• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

I'd like to know how Germany could have conquered Britain in a week when it takes Henri longer than that just to answer a simple question.

Dave

All this is a load of opinions by amateur generals. All I know is that the professional General Alan Brooke was fully expecting a German invasion in September 1940, and for German troops to land in the London parks, even if all the other armchair generals and armchair admirals in the country thought otherwise because of the 'keeping it dark' media. To me it's a bit like all that talk a few years ago that Scotland were going to win the World Cup, which could not be scientifically tested until it happened.

There is a similar sort of discussion about all this on another forum with one or two common sense opinions:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-have-happened-if-Germany-had-invaded-Britain-in-May-1940

Actually, if Hitler had put off invading Russia, and instead solely focused on Britain there's a good chance the Nazi could have won the war. At the time, all the major powers of Europe were Nazi aligned or controlled. Britain was the last
European stronghold. The US was not going to enter the war because we wanted to stay away from European conflicts.

Had Hitler amassed a huge invasion he more then likely would have succeeded as Britain's military was not as strong as Germany. However, once he attacked Russia, the Nazis could not handle a two-front war and it became a war of defense over offense for the Nazis.
 
Last edited:
All this is a load of opinions by amateur generals. All I know is that the professional General Alan Brooke was fully expecting a German invasion in September 1940, and for German troops to land in the London parks, even if all the other armchair generals and armchair admirals in the country thought otherwise because of the 'keeping it dark' media. To me it's a bit like all that talk a few years ago that Scotland were going to win the World Cup, which could not be scientifically tested until it happened.

There is a similar sort of discussion about all this on another forum with one or two common sense opinions:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-have-happened-if-Germany-had-invaded-Britain-in-May-1940


Again you use another unevidenced opinion piece.


"Had Hitler amassed a huge invasion he more then likely would have succeeded as Britain's military was not as strong as Germany"

We have been through in great detail the resources available to Hitler for invasion and those of the British to resist.
He had nothing to amass other than barges.

Maybe the person you quoted meant that Hitler should have built a german navy to match the RN and a fleet of landing craft and landing ships.

If the poster did mean that then it was going to be a very long wait before he tried to invade and Britain would also have been increasing their forces.

Fantasy land.
 
All this is a load of opinions by amateur generals.

No Henri, you've been provided with a wealth of hard facts, some of which weren't not available to the people of 1938. Besides your painful failure to answer questions or provide proper sources means you don't even qualify as an armchair private.
 
All this is a load of opinions by amateur generals. All I know is that the professional General Alan Brooke was fully expecting a German invasion in September 1940, and for German troops to land in the London parks, even if all the other armchair generals and armchair admirals in the country thought otherwise because of the 'keeping it dark' media. To me it's a bit like all that talk a few years ago that Scotland were going to win the World Cup, which could not be scientifically tested until it happened.


Continuing evasion noted. That aside, what part of the following was unclear?

First, Brooke was commander of the Home Army at that time; his job was to expect a German invasion, no matter how remote a possibility that was. Second, Brooke was worried about an invasion launched from French ports along the English Channel primarily using commandeered Allied river barges and tugs, and a parachute assault launched from French airfields. None of these were available to the Germans in 1938, and it is exceedingly unlikely that they would have been in 1939 or later, had Britain and France not appeased Hitler at Munich.


Further, if you're going to claim that there was some greater danger of Britain's being invaded as a consequence of not appeasing Hitler in 1938, you need to explain, specifically, how either a) Germany was going to conquer France in the spring of 1939, or b) how Germany was going to invade Britain without conquering France.

There is a similar sort of discussion about all this on another forum with one or two common sense opinions:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-have-happened-if-Germany-had-invaded-Britain-in-May-1940


What Captain_Swoop said.
 
Just to follow up, Henri, please explain how Germany was going to conquer France in the spring of 1939. Historically, in May 1940, the panzer divisions had about 1200 tanks and assault guns armed with 37mm guns or larger (source). In May 1939 they would have had at most about 250, and probably considerably less than that, depending on how many had been destroyed conquering Czechoslovakia.
 
Well what about America then, and also Australia and Canada and New Zealand? They didn't want to know about the Rhineland, or the Sudetanland.

Since you ignored my actual comment I take that as your concession that had the French threaten, just threaten to prevent the German's re-occupying the Rhineland and Ruhr and followed a future policy of no appeasement then WWII would not have happened.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong really big of you.
 
All this is a load of opinions by amateur generals.

and you're what a professional?

All I know

please you are killing with me this unintended comedy....lol


is that the professional General Alan Brooke was fully expecting a German invasion in September 1940, and for German troops to land in the London parks, even if all the other armchair generals and armchair admirals in the country thought otherwise because of the 'keeping it dark' media. To me it's a bit like all that talk a few years ago that Scotland were going to win the World Cup, which could not be scientifically tested until it happened.

...because what? What is the different between then and now Henri....something about information .................I'll leave it for you to figure out....wow
 
No Henri, you've been provided with a wealth of hard facts, some of which weren't not available to the people of 1938. Besides your painful failure to answer questions or provide proper sources means you don't even qualify as an armchair private.

I was professional army officer once upon a time (now retired). We use to call people who make bombastic uneducated comments about military subjects - while knowing nothing about what they are talking about - as ' brain blanks'.

He's been firing whole magazines full.
 
Since you ignored my actual comment I take that as your concession that had the French threaten, just threaten to prevent the German's re-occupying the Rhineland and Ruhr and followed a future policy of no appeasement then WWII would not have happened.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong really big of you.

There is some background to this matter of the Rhineland at this forum:

https://erenow.com/ww/churchill-hitler-and-the-unnecessary-war/7.php

Lloyd George not only opposed any British-French military action in the Rhineland, he called on his colleagues to try to see the world from Germany’s point of view...... Lloyd George implored Parliament to see Germany’s dilemma and forcefully argued Hitler’s case in the House of Commons:

France had built the most gigantic fortifications ever seen in any land, where, almost a hundred feet underground you can keep an army of over 100,000 and where you have guns that can fire straight into Germany. Yet, the Germans are supposed to remain without even a garrison, without even a trench…. If Herr Hitler had allowed that to go on without protecting his country, he would have been a traitor to the Fatherland.

After commending Hitler for having reoccupied the Rhineland to protect his country, Lloyd George received an invitation—to Berchtesgaden. Out of that meeting, the ex–prime minister emerged “spellbound by Hitler’s astonishing personality and manner.”

“He is indeed a great man” were Lloyd George’s first words, as he compared Mein Kampf to the Magna Carta and declared Hitler “The Resurrection and the Way” for Germany.

In an interview with the News-Chronicle on his return to England, Lloyd George assured his countrymen, “Germany has no desire to attack any country in Europe…Hitler is arming for defence and not for attack.”28 Asked what he thought of Germany having become a dictatorship, the old prime minister responded, “Hitler has done great things for his country. He is unquestionably a great leader…a dynamic personality.”

Nor was Lloyd George alone among British statesmen in being taken with Hitler. Eden had met with Hitler in 1934 and written his wife, “Dare I confess?…I rather liked him.”30 John Simon, Eden’s predecessor as foreign secretary, described Hitler to King George as “an Austrian Joan of Arc with a moustache.”

In 1937, three years after the Night of the Long Knives murders of Roehm and his SA henchmen, two years after the Nuremberg Laws had been imposed on the Jews, one year after Hitler had marched into the Rhineland, Churchill published Great Contemporaries. He included in it his 1935 essay “Hitler and His Choice.” In this profile, Churchill expresses his “admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled [Hitler] to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities or resistances which barred his path.”

“Those who have met Herr Hitler face to face,” wrote Churchill, “have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism.”33 Hitler and his Nazis had surely shown “their patriotic ardor and love of country.”
 
Last edited:
There is some background to this matter of the Rhineland at this forum:

...do you ever read what you post?

Yep if the French had moved against Hitler there would have been no need for further appeasement as he would have been finished.

Thanks again for agreeing that you were wrong.

I think you can stop demonstrating this now.....lol
 
Military conflict is not the solution to every political and economic problem.
Hitler was not "every problem". He was a supremacist warlord busily rearming Germany and threatening other countries. In 1938 he started a career of armed aggression. Perhaps military confrontation is a reasonable response to that particular kind of problem, while (of course) other kinds of political and economic problem call for other kinds of solution.
 
Military conflict is not the solution to every political and economic problem.

So that's all you've got? You post yet another link that contradicts your claims and this is your response to that being pointed out yet again?

Military conflict did happen. One that broke out in 1936 or 1938 would have saved untold lives compared to the war that broke out in 1939, that's the reality you can't deal with.
 
What would your solution have been in Europe 1930's?

Wanna bet Henri answer will be based on appeasement of Hitler based on the idea if they give him what he wants he'll stop making demands.

Well Henri is that the answer?
 
So that's all you've got? You post yet another link that contradicts your claims and this is your response to that being pointed out yet again?

Military conflict did happen. One that broke out in 1936 or 1938 would have saved untold lives compared to the war that broke out in 1939, that's the reality you can't deal with.

Can you imagine the conflict that would have occurred in 1944? I think the greatest concern would be that the Germans would have had a greatly expanded U boat fleet, more and better magnetic mines, a better armed Italian ally and maybe just maybe have been more along on the nuclear path (if they had realized their initial error and changed the direction of their research).
 
Hitler was not "every problem". He was a supremacist warlord busily rearming Germany and threatening other countries. In 1938 he started a career of armed aggression. Perhaps military confrontation is a reasonable response to that particular kind of problem, while (of course) other kinds of political and economic problem call for other kinds of solution.

Another clue was the Italian and Germans sending of troops to aid Franco in the SCW, not just money and equipment but organized military units.

As aside: My father was in college at the time of the SCW. When the Italians and Germans sent troops he realized a war was coming and decided if there was one he was going in as an officer (our grandfather had been a sergeant in WWI) he joined ROTC and was cavalry 2nd Lieutenant at the time of Pearl Harbor.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom