Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[erwinl]

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:

Henry,
Have you ordered the book yet?

It is very clearly described in it what happened with the elections, what the nazis wanted from these elections and thus why we can now say they didn't win an election.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is a sensible website about that Munich business at:

https://docs-books.com/2018/01/31/munich-by-robert-harris/

Perhaps one of the most surprising aspects of Harris’ presentation is his portrayal of Chamberlain’s raison in dealing with Hitler. He does not see Chamberlain as an appeaser but a skillful negotiator who stalls for time as he gets Hitler to agree to a settlement with the Czechs over the Sudetenland, and also accepts the concept of a stronger Anglo-German approach to peace.

In fact in a recent interview (January 19, 2018) on NPR’s “Morning Edition” Harris argued that Chamberlain was the victor at Munich because the war was postponed for a year allowing the English to gain the support of the Dominions and the Empire as a whole, and provided time for the British military production to begin to catch up with Germany. Further he argues Hitler never wanted to go to Munich, but once Mussolini introduced a conference to settle differences, the Fuhrer had no choice but to attend and forgo Operation Green, the seizure of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia as a whole. Harris’ discussion raises the arguments of British historian A.J.P. Taylor whose 1961 book THE ORIGINS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR was greeted with disdain at the time of its publication.

 

[fagin]

There is a sensible website about that Munich business at:

https://docs-books.com/2018/01/31/munich-by-robert-harris/

That is a review of a novel??????

You do know what fiction is Henri?

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

None of the above were in front-line service at the time of Munich. This post and this post of mine from earlier in the thread give some information on the strength of the Luftwaffe in 1938. But your basic point is accurate; the Wehrmacht was much stronger in 1939, and stronger still in 1940.

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.

Sources differ, but I've seen 280-290 mph quoted for the early Bf 109s. However, the Avia and the Gladiator would still have had a significant edge in maneuverability.

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.

Additionally, the DB 601 had fuel injection. The earlier Bf 109s had carburetors, which could cause power loss during negative-gee maneuvers.

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.

IMO the Hawk 75 would not be a good choice for your scenario. The P-36 had some very serious developmental problems that caused the initial production aircraft to have drastically limited performance, and these issues were not resolved until 1939. Additionally, the Hawk 75 didn't even enter production until late 1938, and even if one assumes that the Czechs ordered it "off the drawing board," it is still unlikely that any significant numbers could have been delivered by September 1938, especially as Curtiss was unable to maintain its promised delivery rate of P-36s to the US Army Air Corps.

British Hawker Hurricane would be unavailable for both political reasons (no need to annoy Der Fueher ) and that RAF needed them.

You might do better assuming that the Czechs built their own Hurricanes under license, as the Yugoslavs did.

 

[SpitfireIX]

There is a sensible website about that Munich business . . .

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "sensible" that I wasn't previously aware of. And just to add to what fagin wrote, Harris is not a historian.

Perhaps one of the most surprising aspects of Harris’ presentation is his portrayal of Chamberlain’s raison in dealing with Hitler. He does not see Chamberlain as an appeaser but a skillful negotiator who stalls for time as he gets Hitler to agree to a settlement with the Czechs over the Sudetenland, and also accepts the concept of a stronger Anglo-German approach to peace.

Henri, please explain what measures Chamberlain took to strengthen the Army, the Royal Navy (especially regarding anti-submarine warfare), and any part of the RAF other than Fighter Command, during the year between September 1938 and September 1939. And while we're on the subject, I renew my question, which you've repeatedly ignored: Why did Chamberlain cede the Treaty Ports back to Ireland in 1938 if he knew that war with Germany was inevitable?

In fact in a recent interview (January 19, 2018) on NPR’s “Morning Edition” Harris argued that Chamberlain was the victor at Munich because the war was postponed for a year allowing the English to gain the support of the Dominions and the Empire as a whole . . .

As we've shown, and you've ignored, the idea that the Dominions and the Empire wouldn't have supported Britain in 1938 is specious.

. . . and provided time for the British military production to begin to catch up with Germany.

Aside from the fact that it neglects the issue of French, Czech, and possibly Soviet military production, this statement implies, quite correctly, that German military production was far ahead of British military production in 1938, and was still significantly ahead in 1939. Therefore, Germany produced much more during the extra year than Britain did, in addition to the huge amount of war materiel and industrial capacity gained by looting Czechoslovakia. So kindly explain exactly what Britain and France gained by this delay, compared with what Germany gained.

Further he argues Hitler never wanted to go to Munich, but once Mussolini introduced a conference to settle differences, the Fuhrer had no choice but to attend and forgo Operation Green, the seizure of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia as a whole.

Irrelevant to the issue of whether appeasement was a good idea.

Harris’ discussion raises the arguments of British historian A.J.P. Taylor whose 1961 book THE ORIGINS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR was greeted with disdain at the time of its publication.

Taylor was a crank (at least with respect to World War II) whose views are rejected by the overwhelming majority of serious historians. Further, he claimed that Hitler never wanted war, which contradicts your assertion that Chamberlain knew Hitler was hell-bent on war.

 

[fagin]

Henri, if you spent half as much time reading stuff as you seem to spend hunting down websites that you think support your views, you might do better.

 

[Hans]

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:

He was supported by a minority.

Yep and he never won an election and my nit is bigger than your nit.

 

[Henri McPhee]

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]

Hitler was determined to march on Moscow. Nothing would stop him.

This matter of the military removing him in a coup would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Many German dissenting generals and officers died horrible deaths, and others committed suicide making the attempt. You tell me how it could have been achieved. There is even some suggestion the Allies liked Hitler's incompetency, and didn't try too hard to replace him with somebody more efficient. Many German generals, like Guderian, supported Hitler.

There is a bit about his matter in a book called Enemy at The Gates The Battle for Stalingrad by William Craig 1973:

The meticulous Halder had no love for the man he served. He acted deferentially toward his Fuhrer and accepted frequent tirades with the calm of one resigned to his fate. Before and during the war, Halder had schemed to overthrow Hitler and replace him with a monarchy. The dissident group was too timid and vacillating to initiate the coup, however, and watched passively as the German Army scored triumph after triumph under Hitler's almost mystical leadership. By the summer of 1942 Halder was a captive in thrall to a despot.

 

[lobosrul5]

Hitler was determined to march on Moscow. Nothing would stop him.

This matter of the military removing him in a coup would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Many German dissenting generals and officers died horrible deaths, and others committed suicide making the attempt. You tell me how it could have been achieved. There is even some suggestion the Allies liked Hitler's incompetency, and didn't try too hard to replace him with somebody more efficient. Many German generals, like Guderian, supported Hitler.

There is a bit about his matter in a book called Enemy at The Gates The Battle for Stalingrad by William Craig 1973:

It was even the plot of the Dirty Dozen sequel (a piss-poor cash in).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dirty_Dozen:_Next_Mission

I think there is a bit of truth to it. No Battle of the Bulge and Germany probably could've held out until '46. But of course a coup in 44/45 was likely to put someone in charge who would immediately sue for peace.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But of course a coup in 44/45 was likely to put someone in charge who would immediately sue for peace.

I would go so far as to say a coup in 43 would have led to peace.

 

[Hans]

I would go so far as to say a coup in 43 would have led to peace.

Most probably. I've seen some speculation on that idea. Germany would have returned to most of its prewar borders with a Polish corridor. German populations in various countries would be expelled to Germany. German Jews would not be encouraged to return. Israel is formed. The Soviet Union would be Arsehats trying to get as much land as possible. Germany might get some of its colonies in Africa back, Japan would fight to the end as it did. Italy would revert to a monarchy without Mussolini and retain its colonies. Nazi party would be banned. A lot of border warping in the Balkans & people swaps.

 

[Pacal]

Hitler was determined to march on Moscow. Nothing would stop him.

This matter of the military removing him in a coup would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Many German dissenting generals and officers died horrible deaths, and others committed suicide making the attempt. You tell me how it could have been achieved. There is even some suggestion the Allies liked Hitler's incompetency, and didn't try too hard to replace him with somebody more efficient. Many German generals, like Guderian, supported Hitler.

There is a bit about his matter in a book called Enemy at The Gates The Battle for Stalingrad by William Craig 1973:

After the war many of the surviving German Generals wrote in great detail in memoir after memoir about how if it wasn't for Hitler's incompetence they would have won the war. further the German Generals talked about how they were honoured bound to obey their personal oath of allegiance to Hitler and about how they fought a clean war etc., and had nothing to do with the atrocities of the Nazi regime. Outstanding examples of this are Guderian's Panzer Leader and Manstein's Lost Victories. The outstanding feature of this memoir literature is it's lying mendacity. So much of it is a tissue of lies. Thus blaming Hitler for all the bad military decisions is to a very large extent a lie, which quite deliberately distorts the actual record. Also the notion that the German Generals fought a "clean" war is a bold-faced total lie. Racism and Nazi beliefs permeated the German officer corp with many fully willing to carry out with joy the genocidal orders of the regime. As for the oath of loyalty to Hitler well the German Generals routinely broke their oaths during the Weimer Republic and after the war in trial after trial the German Generals lied in open court. They kept their oaths to Hitler because they agreed with much if not most of Nazi doctrine and policies. And of course their lying memoirs are full of lies.

One thing the German Generals very carefully avoided mentioning was the monthly secret payments they got from the Nazi regime, to say nothing of gifts and expensive presents in exchange for loyalty. In other words they were bribed. Guderian spent much of the year after in was removed from command looking for a polish estate to be stolen for him and complained what he got was lavish enough. This of course not mentioned in his memoir.

As I said after the war it became a trope in the lying mendacious German General memoir literature to blame the loss of the war on Hitler's allegedly irrational decisions. The actual record is a good deal more complicated than that simple minded fantasy, which is a best a mendacious half-truth and at worst a utter lie.

 

[Pacal]

It was even the plot of the Dirty Dozen sequel (a piss-poor cash in).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dirty_Dozen:_Next_Mission

I think there is a bit of truth to it. No Battle of the Bulge and Germany probably could've held out until '46. But of course a coup in 44/45 was likely to put someone in charge who would immediately sue for peace.

If Germany had held out past July 1945 it would have lasted long enough to have several of its cities nuked. I have my doubts about even the Nazis regime being able to survive the psychological shock of the atom bomb very long.

 

[Pacal]

Most probably. I've seen some speculation on that idea. Germany would have returned to most of its prewar borders with a Polish corridor. German populations in various countries would be expelled to Germany. German Jews would not be encouraged to return. Israel is formed. The Soviet Union would be Arsehats trying to get as much land as possible. Germany might get some of its colonies in Africa back, Japan would fight to the end as it did. Italy would revert to a monarchy without Mussolini and retain its colonies. Nazi party would be banned. A lot of border warping in the Balkans & people swaps.

In February 1943 at Casablanca the allies Britain, USA and the Soviet Union agreed to demand unconditional surrender from Germany, Italy and Japan. I seriously doubt Hitler being replaced would have changed that. Instead the overthrow of the Nazi regime would likely have lead to the regime unravelling and collapsing a lot sooner than in May 1945.

 

[Garrison]

In February 1943 at Casablanca the allies Britain, USA and the Soviet Union agreed to demand unconditional surrender from Germany, Italy and Japan. I seriously doubt Hitler being replaced would have changed that. Instead the overthrow of the Nazi regime would likely have lead to the regime unravelling and collapsing a lot sooner than in May 1945.

The Casablanca Conference's whole purpose at the time was to rule that out, especially as the fear was it would be the USSR making a separate peace, not the Western Allies.

All of this is of course academic. In terms of 1938 a coup against Hitler would have been far easier, the apparatus of state repression was nothing like as developed as it would be a few years later. Add to that public fear in Germany of another war was every bit as great as it was in Britain or France and the Wehrmacht expected a defeat if war came over the Sudetenland. If they try and fail, well it at the very least it provokes a purge of the German high command and with any luck o number of competent officers will be put up against the wall and shot.

 

[njslim]

The French started to place orders for HAWK 75 A-1 (900 hp) in March 1938 . After several fits and starts do to complaints that was too expensive, delivery schedule and waiting on Bloch MB 151 - were able to get first aircraft up in December 1938

So is possible that if Czechs wanted to get Hawks could have, if pushed, gotten them by summer of 1938

As for "teething problems" (skin wrinkling on wheel wells, exhaust issues were solvable and French didn't seem to make it an issue

As for Hurricanes - Brits were willing to sell surplus Mark I, as did to Yugoslavia in 1938

Manufacturing them by license would have taken time to configure factory, get tolls and jigs and most important - the Rolls Royce Merlin engines - doubtful could have got into
production by time war started. (Kickoff date for FALL GRUEN was Oct 1)

As for early marks ME 109 - saw speed for Me 109 B (Bertha) quoted at 260 mph, so
D (Dora) could have hit 280. Even then a Hawk 75 was still faster and much more
maneuverable. It was top scoring fighter in French service

Bombers - German bomber force was mostly early mod Heinkel 111 and Dornier 17 (E and p mods) - equipped with only 3 guns (as were most bombers of that era)

As shown by Battle of Britain, Luftwaffe bomber force was roughly handled - this was
with ME 109 E models which were equal if not superior in performance to British fighters

Against Czech air force equipped with number of Hawk 75 and in concert with AVIA B 234
could put a dent in the Luftwaffe

Question is if could inflict significant losses on Luftwaffe while holding any ground invasion
that France (which had alliance with Czechoslovakia ) and Britain would intervene or that
plotters in Wehmacht remove Hitler and his cabal.

 

[Hans]

In February 1943 at Casablanca the allies Britain, USA and the Soviet Union agreed to demand unconditional surrender from Germany, Italy and Japan. I seriously doubt Hitler being replaced would have changed that. Instead the overthrow of the Nazi regime would likely have lead to the regime unravelling and collapsing a lot sooner than in May 1945.

Yes that speculation presumed that requirement would be waived - a big assumption indeed. I suspect they would have fought on until around May 1943 perhaps or to September 43 when Rome fell. Then made peace a negotiated peace.

 

[Klimax]

..
Manufacturing them by license would have taken time to configure factory, get tolls and jigs and most important - the Rolls Royce Merlin engines - doubtful could have got into
production by time war started. (Kickoff date for FALL GRUEN was Oct 1)
...
Question is if could inflict significant losses on Luftwaffe while holding any ground invasion
that France (which had alliance with Czechoslovakia ) and Britain would intervene or that
plotters in Wehmacht remove Hitler and his cabal.

Based on sources cited by Czech wiki production of licensed Tupolev SB wasn't finished before invasion. (preparations started only in 1938)

Maybe if we got licence in 1936 or 37 we could manage that.

As for second question I quoted, Göring had quite healthy respect for Czechoslovakian air force.

The Czechoslovak Air Force must be considered as one of the leading air forces as regards personnel, and, considering its limited financial possibilities, more than satisfactory with regard to material and equipment"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Air_Force#Under_the_First_Republic_1918–38

 

[erwinl]

Based on sources cited by Czech wiki production of licensed Tupolev SB wasn't finished before invasion. (preparations started only in 1938)

Maybe if we got licence in 1936 or 37 we could manage that.

As for second question I quoted, Göring had quite healthy respect for Czechoslovakian air force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Air_Force#Under_the_First_Republic_1918–38

A license built Fokker D.XXI would have been possible as well.
Granted. The top speed was about that of the Me109B, but it was very manoeuvrable.
The Finnish airforce (largest user of the Fokker D.XXI) used theirs very well during the Winter War.

 

[Henri McPhee]

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

The trouble is Hitler was half-mad, and Stalin was not much better. It's a bit like Netanyahu and John Bolton nowadays dragging, and drawing us into a war with Iran for no good reason. It's want of judgment.