luftwaffe said it wasn't capable of in 1938?

 

[SpitfireIX]

There is a bit of waffle about this matter at this forum:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/german-bomber-design-rational.45896/

Sure, they could be used to bomb supply points or bridges/road junctions and supply columns but they could also be used against most opponents, cities, factories and ports. Russia being an exception but then NOBODY had planes in 1937-41 that could fly distances needed to attack much of Russia is squadron numbers. (Whitley perhaps excepted)

As I mentioned, the RAF had more than 100 Whitleys in front-line service at the time of Munich; these could have bombed most German cities. And they were designed for night bombing, unlike the Luftwaffe's bombers.

The HE 111B as in the top photo used DB 600 engines (with carbs) and had 950hp for take-off and 910hp at 13,120ft. There is only so much you can do with engines of that power. max range with 1653lbs of bombs was 1030miles and range with max bomb load (3,307lbs) was 565 miles.

Can only reach England from Germany by flying over the Netherlands, Belgium, or France (inadvisable, but possible).

A 400 mile radius was sufficient for a German bomber to hit most of France with the Brest peninsula and the Pyrenees mountains excepted. It was enough to reach all the way across Poland. And it was enough to Hit a good part of England. It is about 380-385 miles from Essen to Sheffield.

Requires flying over the Netherlands. Fail.

It was just possible to hit Liverpool from German soil with a 400 mile radius but the airfield would have been very close to the border.

Requires flying from Emden (no Luftwaffe base; only a small civil airport), and flying over the Netherlands. Fail.

edit. top photo may be of a He 111E with 1010hp Jumo 211 for take-off. range 932 miles with 2200lb of bombs.

Insufficient to reach England with acceptable reserves without flying over French or neutral territory.

Further, as I mentioned, flying in a formation of any size is going to cause a significant range hit, due to time to take off, form up, and land.

Finally, taking off near and flying over France would have been dangerous, as the climb to altitude required something on the order of 30 minutes, and crossing the French frontier at low altitude would have undoubtedly drawn significant antiaircraft fire from French units stationed there.