It becomes rather obvious, yes. Still, an interesting thread. I've a military background and am considered the military historian in my large circle of friends, but I find myself amazed at how much more people on this site know.
-
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
- Thread starter skyeagle409
- Start date
-
- Tags
- world war ii history
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
I might trust the LGen's opinion more if he hadn't made the obvious error that the finest military machine was not the Heer of 1941, but rather the Canadian Corps of 1918.
It was a highly trained force that was considered innovative in its tactics, highly practiced in combined arms warfare, with excellent morale and equipment.
Yes, I'm biased.
It was a highly trained force that was considered innovative in its tactics, highly practiced in combined arms warfare, with excellent morale and equipment.
Yes, I'm biased.
Hey, you're well ahead of me.
But at least I know that the Bismark wasn't a threat to the Royal Navy before it was commissioned, and that it was unreasonable to expect Chamberlain to have warned Stalin of the details of the planning for the invasion of Russia before the Germans started planning it.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Indeed, I should have said, when the planning started after Chamberlain had died.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Today is Dec 7th, and in the US we are getting the usual articlas and stories about Pearl Harbor.
ANd also the usual "FDR Knew About the Attack In Advance" crap.
ANd also the usual "FDR Knew About the Attack In Advance" crap.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
Chamberlain was fully aware of Hitler's intention to invade Soviet Russia several years back. It's what is known technically as our SECRET service. Zhukov also had his half-suspicions and he had given the Japanese a bloody nose in the far east with his Siberian troops. One aspect of this is that if Churchill and Eden and France had declared war in 1938 the public and House of Commons would forever be blaming Britain for starting the war, which would be most unfair. Stalin was only interested in invading eastern Poland. What a twit!
There is a discussion about all this on this forum which I admit may not be profound enough:
www.theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=87032
Last edited:
Everyone who read Mein Kampf knew Hitler intended to invade the USSR, so Chamberlain had no special knowledge. SIS certainly did discover information about Barbarossa, after Chamberlain was dead. That info reached the Soviets, in no small part via Philby but Stalin ignored it, along with the fact that the entire Heer was parked on his borders.
Have you figured out which season the Khalkin Gol campaign took place in yet?
Again nonsense. Prior to Munich Britain was preparing for war, no one wanted war but there seems to have been a general sense that Hitler was determined to start one, hence the hysterical overreaction when Chamberlain sold out the Czechs.
Stalin was interested in getting Germany to focus on fighting France, hoping for a rerun of the Western Front in WWI. That was why he signed up to the M-R Pact, the territorial gains were a bonus. Really Henri you need to stop reading political blogs and start reading some actual history books about the period.
Profundity is irrelevant as it is plain wrong about Stalin co-operating with Hitler in 1938. It was only after Munich demonstrated that the British and French were prepared to throw their allies to the wolves that his attitude changed. Likewise Hitler was still hoping for a grand anti-Communist alliance with the British in 1938. So yet again you've found an irrelevant blog rather than doing any proper reading. If you want to post something 'profound' try picking up a history book, any of the ones discussed in this thread would be a start.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
There is a bit of background information to that Khalkin Gol battle at this website:
https://historyofrussia.org/khalkhin-gol-battle-nomonhan/
The Russians were never invited to the Munich agreement in the same way as they were never invited for the treaty of Versailles. I still maintain Stalin was a useless ally of the Czechs for signing a non aggression pact with Hitler. I suppose he might have changed his mind when he fired his Jewish diplomats, and I think foreign Minister Litvinov and replaced him with Molotov. At least the French promised to go to war if Hitler continued after he occupied Prague. The British were never legally bound to go to war over the Czech problem, and neither was the Commonwealth, or America.
Last edited:
Henri, are you really this dense?
You were the one who posted:
When Khalkin Gol was fought in the summer. Simply regurgitating information you obtained from other posters here as if you were offering some insight is fooling no one. It was painfully obvious you knew nothing about Khalkin Gol, that you've frantically googled up a website that mentions it earns you no credit.
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
All I was saying is that the Siberian troops under Zhukov gave the Japanese a bloody nose whether it was winter or summer. The Russians staged some very successful counter attacks against the Germans, who were no match for the Russians in fighting under these conditions of intense cold. It's lack of vision.
No what you were saying was:
Khalkin Gol was brought up to point that this was incorrect. You responded by some hasty googling to find out what Nomonhan was and made such a hash of it you waffled on(which BTW is a correct use of that word) about winter warfare. In other words you yet again made an extravagant claim in the same vein as 'Britain would be defeated in a week' and rather than simply admitting it was wrong you're blustering and pretending you knew about Nomonhan all along even as your weak reading comprehension reveals the opposite.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I have always said that the Siberian troops were crack troops under Zhukov and that they were particularly good at winter warfare. That Russian Normonhan battle against the Japanese is something that is given very little publicity nowadays in TV documentaries, probably because there were no film cameramen there at the time to witness it. If it was summer or winter is not all that relevant.
The point I was making is that it was a poor performance by the Red Army against Finland and they were supposed to be an ally of the Czechs by a signed agreement, unlike the British. If Britain had gone to war on its own in 1938, or to have a military conflict over Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland and Austria with no reliable allies it would have been a military disaster, and it would not have had public support even if it was honourable as Churchill or Eden seemed to think.
There is a bit of background information to that Red Army war against Finland at :
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Finland-win-the-war-against-USSR
Last edited:
What's relevant is that you knew nothing about it but still opined that the Soviet army was a 'laughing stock' and maybe if you tried to learn about history from something other than TV documentaries maybe you wouldn't make so many ludicrous claims.
And that performance had no effect on peoples opinion of the Red Army in 1938, and it wasn't the Red Army that the Heer was afraid of in 1938, it was the French.
Again you spout the same nonsense, the French army of 1938 was overwhelmingly more powerful than the Heer, you simply assert they were somehow unreliable in defiance of all the facts presented to you. And again Churchill is irrelevant to the events of 1938.
No Henri, no one is interested in whatever blog you've dredged up this time, do some real reading about history instead of counting on Google if you want your claims to be taken seriously
Actually it is because you dismissed the Red Army has an effective fighting force in 1938. You were then told about Normonhan. You responded by implying that it was a winter battle, and thus why the Soviets won. The implication being that the Red Army would not have done will in a summer / autumn battle. It was pointed out the battle was in summer. So guess what whether it was summer or winter is relevant.
P.S. it also shows despite the disastrous effects of the purges the Red army could be very effective even in 1938.
Henri repeating the same refuted nonsense over and over again doesn't make it any more valid. I note that you forget that it was France that also had a military alliance with Czechoslovakia. During the whole Munich crisis the British were pressuring the French to abandon the Czechs. The British also rebuffed efforts of the Soviets to be involved and support the Czech government.
Also has a participant in the treaties that ended the First World War it is at least arguable that Britain had a legal obligation to protect Czechoslovakia. And thanks for the straw men,. Britain would not of gone to war alone in 1938. France would have almost certainly have gone to war also along with Czechoslovakia and very likely the Soviet Union would have provided aid at least. And France and the Czechs would certainly have been reliable allies at the time.
And of course if any allies were unreliable to any extent that would have been at least partly due to British appeasement policy often undercutting Britain's allies. Thus for example Munich largely destroyed the Western alliance system in Eastern Europe. As one Eastern power after the other concluded that both the French and British could not be counted on has allies and it was best to seek an accommodation with Germany and Italy. And of course it powerfully encouraged Stalin to also seek an accommodation with Germany. (The first hints of that were in April 1939 just after the occupation of Prague by the Nazis.)
As for being a "military disaster" isn't it so interesting that the German Generals and their staffs were predicting utter disaster for the Reich if war happened in late 1938. That they believed eventual defeat nearly certain if war came then. You should of course read Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction which makes it absolutely clear that Germany was not ready for war in late 1938 and that almost certainly the result would have been defeat for Germany, as the German Generals and their staffs at the time thought.
As for your mentioning of the Rhineland crisis of 1936. Does it have to be pointed out again that Hitler had given instructions that if the French in response to German troops moving in, moved their troops into the Rhineland. That the German troops were to withdraw at once. The French considered doing so and asked for British support. The British refused to support such a move so the French didn't respond. There would not have been a war at all. Instead a very humiliated Nazi regime would likely have been discredited. And of course neither the Brits nor the French were at the time in any danger of defeat at the hands of the utterly inferior, then, German army.
I also note that in the Munich agreement the Brits and the French guaranteed the territorial etc., integrity of the rump Czechoslovakia. When Hitler violated the agreement Chamberlain did very little and was still looking for ways to continue appeasement. Chamberlain ruled out sanctions of any kind and even has I have said before agreed to turn over the Czech gold reserves held in the Bank of England to the Nazis. The only positive acts were that Chamberlain was forced very reluctantly to agree to greater rearmament measures. But those like certain other policies he adopted at the time were things he was basically forced to do. I also note that after the invasion of Poland Chamberlain tried to find a petty fogging legalistic reason to avoid declaring war on Germany. His Cabinet revolted and forced him to do so.
As for lack of popular support. Once again asserting what is not so doesn't make it so. The evidence in fact indicates popular support for going to war among the allies. But if we are going to play this game of popular. German documentation indicates that if any population was extremely reluctant to go to war and a lack of popular support for such a move it was the German population!
I note that you also continue to repeat your nonsense about going to war in 1938 would have been a disaster for the British. Just how? The U-Boat threat would have been vastly less than in 1939. The ability of the Germans to wage a strategic air campaign against Britain was close to zero. And of course Germany would have felt the effects of a blockade without the powerful assist of Soviet aid. So why are you repeating arrant nonsense.
The whole point is that appeasement helped greatly to strengthen the Nazi regime and was very effective in undermining allied power and influence in much of Europe. It was neither clever nor smart in the long term. The end result was to diplomatically isolate France and Britain, destroy the alliance structure that furthered the allied goal of maintaining the peace. The appeasers were very successful in strengthening their enemies, and undermining their friends.
As it is your ignorance is amazing. For starters I suggest you read the book I mentioned above.
The name of the url doesn't encourage me, since Finland lost the Winter War in reality.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Whereas they didn't do so well in the Winter War. I'm not exactly sure what season that was fought in, but I'm sure that whatever the Red Army did in 1940 was something everyone factored into their assessments in 1938.
Dave
Seriously, Henri.
Your timelines are all over the place.
It really doesn't do your arguments any good when you come out with rubbish like this.
I'll help you here:
Sept/Oct 1938 - Munich Agreement and handing over of the Sudetenland
March 1939 - German occupation of the Czech part of Czecholslovakia, and creation of Slovak state.
August 1939 - Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
So, as you can see, the non-aggression pact would have had no effect on Czechoslovakia, or Stalin's stance as an ally towards them, as they had ceased to exist 6 months earlier.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,752
Finland gave it to the Russians in 1939 and 1944.
Germany didn't even go into full war production until 1943. But by then bombers were already destroying much of their efforts.
The German army was utilizing tactics that the others had to catch up to. Coordinated air power, fast strikes through lines causing encirclements, platoon officers allowed to make decisions on the battlefield instead of the waiting for orders from the top, (This handcuffed French defenses, as troops were waiting for orders from the top, while the German officers were already 2-3 moves ahead of the French troops). Waiting for orders from divisional officers, when your communications lines have been destroyed can be rather deadly.
Germany didn't even go into full war production until 1943. But by then bombers were already destroying much of their efforts.
The German army was utilizing tactics that the others had to catch up to. Coordinated air power, fast strikes through lines causing encirclements, platoon officers allowed to make decisions on the battlefield instead of the waiting for orders from the top, (This handcuffed French defenses, as troops were waiting for orders from the top, while the German officers were already 2-3 moves ahead of the French troops). Waiting for orders from divisional officers, when your communications lines have been destroyed can be rather deadly.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,752
The economy of Germany during the war's beginning was still a peace time economy.
They had only dreams of lightning wars early in the war. Consumer goods were still being produced to keep the people happy.
Only Albert Speer after taking over in 1942 made the decision to devote the entire economy to wartime production.
They had only dreams of lightning wars early in the war. Consumer goods were still being produced to keep the people happy.
Only Albert Speer after taking over in 1942 made the decision to devote the entire economy to wartime production.