Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

There is a sensible opinion about all this at a different forum with which I agree:

Let’s see… Munich, 1938. Appeasement fails and the conference breaks down. Hitler returns to Berlin and orders to go ahead with Fall Grün, the plans to invade Czechoslovakia. What would happen next?

My guess is that everyone would be caught with their pants down. The Germans would have the advantage, but they wouldn’t have the full power of their mechanized army or the Panzer forces, so their invasion on Czechoslovakia would be a half-powered Blitzkrieg.

The Czechs would possibly be able to fight back and hold their ground with their border fortifications and Skoda tanks, and maybe they would not be overrun as quickly as Poland in 1939. But eventually they would be defeated anyway. And also Hungary and Poland, of all countries, could possibly stab them in the back to take over some territories (Slovakia and Tesin district).

France and Britain? The most unprepared probably. If the French army was somehow unprepared for 1939–1940, in 1938 such unpreparedness and stagnation would be even worse. Britain would start the war with a weaker army, a Royal Navy without their King George V-class battleships and a much weaker RAF, composed mostly of biplanes (Gladiators and Furies) and some few Hurricanes, and no Spitfires at all.

And the Soviet Union? With the Great Purge going on in full swing, the Red Army would be in full disarray, so it would be difficult to mobilize them.
Click to expand...
 
Henri McPhee said:
There is a sensible opinion about all this at a different forum with which I agree:
Click to expand...

"If the French army was somehow unprepared for 1939–1940, in 1938 such unpreparedness and stagnation would be even worse. "

No, the French Army was virtually the same in 1938 as it was a year later.

"a Royal Navy without their King George V-class battleships "

And a Kriegsmarine with exactly 0 battleships ready instead of four 3 by 1940 (Edit: Tirpitz wasn't ready until '41) and hardly any Type VII U-boats.
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
There is a sensible opinion about all this at a different forum with which I agree:
Click to expand...

No one is interested in you finding yet another anonymous internet poster who happens to agree with you, especially when you provide no context for where this quote is to be found. We want you to show you have some evidence to back up your claims, can you provide it or not?
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
"If the French army was somehow unprepared for 1939–1940, in 1938 such unpreparedness and stagnation would be even worse. "

No, the French Army was virtually the same in 1938 as it was a year later.

"a Royal Navy without their King George V-class battleships "

And a Kriegsmarine with exactly 0 battleships ready instead of four 3 by 1940 (Edit: Tirpitz wasn't ready until '41) and hardly any Type VII U-boats.
Click to expand...

I thought this was even more ludicrous:

My guess is that everyone would be caught with their pants down. The Germans would have the advantage, but they wouldn’t have the full power of their mechanized army or the Panzer forces, so their invasion on Czechoslovakia would be a half-powered Blitzkrieg.
Click to expand...

This person believes that the Nazi Germany had a 'mechanized army' at some point, which is utter nonsense.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Yup they were still relying on horses, as so eloquently pointed out by Private Webster ;)

Click to expand...

It's ironic because Henri has attacked the Hollywood view of history, which should be shooting fish in a barrel, but that clip shows that in some respects Hollywood is more accurate than him.
 
jimbob said:
It's ironic because Henri has attacked the Hollywood view of history, which should be shooting fish in a barrel, but that clip shows that in some respects Hollywood is more accurate than him.
Click to expand...

Henri's view of Nazi Germany seems very 1960's Hollywood. The super efficient 'total war' economy and an ultra modern army led by genius Generals (who of course were never actually Nazi's) who could have conquered the world but for Hitler's madness.
 
Last edited:
Garrison said:
Henri's view of Nazi Germany seems very 1960's Hollywood. The super efficient 'total war' economy and an ultra modern army led by genius Generals (who of course were never actually Nazi's) who could have conquered the world but for Hitler's madness.
Click to expand...
What are some good examples of these movies? I'm looking a bit of waffle something different to watch.
 
theprestige said:
What are some good examples of these movies? I'm looking a bit of waffle something different to watch.
Click to expand...

Battle of the Bulge, The Bridge at Ramagen.

For the best American war film bar none watch 'A Walk in the Sun'
It follows an infantry squad from the beach at Anzio on their trek to secure a farmhouse inland.
It's brilliant

It's from Black and White and from 1945.
 
The thread on Dunkirk seems to have gone. I was looking at a TV documentary yesterday about the Spitfire, which I think was on Yesterday TV, which said the RAF won the Battle of Dunkirk as well as the Battle of Britain. That might explain some of the other theories about Dunkirk. It has always been a bit of a mystery to me.

I still find the old black and white Dam Busters film to be a good war film. I think it was made in about 1953 and it doesn't seem to have aged much. The original All Quiet on the Western Front is still a good First World War film.
 
Henri McPhee said:
The thread on Dunkirk seems to have gone. I was looking at a TV documentary yesterday about the Spitfire, which I think was on Yesterday TV, which said the RAF won the Battle of Dunkirk as well as the Battle of Britain. That might explain some of the other theories about Dunkirk. It has always been a bit of a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

So still no evidence for any of your claims then? Should we just take it as read you are conceding you can't answer any of the questions asked of you?
 
Henri McPhee said:
The thread on Dunkirk seems to have gone. I was looking at a TV documentary yesterday about the Spitfire, which I think was on Yesterday TV, which said the RAF won the Battle of Dunkirk as well as the Battle of Britain. That might explain some of the other theories about Dunkirk. It has always been a bit of a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

Henri, everything is a bit of a mystery to you.

Dave
 
Captain_Swoop said:
If you can find it a good concise history is 'Blitzkreig' by Len Deighton.
Click to expand...

Its a good read but a bit dated.

Deighton promulgates the idea that Blitzkrieg was an actual doctrine designed for the invasion of France, rather than just a fortunate confluence of tactical innovations that fitted nicely with the Prussian penchant for bewegungskrieg.

He also seems to have a strangely high opinion of the Somua S35....
 
Henri McPhee said:
The thread on Dunkirk seems to have gone. I was looking at a TV documentary yesterday about the Spitfire, which I think was on Yesterday TV, which said the RAF won the Battle of Dunkirk as well as the Battle of Britain. That might explain some of the other theories about Dunkirk. It has always been a bit of a mystery to me.

I still find the old black and white Dam Busters film to be a good war film. I think it was made in about 1953 and it doesn't seem to have aged much. The original All Quiet on the Western Front is still a good First World War film.
Click to expand...

Can you link, or name said TV documentary?

Edit: the underlined might be the least controversial thing ever said on this forum.
 
Last edited:
There have indeed been celebratory documentaries about the RAF's centenary. However focusing on the Battle of Britain, a couple I saw over Easter have missed some of the other factors. For a successful invasion, it is indeed true that Germany would have had to have won the Battle of Britain - however that would not have been sufficient.

In the light of the Allied experiences, we can see that even with air superiority, Sealion would have been a fiasco. D-day had air supremacy (hardly any German sorties) and naval supremacy (again, hardly any German sorties) as well as specialised landing craft and ships as well as well--developed logistics planning (with mechanised transport).

Sealion would have had none of these. Much of the planning would have been of a level expected from David Davis.
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
Its a good read but a bit dated.

Deighton promulgates the idea that Blitzkrieg was an actual doctrine designed for the invasion of France, rather than just a fortunate confluence of tactical innovations that fitted nicely with the Prussian penchant for bewegungskrieg.

He also seems to have a strangely high opinion of the Somua S35....
Click to expand...

Mansteins plan was dependant on the Blitzkreig doctrine. In that respect it was designed for the invasion of France. It was the only way that they were going to get through the Ardennes and cut in to the French rear.

Somua S35 was a good tank, one of the best available at the time.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Mansteins plan was dependant on the Blitzkreig doctrine. In that respect it was designed for the invasion of France.
Click to expand...

What I've read suggest that the Blitzkrieg doctrine was really only formally developed after the success of the attack on France. The Ardennes plan was more the product of the limitations of German logistics and the fact that the original plan was compromised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom