ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags World War II history

Reply
Old Yesterday, 12:19 PM   #1401
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,059
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Bloomsbury group is a bit of a vast complex subject, but it does seem that some of the members of it, like David Garnett and the Bells were not quite such pacifists in the second world war:
Again I have to ask Henri, do you actually read the things you quote? Your latest literally has the year 1937 mentioned within the first two sentences.

Originally Posted by fagin View Post
An ambulance driver or medic is a pacifist role. Brave but pacifist.
Indeed. Plenty of pacifists filled such roles in WWI and WWII, it in no way indicates any change of heart on their part.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

Last edited by Garrison; Yesterday at 12:34 PM.
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:31 PM   #1402
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,059
Regarding the notion that Chamberlain was buying time at Munich for a war he thought was inevitable, I'm reading 'Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory' and it seems to have been the consensus of many of the senior British officers that the British Army that went to war in 1939 was singularly ill-equipped and lacking in training. Many of the measures taken to expand the Army from September 1939 to Chamberlain's departure from the office in 1940 seem to have been hasty, ill-thought out, last minute attempts to fix deficiencies of the army's situation that had not been addressed since the Munich agreement. Henri's favourite question 'with what?' should properly be directed at Chamberlain, either the man genuinely believed in his 'peace in our time' pronouncements or he was utterly inept in preparing for a war he saw coming.

Of course those deficiencies would have been far less damaging in 1938 when the German army was in an even worse condition. Courtesy of Munich Chamberlain probably did more to strengthen the German army than the British one...
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:22 PM   #1403
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,993
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Regarding the notion that Chamberlain was buying time at Munich for a war he thought was inevitable, I'm reading 'Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory' and it seems to have been the consensus of many of the senior British officers that the British Army that went to war in 1939 was singularly ill-equipped and lacking in training. Many of the measures taken to expand the Army from September 1939 to Chamberlain's departure from the office in 1940 seem to have been hasty, ill-thought out, last minute attempts to fix deficiencies of the army's situation that had not been addressed since the Munich agreement. Henri's favourite question 'with what?' should properly be directed at Chamberlain, either the man genuinely believed in his 'peace in our time' pronouncements or he was utterly inept in preparing for a war he saw coming.

Of course those deficiencies would have been far less damaging in 1938 when the German army was in an even worse condition. Courtesy of Munich Chamberlain probably did more to strengthen the German army than the British one...
....OR confronting Germany in 1935 over the Rhineland might have moved the war into much later period or short circuited Hitler's plans altogether.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:25 AM   #1404
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Henri, what bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938. Ignorance is bliss.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:30 AM   #1405
erwinl
Graduate Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,800
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938. Ignorance is bliss.
That was not your claim. Don't pretend any different.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:37 AM   #1406
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,156
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938. Ignorance is bliss.
This is what "ultimate level of nonsense" looks like...
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:07 AM   #1407
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
....OR confronting Germany in 1935 over the Rhineland might have moved the war into much later period or short circuited Hitler's plans altogether.
There is a discussion about this matter of the Rhineland at this forum. My own view is that the public and House of Commons and America didn't want to know about the Rhineland:

http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum...ic.php?t=30191

This was a sensible posting about the matter:

Quote:
If I remember correctly, it was basically because the British government didn't feel it would have support from its population and allies if it declared war on Germany for remilitarizing. Everyone knew what Hitler was going to do with his army, but no one wanted to go to war. Remember, WWI was a giant *************** that destroyed an enormous amount of territory and killed countless people. It wasn't until Hitler actually engaged in openly hostile action that the British felt they could justify conflict to their war weary population and allies.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 03:08 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:08 AM   #1408
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,412
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938.
This is the Internet equivalent of holding your breath till your face turns blue. Your claim was that Germany could have forced a British surrender within a week in 1938. The only thing Germany could have done in one week in 1938 was mount a bombing campaign using unescorted bombers at maximum range and carrying minimum bombloads; compared to later bombing offensives against Germany and Japan, which, let's remember, didn't cause either country to surrender over periods of years, it would have been pathetically ineffective.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:14 AM   #1409
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,548
Poland surrendered after Warsaw was bombed, and neutral Holland after Rotterdam was bombed.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:22 AM   #1410
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,412
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Poland surrendered after Warsaw was bombed, and neutral Holland after Rotterdam was bombed.
Come on, Henri, this is a pathetic effort. Both countries had been more or less overrun by German armies at the time, which Germany couldn't possibly have done to Britain in a week in 1938. Give me an example of a modern state being forced to surrender in a week by long range bombing alone, which is the only thing Germany could conceivably have done to Britain in one week in 1938.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:55 AM   #1411
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,400
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938. Ignorance is bliss.
Where was that claimed?
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:36 AM   #1412
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,253
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938.



And, as usual, evasion noted. As has been repeatedly explained to you, and you have repeatedly ignored, senior Luftwaffe officers themselves stated that they couldn't have bombed Britain effectively in 1938; one stated that the most they could have achieved were "pin pricks." And no one said anything about France or Czechoslovakia.

As for Spain, the planes that bombed Guernica flew from Burgos, which is less than 100 miles away by air. But any bombers flying from Germany to London would have had to have flown, at a bare minimum, 350 miles each direction, and that's assuming they all flew from Emden, which is totally unrealistic; there simply weren't enough suitable airfields in that part of Germany. It also assumes they would have flown over the Netherlands, which would likely have resulted in a Dutch declaration of war.

In order to avoid neutral countries, most bombers would have had to have flown about 500 miles to reach London, from airbases in Lower Saxony and Bremen. Additionally, large raids burn more fuel per aircraft, as time for take-off, landing, and forming up must be allowed, on top of the inefficiency of flying in formation. So such Luftwaffe operations as could have been mounted would have had to have been fairly small, and carried reduced bomb loads. These attacks would have been suicidal in daylight, and at night they would have amounted to the aforementioned "pin pricks," assuming they could have even found their targets, which is questionable in 1938 and 1939.

As for the French, with their weak air defenses, and who were much closer to Germany, please explain why the Luftwaffe didn't merely bomb them into submission in 1939 or early 1940.

Additionally, you ignore the fact that the RAF had bombers, too. The Whitley was quite capable for the time, and over 100 were active in the fall of 1938. Further, the Wellington was just entering service, and so was the less capable but far from useless Hampden. Plus the numerous Blenheims could have staged through French bases to bomb many German cities. Finally, unlike the Luftwaffe, the RAF had prepared for and practiced night bombing.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Ignorance is bliss.

__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:26 AM   #1413
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,993
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a discussion about this matter of the Rhineland at this forum. My own view is that the public and House of Commons and America didn't want to know about the Rhineland:

http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum...ic.php?t=30191

This was a sensible posting about the matter:
Nope they didn't have to declare war they just had to tell the Germans that if they moved into the Rhineland THEY would be starting a war.

Again you appear to be making stuff up.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:28 AM   #1414
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,187
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938. Ignorance is bliss.
Henri, all I ask is that the things you claim, you support. Thus: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:28 AM   #1415
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,993
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All right, Germany could not possibly have bombed Britain -into surrending or Spain or France or Czechoslovakia in 1938 because of RAF air defence capability in 1938. .
Man you do like making up implausible strawmen don't you Henry?

Sure the Germans could have sent unescorted bombers with light bomb loads to England but the English wouldn't have surrendered because they would be returning the flavor with their own bomber - probably going after the German surface units however.

Quote:
Ignorance is bliss
You should make that your mantra.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:29 AM   #1416
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,187
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
This is what "ultimate level of nonsense" looks like...
Looks like a bit of waffle to me.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:45 AM   #1417
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,993
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Henri, all I ask is that the things you claim, you support. Thus: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?
Now that is not fair. Isn't asking Henri a technical history laden question like that no unlike asking a cat to explain in Latin why it likes fish?
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:47 AM   #1418
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,238
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Henri, all I ask is that the things you claim, you support. Thus: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?
The Amerikabomber had the range and could have taken off from Castle Wolfenstein.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:51 AM   #1419
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,548
The Germans were perfectly capable of bombing Prague in 1938, and it would not have been very nice for the Czechs. Churchill would not have been much help to the Czechs in that situation. There is a bit of background to the Luftwaffe at this website:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/...ftwaffe-1.html

I agree that the Luftwaffe had all sorts of problems, including technical problems, but its dive bombers did a lot of damage, even in Soviet Russia.

Quote:
The failure of the Luftwaffe to progress further towards a "strategic" bombing capability is attributable to several factors. The first is that many within the Luftwaffe thought that they possessed sufficient capability with their twin-engine aircraft to launch "strategic" attacks against Germany's most likely continental opponents--France, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. England presented greater

--10--

problems, but even here General Felmy, Commander of Luftfotte 2 and charged with planning of an air war against Britain in 1939, saw possibilities. Concluding the 1939 spring planning effort, Felmy admitted to his subordinates that the Luftwaffe did not yet possess any of the prerequisites for a successful "strategic" bombing offensive against Great Britain.

He did suggest, however, that the panic that had broken out in London in September at the height of the Munich crisis indicated that a massive aerial onslaught directed against London might break Britain's powers of resistance.51

A second factor lay on the technical side: The engineers never solved the He 177 design difficulties. Moreover, not only did Germany not possess the economic strength and resources to build a "strategic" bombing force on the scale of the British and American effort of 1943-44 but few airmen of any nation in the prewar period had foreseen the enormous magnitude of the industrial and military effort that "strategic" bombing would require. Thus, it is not surprising that Germany was not much better prepared to launch a "strategic" bombing campaign than Britain in 1939.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 08:53 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:56 AM   #1420
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,238
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Germans were perfectly capable of bombing Prague in 1938, and it would not have been very nice for the Czechs. Churchill would not have been much help to the Czechs in that situation. There is a bit of background to the Luftwaffe at this website:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/...ftwaffe-1.html

I agree that the Luftwaffe had all sorts of problems, including technical problems, but its dive bombers did a lot of damage, even in Soviet Russia.
(speaks slowly)
Yes, Henri... Prague is in a country that shares a land border with Germany.

It is not in the United Kingdom.

It doesn't help your claim that the Luftwaffe would be able to bomb the UK into submission in a week in 1938.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Last edited by jimbob; Today at 08:59 AM.
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:02 AM   #1421
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,412
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Germans were perfectly capable of bombing Prague in 1938, and it would not have been very nice for the Czechs. Churchill would not have been much help to the Czechs in that situation. There is a bit of background to the Luftwaffe at this website:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/...ftwaffe-1.html

Interesting that you should choose an article entitled "Strategy for Defeat" to demonstrate the might of the 1938 Luftwaffe.

Quote:
The fuel situation in the summer of 1938 reflects the extent of the problem. In June of that year, supplies in storage tanks could cover only 25 percent of mobilization requirements--on the average, four months of full wartime needs. Supplies of aviation lubricants were as low as 6 percent of mobilization requirements.
Not ideal for a major bombing offensive, although I would infer they had about enough for 4 weeks' effort. But then...

Quote:
Concluding the 1939 spring planning effort, Felmy admitted to his subordinates that the Luftwaffe did not yet possess any of the prerequisites for a successful "strategic" bombing offensive against Great Britain.
Remind me, was 1939 before or after 1938?

And as for the effectiveness of strategic bombing in achieving overall victory:

Quote:
Conversely, Captain Heye of the Seekriegsleitung (naval high command) gained a different impression after talking with Luftwaffe officers during a 1938 visit to Spain. He reported on his return to Berlin:


Disregarding the military success accompanying the Luftwaffe's use in immediate support of army operations, one gets the impression that our attacks on objects of little military importance, through which in most cases many women and children. . . were hit, are not a suitable means to break an opponent's resistance. They seem to strengthen his resistance. . . . The memory of the air attack on Guemica by the (Condor] Legion still today affects the population and permits no friendly feelings for Germany in the population of the Basques, who earlier were thoroughly friendly to Germany and in no manner Communistic.
And as for attitudes in Britain at the time of Munich:

Quote:
Nevertheless, in the final analysis, fears about the Luftwaffe probably were not decisive in molding the British response to German threats before Munich. In fact, by September 1938 many leading appeasers felt that the West could beat Germany in a war,92 while the British military in late September came around to the view that "the latent resources of our Empire and the doubtful morale of our opponents under the stress of war give us confidence as to the ultimate outcome [of a war]."
All in all, this source does a great deal to utterly demolish your claim that Germany could have defeated Britain in a week at 1938 levels of military strength.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that the Luftwaffe had all sorts of problems, including technical problems, but its dive bombers did a lot of damage, even in Soviet Russia.
If they'd been used to attack Britain in 1938, the only thing they would have done a lot of damage to was the North Sea when they ran out of fuel and crashed into it.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:24 AM   #1422
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,059
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that the Luftwaffe had all sorts of problems, including technical problems, but its dive bombers did a lot of damage, even in Soviet Russia.
Do you by any chance mean the Ju-87 Stuka? The plane that couldn't reach Britain in 1938, that dive bomber?

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Interesting that you should choose an article entitled "Strategy for Defeat" to demonstrate the might of the 1938 Luftwaffe.
Dave
No, you're not saying that Henri quoted a source that actually undermines his claims are you? That's unprecedented inevitable.

The Luftwaffe of the 1930s was created to fulfil two objectives, provide air defence of Germany and provide tactical support for the army. By the time they decided they need a strategic it was all rather too late and plagued with those 'technical difficulties'. The lack of such bombers not only hampered attacks on the UK but put much of Soviet industry out of reach of the Luftwaffe after it was evacuated in 1941. Not much use dive bombing one tank when the factories were turning out 3 or 4 replacements unimpeded.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

Last edited by Garrison; Today at 09:31 AM.
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:37 AM   #1423
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 7,648
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Interesting that you should choose an article entitled "Strategy for Defeat" to demonstrate the might of the 1938 Luftwaffe.



Not ideal for a major bombing offensive, although I would infer they had about enough for 4 weeks' effort. But then...



Remind me, was 1939 before or after 1938?

And as for the effectiveness of strategic bombing in achieving overall victory:



And as for attitudes in Britain at the time of Munich:



All in all, this source does a great deal to utterly demolish your claim that Germany could have defeated Britain in a week at 1938 levels of military strength.



If they'd been used to attack Britain in 1938, the only thing they would have done a lot of damage to was the North Sea when they ran out of fuel and crashed into it.

Dave
Oh Noes!

Will nobody think of the poor fish?
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:46 AM   #1424
erwinl
Graduate Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,800
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Germans were perfectly capable of bombing Prague in 1938, and it would not have been very nice for the Czechs. Churchill would not have been much help to the Czechs in that situation. There is a bit of background to the Luftwaffe at this website:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/...ftwaffe-1.html

I agree that the Luftwaffe had all sorts of problems, including technical problems, but its dive bombers did a lot of damage, even in Soviet Russia.
.......
Did you seriously link to that page in order to help your case? Really? That page?

Now I'm really curious. Please tell us, why on earth you thought that would support your position.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:47 AM   #1425
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,238
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Oh Noes!

Will nobody think of the poor fish?
Hans' cat probably is - in Latin or otherwise.

Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
.......
Did you seriously link to that page in order to help your case? Really? That page?

Now I'm really curious. Please tell us, why on earth you thought that would support your position.
See post #1422...
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:52 AM   #1426
erwinl
Graduate Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,800
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Hans' cat probably is - in Latin or otherwise.



See post #1422...
Yes, I read it. And by this time, I'm not really expecting anything better.

But still. Some thought must have occurred when choosing that page for linking.
I'm simply curious about said thought process.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:07 AM   #1427
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,238
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Yes, I read it. And by this time, I'm not really expecting anything better.

But still. Some thought must have occurred when choosing that page for linking.
I'm simply curious about said thought process.
I think Dave Rogers had the right idea on about page 20...


Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:16 AM   #1428
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,187
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Germans were perfectly capable of bombing Prague in 1938
Henri, I didn't ask about Prague. I asked about the Britain. Specifically: What bombers would Germany have used to attack Britain in 1938? Flown from what airfields? With what fighter escort?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:23 AM   #1429
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,400
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Do you by any chance mean the Ju-87 Stuka? The plane that couldn't reach Britain in 1938, that dive bomber?
And had the crap shot out of them when they did attack Britain, so much of that they were withdrawn from the attack.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:50 AM   #1430
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,253
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Germans were perfectly capable of bombing Prague in 1938, and it would not have been very nice for the Czechs.

And the Blitz wasn't very nice for the English, yet Britain didn't surrender.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Churchill would not have been much help to the Czechs in that situation.

First, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Churchill was not in government in 1938, though, had Britain gone to war with Germany then, he probably would have joined the War Cabinet, as he did in 1939.

Second, as has also been repeatedly pointed out to you, the idea isn't that Britain and France (and possibly the Soviet Union) could have necessarily saved Czechoslovakia. Rather, it's that Czechoslovakia needed to put up a fight, in order to drain German (and Czech) resources, so as to pave the way for ultimate victory over the Nazis, with most likely a far smaller cost in blood and treasure than historically.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit of background to the Luftwaffe at this website:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/...ftwaffe-1.html

And yet, when I previously introduced this document, your only comment was to claim, incorrectly, that the Empire and the dominions wouldn't have gone to war along with Britain in 1938. As for the quotation, as others have said, it only further weakens your case, such as it is.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that the Luftwaffe had all sorts of problems, including technical problems, but its dive bombers did a lot of damage, even in Soviet Russia.

Yes, they did a lot of damage--to infantry and artillery [ETA: (and, when the pilots were properly trained, which they weren't until later in the war, ships)]. Cities and factories, not so much. And here's another quotation (p. 19) that illustrates the Luftwaffe's utter lack of readiness in 1938:
The introduction of a new generation of bombers and fighters after 1936 caused serious transition problems. High accident rates coupled with low in-commission rates continued to plague the transition program as late as the summer of 1938. At that time, Luftwaffe operational ready rates were surprisingly low. On August 1, 1938, the in-commission rate for bombers was 49 percent, for fighters 70 percent, and for the whole force 57 percent. Only after drastically reducing flying and training time could the Luftwaffe bring its in-commission rate to a respectable level by the end of September 1938, shortly before the onset of the planned invasion of Czechoslovakia. The level of aircrew training was equally deplorable. In August, the Luftwaffe possessed barely two-thirds of its authorized crew strength, and over 40 percent of the crews on duty were not fully operational. [notes omitted]
As noted in the table following the above, availability of bomber crews in August 1938 was particularly bad, with only 378 fully operational (27%) and 411 partly operational (29%), against an authorized strength of 1407. And the situation for dive bombers wasn't much better, with 80 fully operational (27%) and 123 partly operational (43%), against an authorized strength of 300.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

Last edited by SpitfireIX; Today at 10:54 AM.
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:58 AM   #1431
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,400
Dive bombers weren't conceived as strategic bombers.
They were used as airborne artillery.
Germany pushed them in to the Bob to attack precision targets like airbase and radar sites.
They were very vulnerable to attack and suffered under the guns of the RAF.
Even before the BOB they got badly handled in the attacks on channel shipping.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.