Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

Hans said:
He didn't. I would suggest you go read about that period and the maneuvering that led to his being offered the chancellorship. The German government of that time did not directly elect leaders - do some reading dude.

Here is a wiki that covers that period with a fair understanding of its complexity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power
Click to expand...

There is this book concerning the rise (and fall) of Adolf Hitler.
I think Henry should buy and read it for some extra knowledge and understanding.
It''s really not that thick, and written very clearly. Also by a man who was present when the main things happened, so that's nice.
 
Hans said:
Here is a wiki that covers that period with a fair understanding of its complexity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power
Click to expand...

I don't think it's quite as simple as saying Hitler never won an election. If the same sort of election results happened now there would be talk of a coalition. From that Wikipedia you mentioned:

The Nazi Party lost 35 seats in the November 1932 election, but remained the Reichstag's largest party, with 196 seats (33.09%). The Social Democrats (SPD) won 121 seats (20.43%) and the Communists (KPD) won 100 (16.86%).
Click to expand...
 
Henri McPhee said:
I don't think it's quite as simple as saying Hitler never won an election. If the same sort of election results happened now there would be talk of a coalition. From that Wikipedia you mentioned:
Click to expand...

Henry,

Buy the book. It's not expensive, very readable and written by a man who was there at the time.
 
I had a Ladybird book about Hannibal. I wonder if they did one on the rise of the Third Reich. It would be pretty easy to understand
 
Henri McPhee said:
That's odd. That page works okay on my computer. Stalin always used to say that Hitler came to power by winning an election, but as you say it may not be the pure unadulterated historical truth. There is a bit of background to the matter at this website:
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with what I say, it's a fact , it's literally on the very page you linked:

In the federal election of July 1932, the NSDAP won 37.3% of the popular vote (13,745,000 votes), an upswing by 19 percentage points, becoming the largest party in the Reichstag, holding 230 out of 608 seats
Click to expand...

They then as the page explains lost seats at the following election and came to power largely because of divided opposition and some shady political deals. Did you bother to read the page you linked?
 
Henri McPhee said:
I don't think it's quite as simple as saying Hitler never won an election. If the same sort of election results happened now there would be talk of a coalition. From that Wikipedia you mentioned:
Click to expand...

Hitler never won an election in terms of seats in the Reichstag or the popular vote. You were just plain wrong, again.
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
I don't think it's quite as simple as saying Hitler never won an election. If the same sort of election results happened now there would be talk of a coalition. From that Wikipedia you mentioned:
Click to expand...

Nope its quite simple he never did. His party received votes and it became the minority party in the Reichstag - as pointed out by others.

Henri you remind me of someone trying to pretend they can speak French like a native (when they can not) while addressing the Académie Française.
 
erwinl said:
Yes,

He was talking about these tanks. Shame they weren't in service yet in 1938, though the LT vz35 was.

There were two versions of this tank with a 75 mm gun though.
The Marder and the Jagdpanzer 38. Neither of which can even be remotely called a Czechoslovak tank, even though they were made there.

Anyway. This is so elementary and the dear Dr. having this detail wrong does not bode well for the rest of his statements.
Click to expand...

Hetzer is my fave German armoured vehicle, just ahead of the Stug.

I have modelled both a number of times. ( will have to add some pictures to the modelling thread)
 
jimbob said:
I had a Ladybird book about Hannibal. I wonder if they did one on the rise of the Third Reich. It would be pretty easy to understand
Click to expand...

The BBC series 'The Nazis: A warning from history' covers it well and is very watchable.
 
Garrison said:
It has nothing to do with what I say, it's a fact , it's literally on the very page you linked:



They then as the page explains lost seats at the following election and came to power largely because of divided opposition and some shady political deals. Did you bother to read the page you linked?
Click to expand...
Not a majority but certainly a plurality...
 
Border Reiver said:
2. The United Kingdom did not distribute gas-masks to civilians until 1939, after the commencement of hostilities with Nazi Germany. Same for the digging of slit trenches - these were not intended as fighting positions but rather as emergency air raid shelters and were not started until war were declared (in the words of Othias from C&Rsenal).
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that's incorrect; gas masks were distributed and trenches were dug during the Munich crisis. Article from the Launceston, Tasmania, Examiner, 26 Sep 1938:

GAS MASKS FOR ALL

London Preparing for Worst

LONDON, Sept. 25.
London, already keyed up with expectancy, has been surprised by the precautionary measures taken by the local authorities. The "Daily Herald" declares that the National Air Raid Precautions scheme, which has its ramifications in every town and village of Great Britain, has already been set in motion.
Announcements made yesterday at cinemas, football matches, swimming galas, and social functions, and also by loud speakers from vans touring the streets, urged people, especially children and whole families, to attend the nearest gas mask depot on Sunday and during the week to be fitted with masks. Cards sent through letter-boxes contained a similar request, which is being repeated from many pulpits on Sunday.​

From the Manchester Guardian of the same date (source):

The digging of trenches in the public parks of London, Manchester, and other large cities is perhaps the most vivid of all reminders that if war comes the front line will be at home. As a measure of protection against the blast and splinter of high explosive the plan has the merit that it can be resorted to wherever land available, and in this respect those cities which for reasons quite unconnected with defence have provided themselves with "lungs" in their midst have an advantage. Entrenchment, moreover, can be quickly extended if emergency is prolonged . . .​
 
Henri McPhee said:
You just ASSUME that any coup attempt would have been successful. Chamberlain could not take that risk.
Click to expand...


Apart from the fact that no one is assuming that, exactly what would Chamberlain have been risking? That the Luftwaffe would bomb Britain into submission in a week? That the Heer would conquer France (and Belgium) in October 1938 using the same strategy as they did in May 1940? That the empire and the dominions would refuse to fight? Or was it something else?
 
The Luftwaffe in 1938 was far from the terrifying force it would become later
Many of its aircraft were obsolete such as Dornier 11 and 23, Junkers52 transports converted to bombers.

For fighters had early model Me 109 powered Jumo 210 engines which only gave 660 hp and top speed of 260 mph Even some biplanes like Czech Avia B 234 and Gloster Gladiator could match it. Was only at end of 1938 did the Damlier DB 601 became available to power The ME 109E models capable of speeds over 300 mph.

I am working on an alternate history scenario where Czech Govt, aware of danger posed by Hitler decides to buy advanced monoplane fighters.

Model chosen is Hawk 75 - export version of USAAC P 36 despite costing twice as much as French Morane Saulnier 406. French aircraft industry was in total chaos, unable to deliver
aircraft in quanities needed. British Hawker Hurricane would be unavailable for both political reasons (no need to annoy Der Fueher ) and that RAF needed them

The Hawk 75 was powered by 900 hp engine and armed with 4 guns, similar to version purchased by France year later.

Cxech ordered some 50 fighters at end of 1937 with delivery in middle of 1938

Thus armed decide to resist fury of Hitler and Luftwaffe

Inflict heavy losses on Luftwaffe putting some backbone in England and France to force
Hitler to back down.

Question is would the military move to remove him in coup...?

[/I]
 
njslim said:
The Luftwaffe in 1938 was far from the terrifying force it would become later
Many of its aircraft were obsolete such as Dornier 11 and 23, Junkers52 transports converted to bombers.

For fighters had early model Me 109 powered Jumo 210 engines which only gave 660 hp and top speed of 260 mph Even some biplanes like Czech Avia B 234 and Gloster Gladiator could match it. Was only at end of 1938 did the Damlier DB 601 became available to power The ME 109E models capable of speeds over 300 mph.

I am working on an alternate history scenario where Czech Govt, aware of danger posed by Hitler decides to buy advanced monoplane fighters.

Model chosen is Hawk 75 - export version of USAAC P 36 despite costing twice as much as French Morane Saulnier 406. French aircraft industry was in total chaos, unable to deliver
aircraft in quanities needed. British Hawker Hurricane would be unavailable for both political reasons (no need to annoy Der Fueher ) and that RAF needed them

The Hawk 75 was powered by 900 hp engine and armed with 4 guns, similar to version purchased by France year later.

Cxech ordered some 50 fighters at end of 1937 with delivery in middle of 1938

Thus armed decide to resist fury of Hitler and Luftwaffe

Inflict heavy losses on Luftwaffe putting some backbone in England and France to force
Hitler to back down.

Question is would the military move to remove him in coup...?

[/I]
Click to expand...

Do you think a few Hawk fighters would have madethat much difference?
I have serious doubts.
 
Hans said:
Nope its quite simple he never did. His party received votes and it became the minority party in the Reichstag - as pointed out by others.

Henri you remind me of someone trying to pretend they can speak French like a native (when they can not) while addressing the Académie Française.
Click to expand...

That's just nit picking you nit. Just because he didn't win more than fifty percent of the votes doesn't mean he didn't win an election. He was supported by the public and the business elite and by the military and industrial complex and media. This is a comment from another forum which explains the situation:

I'm from Canada which, like the Weimar Republic, is a parliamentary democracy. Our media refers to Stephen Harper as having won the 2006 and 2008 elections, although he only won a minority government. His party won the most seats, and the governor-general appointed him PM, so it's fair to say he won.
The same was true of Hitler in 1932. Indeed, it would have been very hard to win a one-party majority in the Weimar Republic - no parties did so. Moreover, Hitler won more seats in 1932 (in either election) than any prior party had.
The notion that Sanders' is telling an untruth belies a lack of understanding of how parliamentary democracies work.
Click to expand...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Do you think a few Hawk fighters would have madethat much difference?
I have serious doubts.
Click to expand...

They'd augment our existing air force. Could cause some serious troubles to German planes.

Apparently most of German planes would be older and less capable then those from 1939+.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom