Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[Hans]

Then you are contending that Chamberlain had the correct information and still appeased Hitler? Even though that is demonstrably not the case? Oh and I really wouldn't start accusing people of telling lies, not with the myriad of 'factually incorrect' posts you've made in this thread.

Maybe this thread is Henri attempt at comedy based on self-assassination?

Stop cutting Henri you're head IS off.

 

[Rincewind]

C'mon Henri!

Please let us know what your Military credentials are?

Please, pretty please?

 

[Henri McPhee]

C'mon Henri!

Please let us know what your Military credentials are?

Please, pretty please?

I have never pretended to be anything other than an armchair strategist. I'm just interested in the pure unadulterated historical truth that's all, not a Boy's Own version of history. I was in the army cadet force at school and the RAF cadets. Chamberlain was accepting military advice not to declare war in 1938, and it was unfair of Churchill to blame him for that:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/chamberlain-and-hitler/source-3/

 

[Border Reiver]

Here's a pro tip Henri - when you're the lad in charge what ever decision you make, you own. If it turned out right, you're a hero. If it wasn't , you get to be treated like Chamberlain.

 

[Garrison]

I have never pretended to be anything other than an armchair strategist.

So attacking others for being 'armchair admirals' was pure hypocrisy then? Or are you suggesting your fact free beliefs are somehow superior to those who've actually studied the subject? It has been explained to you that Germany's military leadership believed that Germany couldn't win a war in 1938. Why do you persistently ignore the views of those who definitely were not 'armchair generals'?

I'm just interested in the pure unadulterated historical truth that's all, not a Boy's Own version of history.

Another claim you will need to substantiate. To date you've offered nothing but what you 'feel' and 'believe'. Your so-called evidence has either been irrelevant, factually inaccurate, or cherry picked quotes from sources that actually contradict you claims. The only reason you seem to have for defending Chamberlain is that he didn't get on with Churchill.

I was in the army cadet force at school and the RAF cadets. Chamberlain was accepting military advice not to declare war in 1938

And who was responsible for the perceived weakness of the Army? Also the question that has been asked and ignored by you is, who benefited most from Munich?

and it was unfair of Churchill to blame him for that:

Again Henri we are not interested in what Churchill might have said later. You have made a host of claims that you refuse to support, either retract them or support them, no more waffle about Churchill, the Irish, or whatever other distraction comes to your mind.

 

[Pacal]

I mentioned Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destructionin a earlier post; here are a few pertinent quotations from one chapter in the book.

In military terms Germany was not ready for a confrontation with the Western Powers.

(P. 326) This was in August of 1939.

Also

The German air force was in better shape. [Than the Navy which was hopelessly outclassed by the British] It was the largest and the most modern in Europe. However, studies done by the Luftwaffe staff in 1938 had concluded that a strategic air war against Britain was out of the question unless Germany could somehow gain control of airbases along the channel coastline.

(p. 327)

And

The army leadership, however was in a quite different state of mind. [In the fall of 1939 as against October 1938] What had stirred the army to near mutiny in 1938 was not the prospect of war with the Czechs, but the fact that this aggression was thought likely to trigger a war with Britain and France.

(P. 328)

Also

Furthermore, the plan for an attack on France, hastily drafted by the army high command in the autumn of 1939, convinced no one. It was an unimaginative revision of the Schlieffen Plan calling for the German army to punch its way to the channel coastline so aas t oprovide the Luftwaffe and the navy with bases for a close-range attack on Britain. Even if the Wehrmacht did manage to get to the Channel, the plan offered no prospect of knocking out the French army. Germany would find itself facing a prolonged war of attrition against two potent enemies, backed by the economic resources of the United States.

(P. 329)

And

... the Fuehrer remained adamant that the offensive should be launched in early November. [1939] Faced with this extraordinary demand, the mood in army high command in Zossen turned mutinous. The plotters who had come close to launching a coup d'état against Hitler in September 1938 resumed their preparations. General Halder contacted the commanders of Germany's three army groups to sound out their views on an immediate attack against France and their attitude towards a possible military overthrow of the Nazi regime.

(P. 329)

And

War against Britain and France was the worst-case scenario of German strategy. Only hindsight leads us to underestimate this fact. The leadership of Hitler's regime had only faced up to this possibility in the spring of 1938 and has we have seen, they had failed to devise a coherent strategic response. The army had not even begun planning for an attack in the West until after war broke out. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that in the autumn of 1939 there was a degree of chaos and confusion in Berlin.

(P. 331)

 

[Garrison]

I mentioned Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destructionin a earlier post; here are a few pertinent quotations from one chapter in the book.

Good of you to make the effort to post those, though I doubt Henri will pay any attention to well researched facts when there are irrelevant YouTube videos for him to link to.

Wages of Destruction makes it crystal clear that whatever issues the British or French faced in 1938 they pale in comparison to the internal problems which threatened to overwhelm Germany. It was only the Anschluss that prevented them running out of foreign exchange and they could only maintain military expansion by denying steel to construction programs and the railways. The latter would bring serious consequences later as the rail system began to breakdown under the strain, again a situation only temporarily alleviated by plundering rolling stock from the French after their surrender.

 

[CORed]

Sadly, my armchair doesn't float...

How do you know? Have your tried?

 

[Rincewind]

How do you know? Have your tried?

Of course!

However, every time we try, the Royal Navy comes past and sinks it.

And Magrat's not happy that her chair is all wet....

 

[Henri McPhee]

The Poles don't understand the Nazi mentality.

 

[Rincewind]

The Poles don't understand the Nazi mentality.

And this is relevant because?

And, presumably you'll be backing this up with real data?

 

[theprestige]

The Poles don't understand the Nazi mentality.

What was the Nazi mentality, Henri?

 

[Henri McPhee]

I posted that in response to the extraordinary recent news in Poland which again is somebody's opinion, and not facts or evidence:

https://eurojewcong.org/news/commun...ays-jews-gladly-moved-ghettoes-aided-germans/

“Do you know who chased the Jews away to the Warsaw Ghetto? The Germans, you think? No. The Jews themselves went because they were told that there would be an enclave, that they would not have to deal with those nasty Poles,” said Kornel Morawiecki.

In 1940, a year after Nazi Germany invaded Poland, Warsaw’s Jews were forced to move into the ghetto, a walled off area of the occupied capital.

 

[Rincewind]

I posted that in response to the extraordinary recent news in Poland which again is somebody's opinion, and not facts or evidence:

https://eurojewcong.org/news/commun...ays-jews-gladly-moved-ghettoes-aided-germans/

Shame on us for not knowing that!

And - this is also relevant, how?

 

[Garrison]

The Poles don't understand the Nazi mentality.

Feel free to provide some context for the above Henri, but I would much rather you address the issues you are so painfully obviously trying to avoid. For example:

Evidence for your claim that Britain would be beaten in a week.

Evidence for the claim that Chamberlain expected Hitler to break the Munich Agreement.

Evidence for the claim that the Luftwaffe could have conducted a successful bombing campaign against the UK in 1938, when even the Luftwaffe didn’t believe it was possible.

Evidence for how the German’s could have mounted an invasion of the UK in 1938, when they lacked the means even in 1940.

An explanation of why France and Czechoslovakia did not constitute ‘strong allies’ in 1938?

That’s hardly a comprehensive list, but it will do for now. Oh and please answer the above without mentioning Churchill, the Irish, or quoting any Holocaust denial sites if you wouldn’t mind.

I posted that in response to the extraordinary recent news in Poland which again is somebody's opinion, and not facts or evidence:

So in other words just a desperate effort on your part to avoid dealing with the list of unanswered questions that have been asked of you? Unless you care to explain what the attitude of some modern day right wing politician has to do with appeasement in the 1930s?

 

[Henri McPhee]

I don't know about Corporal Hitler.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12

That's like saying France could not possibly be invaded in 1940, or Britain bombed a bit in 1940, because of weak little Germany. Chamberlain was a realist. "I have in my a hand a piece of paper" is just politician empty waffle which is not unknown nowadays.

 

[Klimax]

I don't know about Corporal Hitler.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

That's like saying France could not possibly be invaded in 1940, or Britain bombed a bit in 1940, because of weak little Germany. Chamberlain was a realist. "I have in my a hand a piece of paper" is just politician empty waffle which is not unknown nowadays.

BS realist. Idiot he was. 1938 is not 1940! Chamberlin gave Hitler means to invade France!

 

[Garrison]

I don't know about Corporal Hitler.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

. That's like saying France could not possibly be invaded in 1940, or Britain bombed a bit in 1940, because of weak little Germany. Chamberlain was a realist. "I have in my a hand a piece of paper" is just politician empty waffle which is not unknown nowadays.

Henri please stop this nonsense, the situation in 1938 is quite different from that of 1940, and you have been offered a wealth of facts to explain this. In response we've gotten nothing but waffle and insults. Germany was too weak for war in 1938 according to its own generals. The Luftwaffe High Command stated they could not conduct the strategic bombing campaign you so blithely assert they could, why should we believe you over them?

All the evidence shows that Chamberlain genuinely believed Hitler would stick to the Munich agreement, insulting me is not going to get you off the hook for answering the questions asked of you or supporting the claims you've made, so please get on with doing so.

 

[Henri McPhee]

All the evidence shows that Chamberlain genuinely believed Hitler would stick to the Munich agreement, insulting me is not going to get you off the hook for answering the questions asked of you or supporting the claims you've made, so please get on with doing so.

I don't intend to be insulting. It's just that I don't think you understand what is going on and that you don't know the half of it. I agree there were a few German generals in 1938 who were opposed to Hitler, and in disagreement with him, but the majority like Guderian and Von Manstein and Kesselring , and even Von Paulus, until he called Hitler a Bavarian corporal at the end of the war, supported Hitler, as did the German public and the German business and political elite. Take nothing on appearance, take everything on the evidence. Chamberlain knew what was going on.

 

[Garrison]

I don't intend to be insulting. It's just that I don't think you understand what is going on and that you don't know the half of it.

It is insulting, when you have clearly demonstrated you don't know any of it. You've made endless claims that make no sense, and when you have provided 'evidence' it's consisted of webpages that were either irrelevant or contradicted your claims.

I agree there were a few German generals in 1938 who were opposed to Hitler, and in disagreement with him, but the majority like Guderian and Von Manstein and Kesselring , and even Von Paulus, until he called Hitler a Bavarian corporal at the end of the war, supported Hitler

Simply untrue, all this claim shows is that you know nothing abut the state of the German military in 1938. You say you agree, but I'm betting you have done zero research to confirm what the Generals actually said in 1938 have you?

as did the German public and the German business and political elite.

Again not true in 1938, in fact the German public were far from enthusiastic in 1939. Again you are simply revealing your ignorance.

Take nothing on appearance,

Advice you should try taking yourself.

take everything on the evidence.

Everyone else posting here does Henri, you are the one insisting on ignoring facts in pursuit of a belief that seems to be based on nothing more than your own feelings.

Chamberlain knew what was going on.

And yet the evidence says the opposite. Either offer evidence to support your claims or retract them, its one or the other Henri.
Posts like this are fooling no one Henri, you are not the voice of reason here, quite the opposite in fact.