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
 

Notices


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 1st June 2018, 12:26 PM   #1801
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,406
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I have seen it argued that Chamberlain was pessimistic because he was suffering from depression caused by his terminal illness. It makes sense to me. Mum's last paintings were very different in tone to all the rest.
Yeah he may have been worried about his legacy. Instead of being remembered as being involved in war as his last dance - he probably wanted to go out with credit for ensuring European peace.
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 1st June 2018, 12:55 PM   #1802
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Yeah he may have been worried about his legacy. Instead of being remembered as being involved in war as his last dance - he probably wanted to go out with credit for ensuring European peace.
I was thinking more that illness can affect one's view. I'm sure Chamberlain meant well. It is just that he utterly misjudged what was needed and 50-million people died as a result.
__________________
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 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 25th June 2018, 02:57 AM   #1803
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,694
There is a fair and just article about world war II and appeasement at:

https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/blogs/a...ppease-hitler/

Quote:
On top of that, Britain was simply not ready for any major military confrontation. That very year, Chamberlain was warned that Germany's air force could ravage the nation with bombing offensives, and that our troops weren't ready to deal with such a menace.
As historian Robert Self says,
Chamberlain faced a brutally simple choice at Munich. Was Britain prepared to threaten Germany with war on behalf of a state which it certainly could not save?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th June 2018 at 03:00 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 25th June 2018, 04:18 AM   #1804
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a fair and just article about world war II and appeasement at:

https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/blogs/a...ppease-hitler/
Once again, your blogger ignores the fact that in 1938 Britain was better prepared for war than Germany was.

Chamberlain allowed himself to be deceived by the German propaganda that Germany had become a military powerhouse, and the generals were allowing their own fears of being the ones responsible for a potential disaster to run away with them. As a result WWII happened.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 25th June 2018, 10:12 AM   #1805
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,283
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a fair and just article about world war II and appeasement at:

https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/blogs/a...ppease-hitler/

That very year, Chamberlain was warned that Germany's air force could ravage the nation with bombing offensives,
Yes Henri they did believe that, but they were wrong. Why is it you will believe the British assessment of Luftwaffe capability in 1938, but not the Luftwaffe's? You know, the people who knew how many planes they really had and what they could actually do?
__________________
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 25th June 2018, 10:33 AM   #1806
geoman
Doctor of Rock
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by Some tv historian View Post
Was Britain prepared to threaten Germany with war on behalf of a state which it certainly could not save?
Do you mean Poland? Yes, yes it was.
geoman 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 25th June 2018, 03:03 PM   #1807
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 7,791
Originally Posted by geoman View Post
Do you mean Poland? Yes, yes it was.


Actually, This deserved more that one...

__________________
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 27th June 2018, 05:33 PM   #1808
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,430
Sorry for the delay in posting this; my laptop conked out, and I can't afford to get it fixed yet. I have an hour at the library tonight, so I'll start my notes on Australia and Appeasement.

The situation in March 1938 (p. 46):
In the Cabinet deliberations, Malcolm MacDowell, Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, warned his colleagues that, if Britain got into a war with Germany through France's treaty obligations with Czechoslovakia . . . 'the British Commonwealth might well break in pieces'. He advised that Australia and New Zealand would follow London's lead, but South Africa and Canada 'would see no reason whatever why they should join in a war to prevent Germans from rejoining their fatherland'. In the full Cabinet discussion on 22 March 1938 ministers were informed that any further commitments to Czechoslovakia would be 'very unpopular' in all the dominions, except perhaps New Zealand, and might lead to a crisis with some of them. While the British Cabinet made the specific proviso that its own foreign policy could not be subordinated to the views of the dominions, clearly the empire's reluctance to become involved in central Europe strengthened the hands of those ministers, such as Chamberlain, who opposed making any commitment to defend Czechoslovakia. [notes omitted; bolding mine]
The situation at the end of August (pp. 73-74):
[MacDonald's] advice was that, if war came, Australia and New Zealand would certainly come in, but doubts surrounded the involvement of Canada and South Africa. . . .

On the eve of the Cabinet meeting Lyons met with Percivale Liesching, the Acting U.K. High Commissioner in Canberra. In their conversation Lyons advised that, if Britain went to war, Australia would be committed to active participation. [bolding mine]

So, Henri, as I explained earlier, your contention that Chamberlain believed Australia and New Zealand would not have declared war in 1938 is clearly erroneous. Additionally, as I have also shown, the claim about Canada's doubtful reliability is demonstrably incorrect. I would hypothesize that the civil servants in the Dominions Office greatly overestimated the effect that the Francophone minority's presumed reticence to support the UK would have had on the country as a whole.

More to come in later posts.
__________________
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 28th June 2018, 02:44 AM   #1809
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,694
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
So, Henri, as I explained earlier, your contention that Chamberlain believed Australia and New Zealand would not have declared war in 1938 is clearly erroneous. Additionally, as I have also shown, the claim about Canada's doubtful reliability is demonstrably incorrect. More to come in later posts.
I think more historical research needs to be done about this matter to establish the pure unadulterated historical truth. What one person's opinion is, or what Netanyahu and Begin in Israel think about the matter may not be the historical evidence. The matter is mentioned at this website:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nevill...in-appeasement

Quote:
Neither was it politically prepared. In 1938, the Empire's dominions such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa had made it clear that they would not support Britain in a war over the Sudetenland. As mentioned earlier, this wasn't supported by the British public opinion either. Gambling on a war in defiance to public opinion could cost Chamberlain his political career.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th June 2018 at 02:45 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 28th June 2018, 05:10 AM   #1810
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,430
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I think more historical research needs to be done about this matter to establish the pure unadulterated historical truth. What one person's opinion is, or what Netanyahu and Begin in Israel think about the matter may not be the historical evidence.
Say what?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The matter is mentioned at this website:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nevill...in-appeasement
So, SpitfireIX quotes from a book from a bona fide historian, with quotes from cabinet proceedings, and you respond with what a nobody at some website writes?

Right.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 28th June 2018, 06:03 AM   #1811
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,358
Botting (like test of AI) or trolling?
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax 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 28th June 2018, 09:24 AM   #1812
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,430
I just noticed that when I was copying the first quotation I accidentally wrote "Malcolm MacDowell" (assuming that wasn't an error in the book) instead of "Malcolm MacDonaldWP", and I didn't catch it when I was typing.
__________________
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 28th June 2018, 09:56 AM   #1813
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,694
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Say what?


So, SpitfireIX quotes from a book from a bona fide historian, with quotes from cabinet proceedings, and you respond with what a nobody at some website writes?

Right.
This is a bit about what Netanyahu thinks now about the Chamberlain and Lord Halifax policies in 1938, rather than those of the Edenites:

www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/its-always-1938

Quote:
I’m reminded of a Peter Beinart piece from a while back.

Over the past quarter-century, there’s hardly an American or Israeli leader the Kristol-Netanyahu crowd hasn’t compared to Chamberlain. In 1985, Newt Gingrich called Reagan’s first meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.” When Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, hawks took out newspaper ads declaring that “Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938.”

Then, when Israel moved to thaw its own cold war with the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yitzhak Rabin assumed the Chamberlain role…. Then it was Bill Clinton. “The word that best describes Clinton administration [foreign] policy is appeasement,” explained Robert Kagan and Kristol in 1999. Then, of course, it was the opponents of war with Iraq. “The establishment fights most bitterly and dishonestly when it feels cornered and thinks it’s about to lose. Churchill was attacked more viciously in 1938 and 1939 than earlier in the decade,” wrote Kristol in a 2002 editorial, “The Axis of Appeasement.”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th June 2018 at 09:59 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 28th June 2018, 10:04 AM   #1814
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,283
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I think more historical research needs to be done about this matter to establish the pure unadulterated historical truth.
And yet when actual research is offered up you ignore it. You don't want historical truth, you want an echo chamber where everyone agrees with your fact free opinions.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is a bit about what Netanyahu thinks now about the Chamberlain and Lord Halifax policies in 1938, rather than those of the Edenites:
More drivel, Henri you've been shown by SpitfireIX what real research looks like, either do the same or admit you can't back up your nonsense.
__________________
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; 28th June 2018 at 10:06 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 28th June 2018, 10:04 AM   #1815
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,694
This is an interesting opinion which I don't necessarily regard as the historical truth, but there is an interesting quote from the supposed appeaser Lord Halifax:

http://www.themillenniumreport.com/2...two-front-war/

Quote:
Appeasement was designed to encourage Hitler to take action which would justify a declaration of war by the West.

“What we want to secure is the certainty of a war on two fronts,” Halifax said in March 1939. (Roberts, 146) Halifax was responsible for the foolhardy British guarantee of Poland that led to this war declaration in Sept. 1939. The USSR also invaded Poland but there was no declaration of war against it. Stalin was pre-primed to attack the Nazis in 1941.(This is essentially the deal Christian Rakovsky offered Stalin 1938.)

The whole knuckle-biting drama of war and peace in 1939-41, including England as the lonely defender of freedom, was a charade. Germany was in the cross-hairs all along. Could the USA be in the same position today as tensions in Syria increase?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th June 2018 at 10:08 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 28th June 2018, 10:08 AM   #1816
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,283
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
I just noticed that when I was copying the first quotation I accidentally wrote "Malcolm MacDowell" (assuming that wasn't an error in the book) instead of "Malcolm MacDonaldWP", and I didn't catch it when I was typing.
Hey it was a great post, you can be forgiven one typo.
__________________
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 28th June 2018, 10:13 AM   #1817
lobosrul5
Muse
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 857
Guys, just let Henri have the last post. He's never gonna give this up.
lobosrul5 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 28th June 2018, 10:24 AM   #1818
geoman
Doctor of Rock
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Guys, just let Henri have the last post. He's never gonna give this up.
But if you all let him have the last post, how am I going to learn so much stuff?
geoman 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 28th June 2018, 10:29 AM   #1819
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,430
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I think more historical research needs to be done about this matter to establish the pure unadulterated historical truth.

Translation: "I don't like this evidence, so I'm going to attempt to handwave it away by calling for more research." That aside, as has been pointed out to you so many times already, your opinion is demonstrably worthless, because you've clearly and repeatedly shown that you're not interested in any evidence that challenges your preconceptions, no matter how strong or relevant that evidence is. Also, what DDT said.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
What one person's opinion is <snip of irrelevant dig at Israeli politicians> may not be the historical evidence.

The opinion of the then-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs about the willingness of the dominions to go to war isn't historical evidence?? Further, apart from the issue of whether MacDonald was correct, you have insinuated that Chamberlain believed the dominions wouldn't fight in 1938. That insinuation has clearly been refuted, and will remain so unless and until you can somehow produce some persuasive evidence that he believed this in spite of the advice he was getting from MacDonald.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The matter is mentioned at this website:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nevill...in-appeasement

Quote:
Neither was it politically prepared. In 1938, the Empire's dominions such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa had made it clear that they would not support Britain in a war over the Sudetenland. As mentioned earlier, this wasn't supported by the British public opinion either. Gambling on a war in defiance to public opinion could cost Chamberlain his political career.

I have repeatedly demonstrated that the hilited is erroneous; why do you keep repeating it? Further, the part about British public opinion is also erroneous, as demonstrated by the Peace BallotWP, which erwinl mentioned up-thread, and I correctly predicted you would ignore. Finally, you have claimed that Chamberlain knew that eventual war with Germany was inevitable. Therefore, according to this person, Chamberlain's political career was more important to him than saving countless lives by starting the war a year earlier, when Germany was much weaker, both militarily and diplomatically.
__________________
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 28th June 2018, 01:53 PM   #1820
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,618
[quoteThis is an interesting opinion which I don't necessarily regard as the historical truth,[/quote]

So why quote it?
Captain_Swoop 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 29th June 2018, 02:34 AM   #1821
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,067
Um, isn't that some pro-Nazi "poor Germany" nonsense?
It seems to be implying there was a scheme hatched so that Germany would be wiped out?

"Stalin was pre-primed to attack the Nazis in 1941."
"The whole knuckle-biting drama of war and peace in 1939-41, including England as the lonely defender of freedom, was a charade. Germany was in the cross-hairs all along."
Tolls 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 29th June 2018, 08:03 AM   #1822
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is an interesting opinion which I don't necessarily regard as the historical truth, but there is an interesting quote from the supposed appeaser Lord Halifax:

http://www.themillenniumreport.com/2...two-front-war/
First - the opinion is that of a Nazi apologist diverting blame for WWII from Hitler onto Britain.

Second - it's bollocks (now that is my opinion and I trust you'll find it interesting).

The USSR was NOT pre-primed to start a war in 1941 with Nazi Germany. It had shortages of spare parts which was requiring the diversion of both spares and units back of the front. It was preparing trenchworks (note - you do not dig if you are going to attack), there were shortages of ammunition, and fuel for front line formations and no stockpiles that could be used to provide the logistic base for an attack. And until mid-41 was required to keep large forces in the East as a potential counter to the Japanese until the signing of their Non-Aggression Pact. These are the veteran units that were able to be the used to drive back the Germans starting in November 1941.

The myth that Hitler pre-empted Stalin's attack with Barbarossa was based on a book by a Soviet defector Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun who wrote under the pseudonym "Vicktor Suvorov". Essentially, the facts on the ground don't support his thesis, but the idea is popular with Hitler apologists who want to

a. Whitewash their hero by deflecting blame for the wars started by Nazi Germany onto someone else; and
b. Blame those damn Commies.

On the face of the historical evidence for Lord Halifax - given that he supported Chamberlain's policy of appeasement prior to Munich, and began to switch after the absorption of the rest of what is now the Czech Republic to preparing for a conflict the idea of setting up what looks to be a two front war for Germany as a means of securing peace is a logical step. Germany had twenty years prior fought a two front war and lost badly. It would have been logical to conclude that the prospect of another two front war (in this case with Poland on one flank and Britain/France on the other) would dissuade Nazi Germany from starting something. In the end, Hitler gambled on the illogical, and sent his troops over the Polish border after a false-flag attack. WWII is on the Austrian Corporal for sending his military into the sovereign territory of another country without consent.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 29th June 2018, 05:06 PM   #1823
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,406
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
First - the opinion is that of a Nazi apologist diverting blame for WWII from Hitler onto Britain.

Second - it's bollocks (now that is my opinion and I trust you'll find it interesting).

The USSR was NOT pre-primed to start a war in 1941 with Nazi Germany. It had shortages of spare parts which was requiring the diversion of both spares and units back of the front. It was preparing trenchworks (note - you do not dig if you are going to attack), there were shortages of ammunition, and fuel for front line formations and no stockpiles that could be used to provide the logistic base for an attack. And until mid-41 was required to keep large forces in the East as a potential counter to the Japanese until the signing of their Non-Aggression Pact. These are the veteran units that were able to be the used to drive back the Germans starting in November 1941.

The myth that Hitler pre-empted Stalin's attack with Barbarossa was based on a book by a Soviet defector Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun who wrote under the pseudonym "Vicktor Suvorov". Essentially, the facts on the ground don't support his thesis, but the idea is popular with Hitler apologists who want to

a. Whitewash their hero by deflecting blame for the wars started by Nazi Germany onto someone else; and
b. Blame those damn Commies.

On the face of the historical evidence for Lord Halifax - given that he supported Chamberlain's policy of appeasement prior to Munich, and began to switch after the absorption of the rest of what is now the Czech Republic to preparing for a conflict the idea of setting up what looks to be a two front war for Germany as a means of securing peace is a logical step. Germany had twenty years prior fought a two front war and lost badly. It would have been logical to conclude that the prospect of another two front war (in this case with Poland on one flank and Britain/France on the other) would dissuade Nazi Germany from starting something. In the end, Hitler gambled on the illogical, and sent his troops over the Polish border after a false-flag attack. WWII is on the Austrian Corporal for sending his military into the sovereign territory of another country without consent.
Exactly right. One other note. To invade Europe the Russians would need to supply the logistics to do so. They lacked trucks so they would have had to use the rail system. One problem:

Henri have you considered?

""One reason it was so hard for Germany to invade Russia/the Soviet Union in World War II (and I) was because the Russians had a different (wider) railroad gauge than that of most of the rest of Europe, making European rolling stock useless on Russian railways...nerd note the German gauge was 4' 8 1/2 vs 5' for Russia. Soviet locomotives were also larger than Western, and designed to carry more supplies, which meant that they could build support structures at less frequent intervals. The Germans discovered that for every water and coaling station in existence, they had to build another one, and for this they were not prepared.""

The Russian had neither stock piles of materials to reset the rails nor specialized engineers to do so. The Germans DID but the The price was high: Reichsbahn railway staff and the railway troops of the Wehrmacht had to convert a total of 16,148 kilometres of Soviet trackage to German standard gauge track between 22 June and 8 October 1941.....yet they were able to do it - must have been planning it.....


why do you think that was Henri?
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 30th June 2018, 02:27 AM   #1824
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,430
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Soviet locomotives were also larger than Western, and designed to carry more supplies, which meant that they could build support structures at less frequent intervals. The Germans discovered that for every water and coaling station in existence, they had to build another one, and for this they were not prepared.
Thank you, I didn't know that aspect!
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 30th June 2018, 02:40 AM   #1825
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,694
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
why do you think that was Henri?
I agree that the article I mentioned was probably written by a Nazi apologist accusing every British politician around as a communist. It's just that I was interested in that quote by the supposed appeaser Lord Halifax about the strategy of having Germany on a war on two fronts, which I take to be accurate. Hugh Sinclair, who was head of MI6, advised Chamberlain to sign the Munich agreement, and he was no fool.

I don't know much about the different Russian and German railway gauges, but I agree it probably helped the Russians. There is a bit about the German logistics in a book called The Russian Outlook by Sir Giffard Martel 1947:

Quote:
The third point was that the long and difficult German communications, coupled to a less extent with our bombing effort, seriously reduced the scale on which it became possible for the Germans to equip their forces. It was unusual for a Panzer division to have more than half its tanks. Lorries and mechanised transport of every kind were becoming increasingly deficient. At the same time our Allied naval forces were convoying great numbers of merchant ships carrying munitions of every kind from America and our country to the Russian ports.
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 30th June 2018, 07:21 AM   #1826
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,283
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that the article I mentioned was probably written by a Nazi apologist accusing every British politician around as a communist.
But you're still going to continue trying to use it as a source:

Quote:
It's just that I was interested in that quote by the supposed appeaser Lord Halifax about the strategy of having Germany on a war on two fronts, which I take to be accurate. Hugh Sinclair, who was head of MI6, advised Chamberlain to sign the Munich agreement, and he was no fool.
Sinclair was dying of cancer and it is odd that Chamberlain was so willing to take Sinclair's advice on Munich while ignoring his appraisal of Hitler:


Quote:
Sinclair was asked in December 1938 to prepare a dossier on Adolf Hitler, for the attention of Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, and Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister. In the dossier, which was received poorly by Sir George Mounsey, the Foreign Office assistant under-secretary—who believed that it did not gel with Britain's then contemporary policy of appeasement—Sinclair described Hitler as possessing the characteristics of "fanaticism, mysticism, ruthlessness, cunning, vanity, moods of exaltation and depression, fits of bitter and self-righteous resentment; and what can only be termed a streak of madness; but with it all there is a great tenacity of purpose, which has often been combined with extraordinary clarity of vision
Sinclair was also preparing for war prior to Munich, interesting to note one of his last acts was to purchase a country house to act as intelligence office, a place called Bletchley Park.

Quote:
I don't know much about the different Russian and German railway gauges, but I agree it probably helped the Russians. There is a bit about the German logistics in a book called The Russian Outlook by Sir Giffard Martel 1947:
You mean the same information that other posters who do know about the Russian railroads already gave you? Frantically googling up some antique book does nothing to disguise your ignorance Henri.
__________________
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 1st July 2018, 11:38 PM   #1827
Dabop
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 703
Originally Posted by geoman View Post
But if you all let him have the last post, how am I going to learn so much stuff?
This....

I ignore Henri's blatherings, but have found out things I never knew about the war previously, and often go off on google searches (well duckduck actually) to find out further, often making up the evenings entertainment....

(given up on tv as a bad joke here, many shows that were previously shown in 30 min blocks now are shown in 1 hour blocks- they have just added another 30 minutes of ads to pad them out.... on top of the 10 mins of ad time they had previously- we have now broken the tv ad singularity radius, where there is now officially more ad time than program time)
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader

'When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.' George Carlin
Dabop 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
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 06:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.