Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

kookbreaker said:
Did you read any of the other replies, Henri? Like the ones that point out how small and skeletal the German forces are?
Click to expand...

I just think that's an astonishing lack of vision as well as showing a sense of humour is not your strong point:

https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWgermanA.htm

Stephen Roberts, The House that Hitler Built (1938)

There is no doubt that Germany has the largest army outside Russia. When completely organized, her thirty-six infantry divisions alone will include 600,000 men. Britain has just over 150,000 men, in five divisions. France has a peace-time army of twenty-five divisions at home. No reasonable observer can doubt that, if Hitler organizes his thirty-six divisions and trains 300,000 conscripts a year, in a few years he will have the finest army in Europe.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Whereas your strong points clearly don't include understanding the meaning of the phrase "in a few years".

Dave
Click to expand...

I just think there is amazing complacency in thinking that Britain could not possibly have been invaded in 1938 with no Spitfires, and there is practically no discussion that Soviet Russia might have been defeated in a Nazi invasion. It would have been a military disaster and not good news for the Jews. I remember overhearing some gossip in a shop by an old man once who was around at the time saying it was touch and go and I consider that to be the pure unadulterated historical truth.
 
And we're back to throwing completely disconnected stuff at the page, in the hopes something might stick.

No sense of timescales, or anything.
 
Henri McPhee said:
I just think there is amazing complacency in thinking that Britain could not possibly have been invaded in 1938 with no Spitfires, and there is practically no discussion that Soviet Russia might have been defeated in a Nazi invasion. It would have been a military disaster and not good news for the Jews. I remember overhearing some gossip in a shop by an old man once who was around at the time saying it was touch and go and I consider that to be the pure unadulterated historical truth.
Click to expand...

Careful now, the mask is slipping a bit.

Dave
 
Tolls said:
And we're back to throwing completely disconnected stuff at the page, in the hopes something might stick.

No sense of timescales, or anything.
Click to expand...

It's what is known technically as the pure unadulterated historical truth. This is an interesting opinion about the matter from another forum. It's never discussed in TV documentaries, or in the British and American media, or by historians, but it makes sense to me:

https://www.quora.com/If-Russia-wou...-then-what-would-have-been-the-outcome-of-ww2

"If Russia would have been defeated in 1941 then what would have been the outcome of ww2?"

If the USSR was completely defeated German troops would have occupied Siberia! My first thought is that there might not have been a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor! Japanese would have access to all of the oil and raw materials they could ask for! Japan may have defeated China. Without the Red army Germany may have defeated Britain! The British Empire without the British isles or would Germany take over the Empire?

Would the Axis powers been satisfied? It would have taken them many years to consolidate that victory!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
Chamberlain was quoted as saying it would have been far worse in 1938.
Click to expand...


[citation needed]

Further, Chamberlain couldn't possibly have been the least bit biased about that, could he? :rolleyes:

Henri McPhee said:
I reckon Hitler would have gone through the Ardennes then.
Click to expand...


Then explain, in detail, how the Wehrmacht was going to pull this off with far weaker panzer and motorized forces, a much weaker Luftwaffe (including only about half as many Ju 87s), and many fewer infantry divisions. Additionally, the 22. Luftlande-Division (22nd Air Landing Division), which was crucial in establishing a bridgehead across the Albert Canal, was still a regular infantry division in 1939.

Henri McPhee said:
There is a sensible posting about the matter at this forum:
Click to expand...


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. :rolleyes:

Henri McPhee said:
https://www.quora.com/What-if-Hitler-opened-the-war-as-early-as-1938
Click to expand...


First, the author, who admits to not being an expert, postulates a German attack on Poland in 1938. That's not the scenario we're discussing.

Second, the author assumes that Stalin would have concluded a pact with Hitler if Chamberlain hadn't sold out Czechoslovakia , a wholly unsupportable assumption.

Third, the author makes the same handwaving assumption as you, that an attack through the Ardennes in 1939 would have succeeded just as it did in 1940. Fail.
 
Last edited:
Even then they weren't essential to the offensive, they were an added bonus and showing off, they caused concern for defenders of the UK after Dunkirk and also inspired the British and Americans to develop their own airborne infantry.
 
Last edited:
Correct my history, but didn’t the ‘Go through the Ardenne’ get made in desperation after the initial plans fell into Allied hands? You want to plan on that happening exactly 1 year earlier?
 
kookbreaker said:
Correct my history, but didn’t the ‘Go through the Ardenne’ get made in desperation after the initial plans fell into Allied hands? You want to plan on that happening exactly 1 year earlier?
Click to expand...

There is a lot of debate about how much the German plans falling into allied hands had on the decision to go through the Ardennes in 1940.
Problem was the Allies were expecting the German offensive to take place where it was planned before the plans fell into Allied hands,and the Germans knew this.
A number of the German planners opposed the initial plan as being too orvious and one the Allies would expect. The plans falling into the allied hands might have strenthend their hands, but exactly how much impact it had on the decision to swtich the main offensive force to the Ardennes remains a matter of debate.
 
In terms of making an optimal plan, and allocating forces only where you know they'll actually be needed. There's probably a difference between "this is probably what they're going to do" and "this is exactly what they're going to do, in specific detail, including the non-obvious adaptations that will leave us vulnerable if we only expect the obvious."
 
Committing the major part of your forces as a diversionary attack is a very bold plan though.
 
Ah so we are have yet another fringe reset and is Henri throwing all the same arguments at you again?
 
Henri McPhee said:
It's never discussed in TV documentaries, or in the British and American media, or by historians, but it makes sense to me:

https://www.quora.com/If-Russia-wou...-then-what-would-have-been-the-outcome-of-ww2
Click to expand...

There's a reason it's never discussed.
Because it's bollocks.
The Germans had no plan to go beyond the Urals...there was nothing there they wanted.

Stiil, up to your usual quality of reference material.

Hans said:
Ah so we are have yet another fringe reset and is Henri throwing all the same arguments at you again?
Click to expand...

Pretty much.
I think I've spotted a 10-14 day cycle.
Henri posts nonsense - a day or 2 of chatter - goes quiet - 10 days later Henri posts nonsense again - repeat ad infinitum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom