Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'd add one, actually. I was kinda saving it for the nazi competence thread, but actually it fits together with your post better.

The issue is: Germany didn't actually have all that many tanks either. In the '30s the percentage of spending on tanks, out of the total arms spending, was always less than 5%, at times substantially less. And they only start really making tanks in 1934, so that doesn't get a lot of tanks built.

By the time of the attack on Poland, in the fall of 1939, IIRC the Germans had less than 180 Pz-III and Pz-IV combined. That's not a lot of tanks.

By way of comparison, the Czechs had 298 LT vz. 35 (later known as Pz-35(t)) and was just starting production of the Pz-38t when they got taken over by Germany.

It was only after the fall of France that the Nazi propaganda actually started painting a bigger than life picture of its many mighty tank divisions,

 

[SpitfireIX]

There needs to be comprehensive vision, and not lack of vision about all this.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you has a lack of vision, but you have comprehensive vision?

You could argue that the French army was stronger than the German army in 1940, but actual events proved otherwise.

No. All events proved was that the German Army won.

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

--Ecclesiastes 9:11 (King James)
​

Further, the Heer was unquestionably much weaker in May of 1939 than in 1940, and would have been far more so had it been forced to fight to conquer Czechoslovakia.

From what I know about France at that time there was political chaos and the French High Command was in a bad state.

Again, for certain values of "a bad state." However, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and you have repeatedly ignored, this does not mean that the French Army couldn't have coped with the conventional attack that the Wehrmacht would have been forced to launch in May of 1939, as the panzer forces would have been far too weak to attempt an attack through the Ardennes at the time. And how did this not apply in 1940?

It's possible that the French would have fought with the Czechs if Britain had declared war in 1938, but in my opinion Germany would have won.

As has been mentioned, no one cares about your opinion, because you have repeatedly demonstrated that your opinions are worthless, particularly by continually refusing to answer questions that are clearly problematic to your claims.

You need to have strategic ability about all this.

Says the person who claimed that the Luftwaffe could have bombed Britain into submission in a week in 1938, and that Germany could have invaded Britain without conquering France.

There seems to be some sensible waffle about all this at this website:

Again, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." And why do you expect people to take you seriously when you keep citing text you characterize as "waffle" as support for your claims?

http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-79936.html?page=2

The majority of Cabinet, however, sided with Halifax and Chamberlain. They judged that there was little that Great Britain or France could do to save Czechoslovakia. Moreover, they concluded that it was still too early to challenge Hitler militarily because the RAF and British air defenses were not yet ready to withstand an assault by German bombers. They judged, however, that the situation would improve within two years, when “the Royal Air Force would at any rate be armed with up-to-date aeroplanes and the anti-aircraft defences with modern weapons.”

With regard to the hilited, we've explained to you several times that saving Czechoslovakia was not the point, so why do you keep repeating this claim?

As for the paper as a whole, two observations. First, the authors (who are political scientists, and not historians) are demonstrably mistaken in their claim that Chamberlain appeased Hitler in order to gain time for rearmament, and their evidence for this is extremely weak. Second, they do not claim that appeasement was the correct policy. In fact, the paper contains much evidence that it was not, which, as usual, you ignore. Come to that, it also contradicts several of your other claims as well, which is par for the course.

 

[Garrison]

Further, the Heer was unquestionably much weaker in May of 1939 than in 1940, and would have been far more so had it been forced to fight to conquer Czechoslovakia.

It is hard to imagine how a war starting in 1938 could have gone worse for the French than the one starting in 1939, conquered, occupied, suffering the depredations of Nazi looting and brutality for 4 years. And of course if it goes better for the French then that has huge benefits for the British, no Blitz, no threat of invasion, not mention no likelihood of war in the Far East and the prospect that Italy thinks better of starting war in the Middle East without the Germans on the Channel Coast.

There are reasons why politicians like Chamberlain chose Appeasement that made sense at the time, but they were based a tragic misreading of Hitler and a gross overestimation of German military strength, this of course is an argument that Henri simply cannot accept because it would mean Churchill was right to oppose it...

 

[SpitfireIX]

Henri, here's another question that I imagine you'll ignore or evade: If Hitler was hell-bent on war with France and Britain, as you claim, and those countries were far more vulnerable in 1938 than in 1939, then why didn't Hitler attack them in 1938? Both countries' rearmament plans were matters of public record, so he must have known that his best chance was slipping away.

 

[Rincewind]

Henri, here's another question that I imagine you'll ignore or evade: If Hitler was hell-bent on war with France and Britain, as you claim, and those countries were far more vulnerable in 1938 than in 1939, then why didn't Hitler attack them in 1938? Both countries' rearmament plans were matters of public record, so he must have known that his best chance was slipping away.

Excellent point!

 

[Henri McPhee]

Henri, here's another question that I imagine you'll ignore or evade: If Hitler was hell-bent on war with France and Britain, as you claim, and those countries were far more vulnerable in 1938 than in 1939, then why didn't Hitler attack them in 1938? Both countries' rearmament plans were matters of public record, so he must have known that his best chance was slipping away.

Personally, I think that was a strategic mistake by Hitler. Our secret service knew what was going on, and that he was determined to have a war with Soviet Russia, and so did Chamberlain and Halifax. War was inevitable, though Chamberlain talked a lot of politician's blah-blah about 'peace in our time' and the Anglo-German Naval agreement, and that he has no plans. It was just a question of timing. Chamberlain gave Hitler the dog's bone with the Czechs, while he made Britain too strong to be attacked. I agree there were German generals who were in disagreement with Hitler, but that was like trying to stop John Bolton now:

http://ww2today.com/chamberlain-claims-hitler-has-missed-the-bus

The result was that when war did break out German preparations were far ahead of our own, and it was natural then to expect that the enemy would take advantage of his initial superiority to make an endeavour to overwhelm us and France before we had time to make good our deficiencies. Is it not a very extraordinary thing that no such attempt was made? Whatever may be the reason—whether it was that Hitler thought he might get away with what he had got without fighting for it, or whether it was that after all the preparations were not sufficiently complete—however, one thing is certain: he missed the bus.

 

[Garrison]

Personally, I think that was a strategic mistake by Hitler. Our secret service knew what was going on, and that he was determined to have a war with Soviet Russia, and so did Chamberlain and Halifax. War was inevitable, though Chamberlain talked a lot of politician's blah-blah about 'peace in our time' and the Anglo-German Naval agreement, and that he has no plans. It was just a question of timing. Chamberlain gave Hitler the dog's bone with the Czechs, while he made Britain too strong to be attacked. I agree there were German generals who were in disagreement with Hitler, but that was like trying to stop John Bolton now:

These are the same thread bare claims that you've repeated a dozen times. You've presented nothing to support them and willfully ignored a wealth of evidence that debunks your claims Are you simply incapable of actually doing any proper research or answering the questions put to you? All you have demonstrated to date is your utter ignorance of the topic and your inability to find a source that's relevant and supports your statements.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Personally, I think that was a strategic mistake by Hitler.

So the fact that his generals and ministers were saying that Germany couldn't possibly win a war against Britain and France in 1938 had nothing to do with it?

Our secret service knew what was going on, and that he was determined to have a war with Soviet Russia, and so did Chamberlain and Halifax.

We're still waiting for you to provide some real evidence of this.

War was inevitable, though Chamberlain talked a lot of politician's blah-blah about 'peace in our time' and the Anglo-German Naval agreement, and that he has no plans. It was just a question of timing.

Again, how about some real evidence?

Chamberlain gave Hitler the dog's bone with the Czechs, while he made Britain too strong to be attacked.

I renew the question you've repeatedly ignored: Was Britain too strong to be attacked in September 1939?

I agree there were German generals who were in disagreement with Hitler, but that was like trying to stop John Bolton now:

Irrelevant. If you want to take shots at Bolton, go to USA Politics.

http://ww2today.com/chamberlain-claims-hitler-has-missed-the-bus

The result was that when war did break out German preparations were far ahead of our own, and it was natural then to expect that the enemy would take advantage of his initial superiority to make an endeavour to overwhelm us and France before we had time to make good our deficiencies. Is it not a very extraordinary thing that no such attempt was made? Whatever may be the reason—whether it was that Hitler thought he might get away with what he had got without fighting for it, or whether it was that after all the preparations were not sufficiently complete—however, one thing is certain: he missed the bus.

First, you do realize that Chamberlain was roundly pilloried for his "missed the bus" comment, as Hitler proceeded to conquer several countries, including France, within the next two months, don't you?

Second, Chamberlain clearly implies, probably incorrectly, that the Wehrmacht could have overwhelmed Britain and France if Hitler had ignored Poland and struck west in September 1939. Please explain how this squares with your claim that Chamberlain waited to start the war until Britain was "too strong to be attacked."

 

[SpitfireIX]

I got Australia and Appeasement yesterday, so I've temporarily put aside The Change in the European Balance of Power, 1938-1939. I got most of the way through the chapters about the Sudeten crisis last night and this morning, and, wonder of wonders, Waters presents a lot of information that flatly contradicts Henri's claims. I'll have a long, comprehensive post on the subject when I've finished reading and taking notes.

 

[Rincewind]

I got Australia and Appeasement yesterday, so I've temporarily put aside The Change in the European Balance of Power, 1938-1939. I got most of the way through the chapters about the Sudeten crisis last night and this morning, and, wonder of wonders, Waters presents a lot of information that flatly contradicts Henri's claims. I'll have a long, comprehensive post on the subject when I've finished reading and taking notes.

I searched for the Change in the European Balance of Power 1938-1939 in the local library system, but sadly it's not available at the moment.

Maybe next time we visit the library, we'll ask if they could get a copy!

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is some interesting gossip about appeasement in 1938 at this website:

http://www.adespicabletruce.org.uk/page59.html

Robert Boothby, Boothby: Recollections of a Rebel (1978)

Reflecting the mood of the country, the Conservative Party was rotten at the core. The only thing they cared about was their property and their cash. The only thing they feared was that one day those nasty Communists would come and take it. The Labour and Liberal Parties were no better. With the exception of Hugh Dalton (and even he, speaking from the Front Opposition bench, announced that they would give no support of any kind to resistance to Hitler's military occupation of the Rhineland), they made violent, pacifist speeches; and voted steadily against the miserable Defence Estimates for the years 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938.


Hugh Christie, report to MI6 on a meeting with Hermann Goering on 3rd February, 1937.
I asked the General straight out "What is Germany's aim in Europe today?"
Goering replied "We want a free hand in Eastern Europe. We want to establish the unity of the German peoples (Grossdeutschegemeinschaft)'.
I said "Do you mean to get Austria?"
Reply "Yes".
I said "Do you mean to get Czechoslovakia?"
Reply "Yes".


Hugh Christie, report to MI6 in March, 1938.
The crucial question is How soon will the next step against Czechoslovakia be tried? ... The probability is that the delay will not exceed two or three months at most, unless France and England provide the deterrent, for which cooler heads in Germany are praying.

 

[Garrison]

There is some interesting gossip about appeasement in 1938 at this website:

http://www.adespicabletruce.org.uk/page59.html

A site created by a religious fanatic, with some cherry picked quotes that provided not one shred of factual evidence to support the idea that appeasement was a sound policy, and you even call it gossip. How exactly did you expect this to shore up your arguments? If I can abuse the term to cover the nonsense you keep posting..

 

[SpitfireIX]

There is some interesting gossip about appeasement in 1938 at this website:

http://www.adespicabletruce.org.uk/page59.html

Continuing evasion noted. When are you going to answer the questions that have been put to you? Especially:

• Please explain, in detail, how Germany was going to conquer France and Britain in the fall of 1938 or the spring of 1939.
• Please provide some real evidence that Chamberlain knew war with Germany was inevitable, and was only stalling to gain time for rearmament.
• Please explain how Chamberlain's words and actions in 1938 square with the above claim.

 

[Rincewind]

Continuing evasion noted. When are you going to answer the questions that have been put to you? Especially:

• Please explain, in detail, how Germany was going to conquer France and Britain in the fall of 1938 or the spring of 1939.
• Please provide some real evidence that Chamberlain knew war with Germany was inevitable, and was only stalling to gain time for rearmament.
• Please explain how Chamberlain's words and actions in 1938 square with the above claim.

Agreed - it's about time you came up with the goods, Henri.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Agreed - it's about way past time you came up with the goods, Henri.

FTFY

 

[Rincewind]

FTFY

Of course - how silly of me!

 

[jimbob]

Me, I'm enjoying watching the metaphorical kicking that more knowledgeable posters have been administering.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Continuing evasion noted. When are you going to answer the questions that have been put to you? Especially:

• Please explain, in detail, how Germany was going to conquer France and Britain in the fall of 1938 or the spring of 1939.
• Please provide some real evidence that Chamberlain knew war with Germany was inevitable, and was only stalling to gain time for rearmament.
• Please explain how Chamberlain's words and actions in 1938 square with the above claim.

There are some interesting opinions about this matter on this forum, some of which make sense to me, though not very academic:

www.theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=194298

Alright I'll say what you all want to say – we Brits would have to fight the lot of them for 3 years on our own and not two.

NoLongerAMember
21 Mar 2010 1:46 p.m. PST

Stoodley, go forth and multiply with that old chestnut. At no point in WW2 did Britain stand alone in any sense except a purely geographical one.
1938, Britain forces were a disaster, the RAF and Army were re-arming and modernising as fast as they could, but they were a long way from being ready and they knew it.

Also, if France had not supported the stand over the Czechs, we had no physical way of aiding them. Munich was a case in do what you can diplomatically, and then back down if your bluff is called, while being ready for it to not be a bluff next time.

 

[SpitfireIX]

There are some interesting opinions about this matter on this forum, some of which make sense to me, though not very academic:

www.theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=194298

Sigh. Continuing evasion noted. Why can't you just attempt to answer the questions that have been asked, rather than repeating semi-relevant opinions of anonymous Internet posters for which no supporting evidence is provided, and many of which are demonstrably incorrect? Is it because you don't want to admit that you can't answer?

 

[jimbob]

Sigh. Continuing evasion noted. Why can't you just attempt to answer the questions that have been asked, rather than repeating semi-relevant opinions of anonymous Internet posters for which no supporting evidence is provided, and many of which are demonstrably incorrect? Is it because you don't want to admit that you can't answer?

It's not exactly evading the discussion as being in a completely different place to the discussion.

Here's a link to some information about the WWII, and I agree with some of it - however I leave you to guess which parts these are:

en.wikipedia.org