Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[theprestige]

Thank you. Now if you could add a link to say the Fall of Tenochtitlan as supporting evidence, for example, it would be an ideal answer

I want to see some waffle on BBC about how Chamberlain knew about the second assault years earlier, but the Rhodians didn't believe his warnings.

 

[theprestige]

Zanzibar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

Heh. That's pretty close. I could be pedantic, and argue that it was loyalists and their imperial allies putting down a rebel insurrection. Since the self appointed sultan was never actually in control of the country, his surrender doesn't count. But whatever.

Let's say it *does* happen, but only when there is a ridiculous power imbalance between the two.

 

[jimbob]

It's not complacent to point out facts. There was zero possibility of an invasion in 1938 and the Luftwaffe was incapable of delivering the kind of bomb loads required to bomb Britain into submission during the Blitz night bombing campaign with bases in France in 1940. The notion they could do so in 1938 flying from Germany is absurd, and are you planning to withdraw the blatant falsehood that the bombers were unescorted during the BoB?

That's patently untrue.

http://ww2today.com/15th-august-1940-the-luftwaffes-black-thursday

Am I the person with the comprehension difficulties, or is it someone else?

To me it looks as though you are refuting Garrison's claim that Germany couldn't bomb the UK into submission in 1940 by using an article about how a German attack (from Norway, not Germany) was mauled by the RAF.

I'd say it support's Garrison's claim, but maybe you can explain why it refutes it. I'm willing to learn.

The US were so concerned about bombers getting through that they developed the Nike Hercules to defeat entire squadrons at once.

I think that last paragraph is suitably irrelevant, whilst at least mentioning bombers

 

[Andy_Ross]

The jury is out about that. You could argue that Holland and Poland surrendered after Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed by the Germans, and the Czechs also gave up when Hitler threatened to bomb Prague. The Stuka dive bomber did a lot of damage in France, but it was no match for the British Spitfire. If Britain had lost the Battle of Britain, and it was a close run thing, it's more than likely that there would have been 'shooty-bangs' on the British mainland, which would have been countered with Churchill's 'with what' strategy and powerful oratory. The IRA would most likely have invaded Northern Ireland.

It wasn't a 'close run thing' The RAF finished the battle with more aircraft and pilots than when it started and the Germans with considerably fewer.
Even then if the Germans had obtained air superiority over the South East corner for a while they still had no means to get past the RN or get ashore in any but token numbers.

In more recent times you could argue that Israel won the Six Day war by surprise bombing, and also Nato in Libya. Bombing seems to have recently got rid of Isis in Syria and Iraq, apart from their underground tunnels, though many of Isis have now fled to Libya and Afghanistan and Turkey. There are people on the internet who now seem to think Stealth bombers would win a war against Russia and North Korea and China, though personally I think that's crazy.

There is a bit about all this in that Russian Outlook book by Sir Giffard Martel published in 1947:

Six day war was won by combined arms, air superiority and overwhelming force on the ground. Syria, Iraq and Libya was mainly a ground offensive, all the gains were made by hard fighting on the ground. Air power played its part but nothing was won just by bombing. If you haven't noticed all the locations listed in the Middle East are still knocking the crap out of each other on the ground. No one has won anything.

 

[Rincewind]

so, Henri,

This week of which you spoke...

Please can you give us a run down of what would happen when?

Thank you.

 

[ddt]

As far as I know, my link was accurate... utterly irrelevant, but accurate.

Meanwhile, I refer you to Dave Roger's post - which I think is accurate and relevant.

I think I may try explaining fighter ranges and the difference between escorted and unescorted bombers to my cat. He's not the brightest of cats, but I think he'll at least be aware that I'm talking to him.

Dave

I actually tried this and it had positive effect on my cat. Every since she developed hyperthyroidism she's had short daily fits of rage, and telling her about air strategy during one had a soothing effect on her behaviour.

 

[Garrison]

The jury is out about that. You could argue that Holland and Poland surrendered after Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed by the Germans, and the Czechs also gave up when Hitler threatened to bomb Prague.

No the jury is not out Henri, it is plainly obvious to everyone else that you have no idea what you are talking about and have repeatedly posted irrelevant and misleading information in a hopeless attempt to support your flawed argument. You still have not addressed your ludicrous claim that Britain would be defeated in a week. 'You could argue' the sky is pink, but it wouldn't be true and constantly refusing to listen to those telling you its blue would simply make the person insisting its pink look like a fool.

 

[Garrison]

Am I the person with the comprehension difficulties, or is it someone else?

To me it looks as though you are refuting Garrison's claim that Germany couldn't bomb the UK into submission in 1940 by using an article about how a German attack (from Norway, not Germany) was mauled by the RAF.

I'd say it support's Garrison's claim, but maybe you can explain why it refutes it. I'm willing to learn.

No it's not just you, I'm not seeing anything there that in any refutes what I said, but clearly Henri is using some definition of success I'm not familiar with. In fact this particular paragraph:

The 15th August saw some of the fiercest fighting of the Battle of Britain as the Luftwaffe launched a series of raids aimed mainly at RAF bases. This was intended as the knockout blow that had been envisaged on ‘Eagle Day’, although the results were not as anticipated. The resources of the RAF were far from being as depleted as the Luftwaffe intelligence suggested, and scored some notable successes, particularly when German bombers were unescorted by fighters.

Is about the very Luftflotte 5 that I've suggested Henri lookup, twice.

 

[jimbob]

No the jury is not out Henri, it is plainly obvious to everyone else that you have no idea what you are talking about and have repeatedly posted irrelevant and misleading information in a hopeless attempt to support your flawed argument. You still have not addressed your ludicrous claim that Britain would be defeated in a week. 'You could argue' the sky is pink, but it wouldn't be true and constantly refusing to listen to those telling you its blue would simply make the person insisting its pink look like a fool.

To be fair, often the information often is accurate. Sometimes (admittedly not often) it is actually relevant. Admittedly, in these cases, the links directly contradict his argument.


But I suppose you can't have everything.

 

[Border Reiver]

The jury is out about that.

No, it's not.

You could argue that Holland and Poland surrendered after Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed by the Germans, and the Czechs also gave up when Hitler threatened to bomb Prague.

You could also argue that their surrender was the result of The German military occupying a significant portion of the country and the militaries of their countries being defeated.

The Stuka dive bomber did a lot of damage in France, but it was no match for the British Spitfire.

That would be because one was intended to carry a bomb and the other was intended to destroy aircraft.

In more recent times you could argue that Israel won the Six Day war by surprise bombing, and also Nato in Libya.

Except it was the ground forces that did the heavy lifting in both conflicts.

Bombing seems to have recently got rid of Isis in Syria and Iraq, apart from their underground tunnels, though many of Isis have now fled to Libya and Afghanistan and Turkey. There are people on the internet who now seem to think Stealth bombers would win a war against Russia and North Korea and China, though personally I think that's crazy.

Air power combined with ground forces.

No military planner worth their salt thinks air power would be able to win any war. That's the purview of armchair generals and folk who vaguely remember something they saw on the telly several years ago.

 

[HansMustermann]

It's amazing how long the idea of bombing the enemy into submission clung on, even when the British had their own direct experience of it failing miserably. It always seemed to be the case that it just needed more planes, more bombs and it would work. The Allies had the luxury of indulging in the creation of a strategic airforce while pursuing their other goals, Nazi Germany never did.

And a luxury it was. The cost for the USA for all the B17's to bomb Germany with was actually higher than the cost of the Manhattan Project, IIRC. Needless to say, Germany could never even afford the latter, much less the former.

There is something to be said about strategic bombing that I haven't touched, though: propaganda value. Essentially humans have a built in need for the "we have to do SOMETHING" fallacy, and it's doubly so when it comes to doing SOMETHING to the enemy. It may not work to actually beat the enemy, but it has one heck of a propaganda value at home.

And AFAIK Hitler was all too aware of both aspects of that. The switch to terror bombing London only happened after the Nazis saw the propaganda value that bombing Berlin. And the vengeance weapons (you know, V1, V2 and the planned V3) essentially were just about the value of "vengeance" for propaganda.

In a sense, the British newspapers running bogus reports of V1 rockets hitting London when they were falling too short... well, it was actually the best thing for BOTH sides. It didn't ACTUALLY matter if the bombs actually hit or not. Having just the reports that they hit was all that the propaganda machine actually needed.

So, TL;DR version: propaganda value may well be why those bombing campaigns continued, in spite of their huge cost in both money and LIVES. (Bomber crews had MUCH higher percentage losses than infantry, which in turn had higher losses than the tanks.) Essentially a lot of people on both sides had to die just so they can show newsreels of bombing this or that city, for propaganda value.

 

[Craig B]

In a sense, the British newspapers running bogus reports of V1 rockets hitting London when they were falling too short... well, it was actually the best thing for BOTH sides. It didn't ACTUALLY matter if the bombs actually hit or not. Having just the reports that they hit was all that the propaganda machine actually needed.

It wasn't just propaganda. It was very obviously intended to make the Germans keep missing but make them think they were hitting the target, so they wouldn't correct their aim, which they would have done if the UK had announced to Hitler: your missiles are useless - they're all falling into Kentish hopfields.

What is the saying? If your enemy is making a mistake, don't correct him.

 

[HansMustermann]

No, I meant for the GERMAN propaganda.

For the British, sure, obviously it's better if the bombs miss your people. THAT part goes without saying, I would think.

What I put forward is the idea that for the NAZIS it also didn't really matter where those bombs land. As long as they could show a British newspaper saying they hit London, that was all they needed for propaganda.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It wasn't just propaganda. It was very obviously intended to make the Germans keep missing but make them think they were hitting the target, so they wouldn't correct their aim, which they would have done if the UK had announced to Hitler: your missiles are useless - they're all falling into Kentish hopfields.

What is the saying? If your enemy is making a mistake, don't correct him.

Agents in the Double Cross System sent reports back to Germany when the V bombs first started reporting that they overshot. Ranges were shortened and then Double Cross reported they were hitting London, the news stories re-enforced this.

 

[HansMustermann]

Zanzibar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

Ah, the Anglo-Zanzibar war. Again, I would manintain, you have to look at the size of the ground forces too.

The late sultan of Zanzibar had been allowed by the British to have a maximum army of 1000 men, and most of them were not in the capital at any time anyway. Before the confrontation, the new sultan only had 700 soldiers, and some 2000 or so civilians who had taken up arms.

Meanwhile, by the 25'th, the British had gathered a ground force of slightly over 1000, standing ready to storm the palace. Actual soldiers. On the 26'th further marines and sailors were brought by ship.

That's not counting the fact that the majority of the town's population was favouring the British, so if push came to shove, the civilians that had sided with the sultan were a minority.

At this point the British could already win on the ground, although attacking a fortified position like the palace would have caused severe losses.

Then came the artillery pissing contest. The British artillery barrage wasn't just a show of power, but it took out pretty much all of the sultan's artillery, and killed 500 of his troops, which pretty much means about 20% of all the army he had. At this point, no doubt the rest were having a MAJOR morale problem (losing 20% of your mates in half a hour will shake any army, but doubly so some civilians who took dad's old rifle), and between that and the loss of their own artillery, the balance of power at this point heavily favoured the British ground forces.

So basically I put forward to you the idea that again, it was the actual presence of boots on the ground that won the war. While one can correctly say that they didn't ACTUALLY have to do an assault, they were there, it was clear that the assault would come next, and it was clear that they would win it.

It wasn't JUST the artillery barrage that won the war.

 

[HansMustermann]

So what does that mean for Britain in '38, since that's the scenario discussed.

Well, if the Nazis could ALSO bring some five divisions or so to the outskirts of London in '38, in addition to the bombers, AND the equipment favours them similarly to the Zanzibar situation (say, half of them are panzer divisions), then you might or might not have a Zanzibar scenario. I doubt that Britain would flat out surrender, but you might or might not find enough MPs that think it's not worth it, and agree to sign a white peace with Germany.

But the problem is that they couldn't. And ONLY bombers can't actually win a war.

 

[Henri McPhee]

First, we had very ill president after Beneš went into exile in GB and thus was much easier to pressure. Second, thanks to crapshow called Munich by certain Chamberlain, we lost bulk of natural and prepared defenses! Our position after loss of Sudetland was indefensible.

You are literally rewriting history!!! Stop that idiocy!

Why didn't the Americans intervene on behalf of the Czechs at Munich in 1938 then? They were a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles, and America had the military clout. The British Navy was not of much use to the Czechs then, and neither was the British Army or air force. Britain had never given the Czechs a guarantee, like Poland later on. Churchill was unable to be much help to Poland later on with his powerful oratory.

I still think the British Navy would have been in dire straits if the RAF was not operational. They would have been sitting ducks. The Germans had no problems with unescorted bombers until Chamberlain introduced the Spitfires and Hurricanes by 1940.

I agree it was sad for the Czechs at Munich. I'm a bit upset about it myself. The British public did not want to go war over the Sudetenland, and neither did Australia or Canada or New Zealand. Sometimes a Prime Minister has to be a bit of a butcher.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Henri, what you say is both accurate and relevant. Unfortunately, the relevant bits are not accurate, and the accurate bits are not relevant.

Dave

 

[fagin]

Er um.

You'd need to ask the Americans I think.

And OK...

I feel your pain. Maggie was the daughter of a shopkeeper (don't think he was a butcher though). Does that count?

 

[Garrison]

This may be the single most inaccurate post you've managed to date, a triumph of sorts I suppose:

Why didn't the Americans intervene on behalf of the Czechs at Munich in 1938 then? They were a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles,

No they were not a signatory, the US congress refused to ratify the treaty.

and America had the military clout.

No it did not, the US army and airforce in 1938 were tiny by comparison to the British, French or Germans.

The British Navy was not of much use to the Czechs then, and neither was the British Army or air force.

Except of course in attacking Germany in support of the French. You remember them don't you? Big country right next to Germany that was an ally of the Czechs?

Britain had never given the Czechs a guarantee, like Poland later on. Churchill was unable to be much help to Poland later on with his powerful oratory.

But it did assist in defeating Germany, which is sort of the point of the entire discussion, did Munich help Britain or Germany more?

I still think the British Navy would have been in dire straits if the RAF was not operational.

So good thing it was then.

They would have been sitting ducks. The Germans had no problems with unescorted bombers until Chamberlain introduced the Spitfires and Hurricanes by 1940.

The Hurricane and the Spitfire both entered service before Munich. And the only reason the Luftwaffe hadn't had problems previously was that they had the luxury of attacking nations that either lacked an airforce, or where the airforce had been destroyed on the ground by Luftwaffe planes able to attack from short range because the targets were adjacent to their front line bases.

I agree it was sad for the Czechs at Munich. I'm a bit upset about it myself. The British public did not want to go war over the Sudetenland, and neither did Australia or Canada or New Zealand. Sometimes a Prime Minister has to be a bit of a butcher.

Yes they do, shame Chamberlain chickened out and handed the Third Reich the opportunity to massively strengthen itself at Munich. As to what the Commonwealth countries did, again at the time of Munich in1938 the contribution they could have made was minor, but as in WWII if war came they would have geared up and with no Japanese threat to worry about Australia and New Zealand may have been more willing to send troops to Europe.