Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[SpitfireIX]

Radar was in its technical infancy in 1938. The Gloster Gladiators would have been blind.

No. Radar was still in its "technical infancy" in 1940, and the same Chain Home (later called AMES Type 1) radar equipment that was first operational in 1938 was in use then.

Further, kindly explain why the Germans didn't launch any bombing raids against Britain in 1939 if, as you claim, they would have been able to do so with devastating effect in 1938.

 

[Hans]

Have you actually looked at a map to see where the Channel Islands are?

I really don't believe he has any idea where they are at.

 

[Tolls]

I really don't believe he has any idea where they are at.

Reminds me of Diary of Adrian Mole where his father panics when the Argentinians invade the Falklands, thinking they were just off Scotland.

 

[Klimax]

The British air force was no match for the Luftwaffe in 1938 and the British Navy could not save the Channel Islands.

Evidence?

 

[HansMustermann]

This is a good point, but that level of military expenditures probably made the conquests of 1939 and 1940 possible.

Well, that and as Klimax surely would remind us, the Czech tanks. But yeah, if you wanted to have a war in '39-'40, obviously stalling the economy by '38 was the only way to get that much equipment done in time. I'm just doubting that being in that much of a hurry to have a war was a good idea on the whole.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Incidentally, has anyone pointed out to Henri that the standard fighters of the Luftwaffe in 1938 were the Heinkel He-51, an open cockpit, 205mph, two-gun biplane which didn't actually compare all that well with the 253mph, four-gun Gloster Gladiator in service ceiling, range or rate of climb, and the very similar Arado Ar-68, because there were very few Bf-109s in German service by then, just like the RAF's Spitfores and Hurricanes? Or is it valid, for some bizarre reason, to continue pointing out that the Luftwaffe in 1940 was superior to the RAF in 1938?

Dave

 

[Klimax]

Incidentally, has anyone pointed out to Henri that the standard fighters of the Luftwaffe in 1930 were the Heinkel He-51, an open cockpit, 205mph, two-gun biplane which didn't actually compare all that well with the 253mph, four-gun Gloster Gladiator in service ceiling, range or rate of climb, and the very similar Arado Ar-68, because there were very few Bf-109s in German service by then, just like the RAF's Spitfores and Hurricanes? Or is it valid, for some bizarre reason, to continue pointing out that the Luftwaffe in 1940 was superior to the RAF in 1938?

Dave

I like name Spitfore...

 

[lobosrul5]

Incidentally, has anyone pointed out to Henri that the standard fighters of the Luftwaffe in 1930 were the Heinkel He-51, an open cockpit, 205mph, two-gun biplane which didn't actually compare all that well with the 253mph, four-gun Gloster Gladiator in service ceiling, range or rate of climb, and the very similar Arado Ar-68, because there were very few Bf-109s in German service by then, just like the RAF's Spitfores and Hurricanes? Or is it valid, for some bizarre reason, to continue pointing out that the Luftwaffe in 1940 was superior to the RAF in 1938?

Dave

In Henri's world the RAF had like 1 squadron of modern fighters in '38. Yet the Luftwaffe had 1000's of ever type of plane that had first flown by then.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I like name Spitfore...

Just for that, I'm not going to edit it

Dave

 

[HansMustermann]

Incidentally, has anyone pointed out to Henri that the standard fighters of the Luftwaffe in 1930 were the Heinkel He-51, an open cockpit, 205mph, two-gun biplane which didn't actually compare all that well with the 253mph, four-gun Gloster Gladiator in service ceiling, range or rate of climb, and the very similar Arado Ar-68, because there were very few Bf-109s in German service by then, just like the RAF's Spitfores and Hurricanes? Or is it valid, for some bizarre reason, to continue pointing out that the Luftwaffe in 1940 was superior to the RAF in 1938?

Dave

Well, considering that neither could reach the UK in '38 anyway, it's a bit moot.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, considering that neither could reach the UK in '38 anyway, it's a bit moot.

And they were even inferior in that respect to the Gladiator - or at least the Sea Gladiator, because the latter carried an inflatable dinghy.

Dave

 

[SpitfireIX]

Incidentally, has anyone pointed out to Henri that the standard fighters of the Luftwaffe in 1930 were the Heinkel He-51, an open cockpit, 205mph, two-gun biplane which didn't actually compare all that well with the 253mph, four-gun Gloster Gladiator in service ceiling, range or rate of climb, and the very similar Arado Ar-68, because there were very few Bf-109s in German service by then, just like the RAF's Spitfores and Hurricanes? Or is it valid, for some bizarre reason, to continue pointing out that the Luftwaffe in 1940 was superior to the RAF in 1938?

Dave

Actually the main Luftwaffe fighter at the time of the Munich crisis was the Bf 109D. As someone pointed out earlier, however, this variant should not be confused with the far more capable Bf 109E which began entering service in the spring of 1939. How much of an advantage the D model had over the Gladiator is debatable; the latter was slower, but also unquestionably more maneuverable; the two aircraft had comparable armament.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I like name Spitfore...

 

[Henri McPhee]

Relative to 1940 yes, but they would have been adequate to deal with any Luftwaffe planes that could actually reach Britain in 1938. Still waiting for you to link to the post where the claim was made that the bombers couldn't reach Britain BTW, are you going to be providing that any time soon?

Soviet Russia was not much help and they would not come to our aid in a crisis. The Luftwaffe were capable of terror bombing on London in 1938. The air war was pretty close in 1940 with Spitfires and Hurricanes. I just think Hitler would have used the same strategy in 1938 to reach Northern France but it would have been a year earlier with Britain unprepared for war. The English Channel was dangerous waters for the British Navy. They wanted to stay in the North Sea.

There is a discussion of appeasement on this forum:

http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII4_AppeasementForum.htm

I just can't stand by and let John Simkin (nice man that he is) say such things about Neville Chamberlain. The points I have always made about Chamberlain are:

1. Chamberlain could not declare war by personal fiat. He was the leader of a democracy, and he OUGHT to obey the will of the people (as even Blair had to go to Parliament over Iraq). And I do not believe that the country would have stomached a declaration of war over Czechoslovakia.

Chamberlain, as the leader of a democracy, HAD to wait until it was clear to people that it was 'the great principles that are involved'. It was only after March 1939 that people realised that. Above all, can you imagine the people of Britain putting up with the Blitz during summer 1939 - to save Czechoslovakia???

 

[lobosrul5]

Soviet Russia was not much help and they would not come to our aid in a crisis. The Luftwaffe were capable of terror bombing on London in 1938. The air war was pretty close in 1940 with Spitfires and Hurricanes. I just think Hitler would have used the same strategy in 1938 to reach Northern France but it would have been a year earlier with Britain unprepared for war. The English Channel was dangerous waters for the British Navy. They wanted to stay in the North Sea.

There is a discussion of appeasement on this forum:

http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII4_AppeasementForum.htm

I can't figure out why you mentioned the Soviets in this reply, the quoted post has nothing to do with them. But, have you considered the fact that Stalin's opinions of "the west" were considerably damaged because we gave away Czechoslovakia, his ally, without consulting him, or the Czechs for that matter?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, it's like Henri isn't listening any more than my cat does.

The Luftwaffe were capable of terror bombing on London in 1938.

A lot less so than in 1938.

The air war was pretty close in 1940 with Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Because Germany had Ju88s and Bf109Es.

I just think Hitler would have used the same strategy in 1938 to reach Northern France but it would have been a year earlier with Britain unprepared for war.

Or, perhaps, never, because the German army was only a third the size in 1938 and it didn't have any Czechoslovakian tanks.

The English Channel was dangerous waters for the British Navy. They wanted to stay in the North Sea.

But they were quite prepared to fight in the Channel if necessary; and a prospective seaborne invasion was way past the required threshold.

There is a discussion of appeasement on this forum:

http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII4_AppeasementForum.htm

And finally, the usual appeal to a cherry-picked excerpt from a source of no known provenance. At least my cat doesn't do that.

Dave

 

[Henri McPhee]

I agree that the military situation was better in 1940 than in 1938. Chamberlain believed there were deficiencies in the air force in 1938, and that was dangerous. How on earth could the RAF or British Navy have saved the Czechs in 1938? The French and Soviet Russia didn't want to know, and neither ddi America or Canada or New Zealand or Australia.

There is an opinion in that Alfred Price Battle of Britain book in 1989:

...... for without massive air superiority over the Channel, to redress the overwhelming strength of the Royal Navy, any attempt to invade England would have been doomed to bloody failure

 

[Dave Rogers]

I agree [...]

With whom? Nobody's agreeing with you.

There is an opinion in that Alfred Price Battle of Britain book in 1989:

Which, as usual, counts against your line of argument rather than for it. Note that it doesn't express the converse, that with massive air superiority, the invasion would have been a success.

Dave

 

[Garrison]

Soviet Russia was not much help and they would not come to our aid in a crisis.

But they would have come to the aid if their allies the Czechs

The Luftwaffe were capable of terror bombing on London in 1938.

In the technical sense that some bombers could have reached London in 1938 flying from bases in Germany this is technically true. There is no reason to suppose these decidedly less powerful attacks would have been more effective than the far larger raids of 1940 at terrorizing the population.

The air war was pretty close in 1940 with Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Yeah there you are buying into the mythic version of the BoB, the RAF was never really that close to defeat, certainly nowhere near offering the kind of air superiority a landing would have needed.

I just think Hitler would have used the same strategy in 1938 to reach Northern France but it would have been a year earlier with Britain unprepared for war.

Yes we realize you 'think' a great many things that are utter nonsense. A far stronger Wehrmacht in 1939-40 needed nine months to recover from Attacking Poland to striking at France and that was with the USSR as an ally. Supposing they could somehow mount such an attack in 1938 with a Hostile Soviet union at their back is pure fantasy.

The English Channel was dangerous waters for the British Navy. They wanted to stay in the North Sea.

It was dangerous for the Battleships mainly because of the threat of U-Boat attack, the destroyers that would have intercepted an attempted German landing, not that any such thing was remotely possible in 1938 any more than it was in 1940

There is a discussion of appeasement on this forum:

I'm sure there is, but we are having a discussion on this forum so if you have any facts to offer please post them here.

And to remind you of some of the outstanding issues you have yet to address:

You claimed Britain would be defeated in a week, please provide evidence for this.

You claimed the USA had the 'military clout' to intervene and then claimed it was too weak to intervene, please state which of these claims you wish to retract.

 

[fagin]

Well, it's like Henri isn't listening any more than my cat does.

............

That gave me an idea for Kitten Defence©

Line the roads with kittens - they even slow down nazis. Proof.

Unless he's planning on biting their heads off, in which case my idea is rubbish.