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 5th February 2018, 09:52 AM   #401
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,646
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
... a bit about all this in an internet article:
Is that supposed to be a reference to a source? Or are you embarrassed by the prospect of citing it properly?
Craig B 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 5th February 2018, 10:07 AM   #402
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Is that supposed to be a reference to a source? Or are you embarrassed by the prospect of citing it properly?
That came from an article on the internet which I don't entirely agree with. The author seems to think that Chamberlain should have forged an alliance with Stalin and Soviet Russia, which was something Chamberlain had examined and rejected. Stalin wanted an alliance with Germany.

https://ghostwritingessays.com/far-p...sly-negligent/

There seems to be a controversy at the moment, which is something which frightens this forum, about the syllabus for history students in the UK. From 1937 onwards the history is all about Churchill and Mrs. Thatcher. I don't think it's the pure unadulterated historical truth. Some history teachers are said to have downed tools about it. In my day I used to spend year after year studying the Tudors, probably for the exams.
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 5th February 2018, 10:41 AM   #403
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,646
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That came from an article on the internet which I don't entirely agree with.
Your link indicates that it came from a ghost writer of college essays at 1010 N HANCOCK ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19123, USA.
Quote:
The author seems to think that Chamberlain should have forged an alliance with Stalin and Soviet Russia, which was something Chamberlain had examined and rejected. Stalin wanted an alliance with Germany.
Stalin had an alliance with Czechoslovakia.

ETA Per wiki.
On May 16, 1935 the Czechoslovak-Soviet Treaty of Alliance was signed between the two states as the consequence of Soviet alliance with France (which was the Czechoslovak main ally).
The Munich deal annihilated one of Stalin's allies, and discredited the other. He then (foolishly and unscrupulously) turned to Germany. If CS had been permitted to remain in existence, and if France had not slighted its Soviet ally, there is no reason to suppose that Stalin would have turned to Germany. /ETA

Quote:
https://ghostwritingessays.com/far-p...sly-negligent/

There seems to be a controversy at the moment, which is something which frightens this forum, about the syllabus for history students in the UK. From 1937 onwards the history is all about Churchill and Mrs. Thatcher. I don't think it's the pure unadulterated historical truth. Some history teachers are said to have downed tools about it.
Where did that happen? Who said they did it?
Quote:
In my day I used to spend year after year studying the Tudors, probably for the exams.
"Year after year studying"? Dear me. Why didn't you hire ghost writing essays? Then you could have presented material after paying the ghosts a fee, and you could have saved yourself the trouble of studying anything at all.

Last edited by Craig B; 5th February 2018 at 10:50 AM.
Craig B 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 5th February 2018, 11:04 AM   #404
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Words...

Nobody was stopping those German officers, least of all Chamberlain, if that's what they wanted to do.


More words.
I hate to burst your bubble, but Chamberlain was not a German officer.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 5th February 2018, 11:27 AM   #405
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,722
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That came from an article on the internet which I don't entirely agree with. The author seems to think that Chamberlain should have forged an alliance with Stalin and Soviet Russia, which was something Chamberlain had examined and rejected.
And yet again you are plain wrong, Chamberlain was pursuing an alliance with the Soviets right up until the Molotov-Ribentropp pact was signed.

Quote:
There seems to be a controversy at the moment, which is something which frightens this forum, about the syllabus for history students in the UK. From 1937 onwards the history is all about Churchill and Mrs. Thatcher. I don't think it's the pure unadulterated historical truth
Again untrue, or can you this time provide some evidence to support your assertion about the syllabus? The only thing that 'frightens' anyone here is your resolute refusal to do any research beyond a five second Google search.

Quote:
In my day I used to spend year after year studying the Tudors, probably for the exams
Which I cannot help suspecting you failed, badly.

Oh and why on earth would history be all about Churchill 'from 1937' onwards? He didn't return to government until 1939, after the outbreak of war, and didn't become PM until 1940. In 1937 he was a backbench MP with no influence and was distinctly out of favour over his support of Edward the VIII in the abdication crisis.
__________________
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; 5th February 2018 at 11:38 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 5th February 2018, 01:16 PM   #406
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I know it has been said in the past that German officers would have opposed Hitler if an invasion of the Czechs happened. It's just you need to be in touch with reality about all that. Nobody was stopping those German officers, least of all Chamberlain, if that's what they wanted to do.
A group of higher officers around outgoing chief of staff Ludwig Beck and incoming chief of staff Franz Halder plotted to overthrow Hitler, in case Germany declared war on CS, and informed London of this plan. But contrary to your assertion, they did need a reason; and war at the time was really not popular with the German population.
__________________
"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 5th February 2018, 02:27 PM   #407
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,722
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
A group of higher officers around outgoing chief of staff Ludwig Beck and incoming chief of staff Franz Halder plotted to overthrow Hitler, in case Germany declared war on CS, and informed London of this plan. But contrary to your assertion, they did need a reason; and war at the time was really not popular with the German population.
Munich took away whatever momentum the opposition to Hitler had and cemented his position. Of course Henri will ignore this along with every other fact pointed out to him and come back with some irrelevant webpage he Googled up. He seems to feel primary sources represent some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth.
__________________
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 5th February 2018, 02:40 PM   #408
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,809
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
A group of higher officers around outgoing chief of staff Ludwig Beck and incoming chief of staff Franz Halder plotted to overthrow Hitler, in case Germany declared war on CS, and informed London of this plan. But contrary to your assertion, they did need a reason; and war at the time was really not popular with the German population.
Interesting. Didn't know about that.

I didn't think it was possible Munich was even more idiotic idea...
__________________
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 5th February 2018, 02:56 PM   #409
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,707
Rarely before in the field of internet discussion has one person been so confused about so many things in so few threads
__________________
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 5th February 2018, 03:08 PM   #410
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Rarely before in the field of internet discussion has one person been so confused about so many things in so few threads
But we shall defend the truth, and we shall correct his confusion, and correct his misconceptions and correct his untruths, and we shall never give in to the confusion.
__________________
"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 5th February 2018, 05:21 PM   #411
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,020
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
But we shall defend the truth, and we shall correct his confusion, and correct his misconceptions and correct his untruths, and we shall never give in to the confusion.
Don't get carried away. Humor aside, Nazi Germany was structurally defeatable.

Internet Smart Guys are structurally invincible.
theprestige 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 6th February 2018, 12:20 AM   #412
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,809
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Don't get carried away. Humor aside, Nazi Germany was structurally defeatable.

Internet Smart Guys are structurally invincible.
Force Nazi Germany to fight on two fronts and it collapses fast. Especially in 1938 without Czech tanks.
__________________
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 6th February 2018, 01:28 AM   #413
Major Major
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
A group of higher officers around outgoing chief of staff Ludwig Beck and incoming chief of staff Franz Halder plotted to overthrow Hitler, in case Germany declared war on CS, and informed London of this plan. But contrary to your assertion, they did need a reason; and war at the time was really not popular with the German population.
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Munich took away whatever momentum the opposition to Hitler had and cemented his position. Of course Henri will ignore this along with every other fact pointed out to him and come back with some irrelevant webpage he Googled up. He seems to feel primary sources represent some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth.
For an answer, see this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Oster-Conspir...ter+conspiracy

Hitler was within half an hour of getting a 7.65 between the eyes.

Major Major 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 6th February 2018, 03:59 AM   #414
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Personally, I think it would have been quite jolly to have gone to war in 1938 with the might of the Czechs as allies, and weak little Germany, the war might have been over by Christmas. It's just that Chamberlain was taking military advice at the time, and advice and information from our secret service about Hitler's intentions. Britain was not up to the job at the time, and public opinion could not be disregarded.

There is an interesting opinion from 1952 about all this. I'm not sure this is entirely accurate:

http://www.carrollquigley.net/misc/Q...hoslovakia.htm
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 6th February 2018, 04:22 AM   #415
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
Wars are always jolly....
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 6th February 2018, 04:36 AM   #416
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Force Nazi Germany to fight on two fronts and it collapses fast. Especially in 1938 without Czech tanks.
Well, in 1938 the Czech's didn't have Czech tanks, at least not the ones the Germans ended up nicking (the ones renamed Pz38t).

And the British hardly had any of the tanks they used in 1940. I don't think any Mathilda's had been delivered, for example.

As I said above, the Germans had a head start on pretty much everyone.

As for the Soviets, one of the questions raised over defending Czechoslovakia was how the Soviets could intervene meaningfully.
Tolls 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 6th February 2018, 05:03 AM   #417
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,646
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Personally, I think it would have been quite jolly to have gone to war in 1938 with the might of the Czechs as allies, and weak little Germany, the war might have been over by Christmas. It's just that Chamberlain was taking military advice at the time, and advice and information from our secret service about Hitler's intentions. Britain was not up to the job at the time, and public opinion could not be disregarded.

There is an interesting opinion from 1952 about all this. I'm not sure this is entirely accurate:

http://www.carrollquigley.net/misc/Q...hoslovakia.htm
Quigley has a reputation as a conspiracy nutcase which has earned him much credit on the extreme ultra right, such as the John Birch Society.
In 1971, Gary Allen, a spokesman for the John Birch Society, published None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which became a bestseller. Allen cited Quigley's Tragedy and Hope as an authoritative source on conspiracies throughout his book. Like Skousen, Allen understood the various conspiracies in Quigley's book to be branches of one large conspiracy, and also connected them to the Bilderbergers and to Richard Nixon. ... Jim Marrs ... cites Quigley in his book Rule By Secrecy, which describes a conspiracy linking the Milner Group, Skull and Bones, the Trilateral Commission, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Knights Templar, and aliens who posed as the Sumerian gods thousands of years ago.
Craig B 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 6th February 2018, 05:16 AM   #418
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,809
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Well, in 1938 the Czech's didn't have Czech tanks, at least not the ones the Germans ended up nicking (the ones renamed Pz38t).

And the British hardly had any of the tanks they used in 1940. I don't think any Mathilda's had been delivered, for example.

As I said above, the Germans had a head start on pretty much everyone.

As for the Soviets, one of the questions raised over defending Czechoslovakia was how the Soviets could intervene meaningfully.
Actually I had on mind previous version called Škoda LT vz. 35 (Under German designation Panzer 35(t)) which was already delivered and active. Apparently LT 35 was used by Germans as substitute for Panzer III (medium tank!)

As for Soviet Union, that was real concern because of distance and very short border with us.

I don't think Germany was that far ahead as is commonly portrayed.

BTW: It would be interesting comparison between Czech and German tanks. it looks like it wouldn't be fun for Germans...
__________________
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 6th February 2018, 06:25 AM   #419
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Actually I had on mind previous version called Škoda LT vz. 35 (Under German designation Panzer 35(t)) which was already delivered and active. Apparently LT 35 was used by Germans as substitute for Panzer III (medium tank!)
Ah yes, forgot about the 35.
All told there were some 300 in 1938?

That outnumbers the Germans PzIII and PzIV (some 40 of the former and 80 or so of the latter). However you can't look at these in isolation.

It has to be looked at with the tactics overall, so the Luftwaffe.

Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
As for Soviet Union, that was real concern because of distance and very short border with us.
This is one of the questions that comes up in briefing documents for Chamberlain in '38. Could anyone actually intervene fast enough. And the analysis that seemed to come back each time was "no".

Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
I don't think Germany was that far ahead as is commonly portrayed.
They had hundreds of 109s in 1938. No one else had a frontline fighter that would match that.

Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
BTW: It would be interesting comparison between Czech and German tanks. it looks like it wouldn't be fun for Germans...
As I say above, you can't do that in isolation.
Tolls 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 6th February 2018, 06:53 AM   #420
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
As for Soviet Union, that was real concern because of distance and very short border with us.
Short as in 0 km. Poland bordered Romania (the "Romanian bridgehead" through which substantial parts of the Polish army escaped in 1939) and thus CS didn't border the USSR. Poland would have been needed to grant the Red Army the right to cross its territory to get into Slovakia (or to nitpick, Carpatho-Ruthenia). Guess the chances of them doing that.
__________________
"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 6th February 2018, 07:19 AM   #421
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,809
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Ah yes, forgot about the 35.
All told there were some 300 in 1938?

That outnumbers the Germans PzIII and PzIV (some 40 of the former and 80 or so of the latter). However you can't look at these in isolation.

It has to be looked at with the tactics overall, so the Luftwaffe.



This is one of the questions that comes up in briefing documents for Chamberlain in '38. Could anyone actually intervene fast enough. And the analysis that seemed to come back each time was "no".



They had hundreds of 109s in 1938. No one else had a frontline fighter that would match that.



As I say above, you can't do that in isolation.
Luftwaffe?

Good question for:
7.5 cm kanon PL vz. 37
8 cm PL kanon vz. 37
8.35 cm PL kanon vz. 22
9 cm kanon PL vz. 12/20
(PL = AA)

ETA:
However, I am not sure how well Luftwaffe would be of use against defenses. (Like Border Fortifications)

Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Short as in 0 km. Poland bordered Romania (the "Romanian bridgehead" through which substantial parts of the Polish army escaped in 1939) and thus CS didn't border the USSR. Poland would have been needed to grant the Red Army the right to cross its territory to get into Slovakia (or to nitpick, Carpatho-Ruthenia). Guess the chances of them doing that.
I remembered bit about no border, but failed to realize extent of changes of borders post-war when trying to refresh memory.

Aka: You are right.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400

Last edited by Klimax; 6th February 2018 at 07:34 AM.
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 6th February 2018, 08:02 AM   #422
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
I remembered bit about no border, but failed to realize extent of changes of borders post-war when trying to refresh memory.

Aka: You are right.
Pre-war actually. When CS was dismembered in March 1939, the Nazis occupied the rump of the Czech part, Slovakia declared independence, Poland occupied the Teschen area (*) and Hungaria seized Carpatho-Ruthenia. After the war, the USSR seized Ruthenia and didn't give it back to CS.

(*) sorry that's the German name of the town, I forgot the Czech or Polish names. CS and Poland fought a war over the area in 1920/21 and ended up dividing the area.
__________________
"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 6th February 2018, 08:53 AM   #423
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Luftwaffe?

Good question for:
7.5 cm kanon PL vz. 37
8 cm PL kanon vz. 37
8.35 cm PL kanon vz. 22
9 cm kanon PL vz. 12/20
(PL = AA)
Not sure what you're trying to compare here.
The Czech's front line fighter was a biplane, albeit the best biplane fighter made. If the Luftwaffe gain air superiority (or as much as they did over Poland and France) then AA guns aren't going to help all that much.

Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
ETA:
However, I am not sure how well Luftwaffe would be of use against defenses. (Like Border Fortifications)
Fortifications that were incomplete, and already outflanked.
It was no Maginot Line.
Tolls 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 6th February 2018, 09:23 AM   #424
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,809
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Not sure what you're trying to compare here.
The Czech's front line fighter was a biplane, albeit the best biplane fighter made. If the Luftwaffe gain air superiority (or as much as they did over Poland and France) then AA guns aren't going to help all that much.



Fortifications that were incomplete, and already outflanked.
It was no Maginot Line.
It's list of in-service AA guns. No idea how well they could make life hard for German planes, but Germans found them useful. And that's why I didn't list Czech planes, because development of new planes was unfinished. (It seems we would need similar amount of years as Brits for their Spitfire.) Note: About development of new planes, that is IIRC.

Note: 70% of small objects were already finished And even unfished bunker can provide more protection then being outside. We were mostly missing Heavy Objects.

Outflanked where? It was missing only on border with Hungary and Poland. (pre-war borders)
See map:
http://mapa.opevneni.cz/?n=48.931465...0&z=7&m=t&l=cz

Note: Plan was to finish First Wave in 1941 with full line being finished in 50s.
__________________
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 6th February 2018, 09:47 AM   #425
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
The German Stuka dive bomber was very effective in the early part of the war. I'm not quite clear how the British Army, or Navy, or RAF, could have helped the Czechs. The French High Command was in a bad way. Politically, Hitler was putting pressure on Slovakia to secede. Some military experts gave the Czechs three months to survive a war, and others three weeks.

There is some interesting waffle about this matter of appeasement at this website, although it is not terribly erudite:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-hav...he-Sudetenland

This is one comment which makes sense to me:

Quote:
A more firm attitude towards Hitler would perhaps have prevented WWII according to some historians.

However, it's kind of unfair to put the blame for the failing of the Munich conference on the shoulders of Chamberlain. Rather can one blame Hitler who didn't settle to the agreements of the Munich conference.....

It seems quite probable that in that case Germany would have become the major power of continental Europe, and it seems highly improbable any country would have had the intention to declare a war on Germany. Hitler had very strong cards in his hands in 1938, but he all blew it by plunging Germany and the rest of Europe in the nightmare of WWII.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th February 2018 at 09:54 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 6th February 2018, 09:53 AM   #426
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
It's list of in-service AA guns. No idea how well they could make life hard for German planes, but Germans found them useful. And that's why I didn't list Czech planes, because development of new planes was unfinished. (It seems we would need similar amount of years as Brits for their Spitfire.) Note: About development of new planes, that is IIRC.
Which is where the German advantage lay.
But it was a temporary advantage, which is one reason for the push for war (another being the slightly insane German economy).

Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Note: 70% of small objects were already finished And even unfished bunker can provide more protection then being outside. We were mostly missing Heavy Objects.
True.
It's one of those "what if" things that's open to a number of interpretations.

Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Outflanked where? It was missing only on border with Hungary and Poland. (pre-war borders)
See map:
http://mapa.opevneni.cz/?n=48.931465...0&z=7&m=t&l=cz

Note: Plan was to finish First Wave in 1941 with full line being finished in 50s.
Austria.
Yes it has forts, but they were nowhere near as strong as the ones on the opposite flank. The big concern post anschluss was the pincer from those two drives.

I wish I could find the quote I read from one of the Czech generals informing the French that they felt they could hold out for (I think) 6 weeks maximum, based on this change in the situation.
Tolls 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 6th February 2018, 10:31 AM   #427
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,707
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The German Stuka dive bomber was very effective in the early part of the war. I'm not quite clear how the British Army, or Navy, or RAF, could have helped the Czechs. The French High Command was in a bad way. Politically, Hitler was putting pressure on Slovakia to secede. Some military experts gave the Czechs three months to survive a war, and others three weeks.

There is some interesting waffle about this matter of appeasement at this website, although it is not terribly erudite:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-hav...he-Sudetenland

This is one comment which makes sense to me:
The first highlighted part,


The British and French could have given an ultimatum whilst mobilising and then declared war, and meant that Germany would have had to prepare for a war on two fronts, without many U-boats and under a naval blockade similar to that in WWI. As a start.

The second highlighted part - that's an unconventional use of the English language, but l can see how you might consider waffle interesting.
__________________
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 6th February 2018, 10:32 AM   #428
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,024
Often the question about Munich is that Chamberlain bought time for British rearmament by his appeasement at Munich. What this ignores is that contemporary evidence does not indicate in the slightest that Chamberlain appeased Hitler to buy time.

Instead it indicates that Chamberlain really thought that he, through appeasement, was making a lasting peace. Further Chamberlain continued right until the German invasion of Poland to think in terms of appeasement of some kind. In fact between the state of Hitler's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 and the British declaration of War, Sept 3, 1939, Chamberlain sought to find a reason not to go to war with Germany. Chamberlain's Cabinet revolted and basically forced him to declare war.

Further the British rearmament program was put in place before Chamberlain became Prime Minister and Chamberlain was forced to allow it to continue, despite his misgivings about it. Also Chamberlain was responsible for ending the Ports arrangement with the Republic of Ireland, which during the war greatly impeded the British fight against the U-Boat menace.

Also this fixation on Britain ignores that Germany was also unprepared for war. In fact Germany was so unprepared that several German generals were planning a military coup against Hitler if a war started. They actually endeavoured to contact the British government but were rebuffed.

In fact Germany was so unprepared that Hitler's generals basically forced Hitler to accept Chamberlain's mediation. The Generals felt that Germany was woefully unprepared for war and looked askew at the threadbare forces they would have to leave in the west while they dealt with Czechoslovakia.

For we now know that Hitler really wanted a war with Czechoslovakia, which was why Hitler before Munich kept upping the stakes, to basically force a war. In fact right to his dying day Hitler felt he had made a big mistake in giving in to his Generals and not having his war in 1938.

As for benefits. Yes appeasement gave Britain and France more time to rearm, (Although as stated above this was not Chamberlain's goal.), but it had huge costs which, in my opinion, outweighed the gains.

First it gave Germany more time to arm. Secondly it gave the resources of the Czechoslovakian state to Germany. This included much Military material, the significant industrial resources of said state along with a significant armaments industry. It also gave the financial and fiscal resources of said state to Germany. (This included significant resources of foreign currency, which Germany was short of, and gold reserves. In one of the last gestures of appeasement Chamberlain allowed the part of the gold reserves held in Britain by the Czechoslovakian state to be given to Germany after Hitler liquidated the Czech state in March of 1939 and turn Slovakia into a protectorate.)

Further Munich basically destroyed the western system of alliances in Eastern Europe opening up the area for German, political and economic domination.

So the bottom line is that in my opinion Hitler's Germany benefited more from Appeasement at Munich than did Britain and France.

The irony of all this is that Hitler saw his greatest diplomatic victory has a failure and mistake.
Pacal 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 6th February 2018, 10:43 AM   #429
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,707
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Often the question about Munich is that Chamberlain bought time for British rearmament by his appeasement at Munich. What this ignores is that contemporary evidence does not indicate in the slightest that Chamberlain appeased Hitler to buy time.

Instead it indicates that Chamberlain really thought that he, through appeasement, was making a lasting peace. Further Chamberlain continued right until the German invasion of Poland to think in terms of appeasement of some kind. In fact between the state of Hitler's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 and the British declaration of War, Sept 3, 1939, Chamberlain sought to find a reason not to go to war with Germany. Chamberlain's Cabinet revolted and basically forced him to declare war.

Further the British rearmament program was put in place before Chamberlain became Prime Minister and Chamberlain was forced to allow it to continue, despite his misgivings about it. Also Chamberlain was responsible for ending the Ports arrangement with the Republic of Ireland, which during the war greatly impeded the British fight against the U-Boat menace.

Also this fixation on Britain ignores that Germany was also unprepared for war. In fact Germany was so unprepared that several German generals were planning a military coup against Hitler if a war started. They actually endeavoured to contact the British government but were rebuffed.

In fact Germany was so unprepared that Hitler's generals basically forced Hitler to accept Chamberlain's mediation. The Generals felt that Germany was woefully unprepared for war and looked askew at the threadbare forces they would have to leave in the west while they dealt with Czechoslovakia.

For we now know that Hitler really wanted a war with Czechoslovakia, which was why Hitler before Munich kept upping the stakes, to basically force a war. In fact right to his dying day Hitler felt he had made a big mistake in giving in to his Generals and not having his war in 1938.

As for benefits. Yes appeasement gave Britain and France more time to rearm, (Although as stated above this was not Chamberlain's goal.), but it had huge costs which, in my opinion, outweighed the gains.

First it gave Germany more time to arm. Secondly it gave the resources of the Czechoslovakian state to Germany. This included much Military material, the significant industrial resources of said state along with a significant armaments industry. It also gave the financial and fiscal resources of said state to Germany. (This included significant resources of foreign currency, which Germany was short of, and gold reserves. In one of the last gestures of appeasement Chamberlain allowed the part of the gold reserves held in Britain by the Czechoslovakian state to be given to Germany after Hitler liquidated the Czech state in March of 1939 and turn Slovakia into a protectorate.)

Further Munich basically destroyed the western system of alliances in Eastern Europe opening up the area for German, political and economic domination.

So the bottom line is that in my opinion Hitler's Germany benefited more from Appeasement at Munich than did Britain and France.

The irony of all this is that Hitler saw his greatest diplomatic victory has a failure and mistake.
Well said.

About the kindest thing that can be said about Chamberlain is that he might have been already suffering from the illness that killed him and that might have affected his bargaining.
__________________
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 6th February 2018, 11:45 AM   #430
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,809
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Which is where the German advantage lay.
But it was a temporary advantage, which is one reason for the push for war (another being the slightly insane German economy).



True.
It's one of those "what if" things that's open to a number of interpretations.



Austria.
Yes it has forts, but they were nowhere near as strong as the ones on the opposite flank. The big concern post anschluss was the pincer from those two drives.

I wish I could find the quote I read from one of the Czech generals informing the French that they felt they could hold out for (I think) 6 weeks maximum, based on this change in the situation.
I remember that Germans did number of weapon tests against forts. Don't know if they ever tested their bombs. Could have provided some answers.

As for those 6 weeks, do you remember if it included activity from western allies?
__________________
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 6th February 2018, 12:02 PM   #431
geoman
Doctor of Rock
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit about all this in an internet article:
Ah, the magnificent scholarly source that is markedbyteachers.com
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 7th February 2018, 02:28 AM   #432
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
I remember that Germans did number of weapon tests against forts. Don't know if they ever tested their bombs. Could have provided some answers.
By and large the defences were there to channel troops. There was a limit to the fire zones, and the whole Czech plan was to withdraw from the Western part to buy time. Post-Austria, this withdrawal became faster as they feared getting a large chunk of their army trapped by a pincer.

Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
As for those 6 weeks, do you remember if it included activity from western allies?
This was how long (and I do wish I could find the reference) they would stand without significant Western intervention. Considering what happened the following year, the French would not have been in a position to do a great deal.

Where things change is what happened next.

As Pacal suggests, how would a Germany without the 2 or 300 Czech tanks fare against the French and British. I'm not convinced they would do any worse...however, the big question is what happens in the east. And I have no idea on that one.
Tolls 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 7th February 2018, 03:12 AM   #433
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
This was how long (and I do wish I could find the reference) they would stand without significant Western intervention. Considering what happened the following year, the French would not have been in a position to do a great deal.
This is another what-if, but how much would have been different in 1938 compared to 1939? The Siegfried Line was also very much a work in progress. IIRC, in September 1939, the French were held up in one sector of the front by a large minefield. Was that minefield already present at the time of Munich?

And in the rest of the front, the French encountered resistance from German troops. Those would have been absent in a 1938 scenario as Germany would need all its troops against CS.
__________________
"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 7th February 2018, 03:20 AM   #434
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
I wish I could find the quote I read from one of the Czech generals informing the French that they felt they could hold out for (I think) 6 weeks maximum, based on this change in the situation.
This is a quote about this matter:

Quote:
We have a variety of other contemporary opinions. The Czechoslovak Chief of the General staff, General Ludvig Krejci, thought that the participation of Poland in the attack would limit the Czech capacity to hold out to three weeks. The official military history of Czechoslovakia estimated that the Czechs could hold out for a month without the assistance........

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 7th February 2018 at 03:26 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 7th February 2018, 03:37 AM   #435
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,284
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is a quote about this matter:
Two things.

1. This is not a quote from a Czech general.
2. Quote from where? Putting it in Google results in no hits.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl 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 7th February 2018, 04:18 AM   #436
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
This is another what-if, but how much would have been different in 1938 compared to 1939? The Siegfried Line was also very much a work in progress. IIRC, in September 1939, the French were held up in one sector of the front by a large minefield. Was that minefield already present at the time of Munich?
Fair point.
The Saar defences were not in existence, but the line behind them was.
In essence the earlier defences were intended to forestall an attack in depth, sacrificing the ground around Aachen.

Originally Posted by ddt View Post
And in the rest of the front, the French encountered resistance from German troops. Those would have been absent in a 1938 scenario as Germany would need all its troops against CS.
The German plans (Green) had pretty much as many troops in the defences in the West as they had the following year, so that wouldn't make much odds.

It is possible a solid Czech defense, with a more aggressive French attack, would result in the Germans deciding to withdraw troops to the French frontier. But that involves an aggressive French command, which does not seem to have been the case.

Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Two things.

1. This is not a quote from a Czech general.
2. Quote from where? Putting it in Google results in no hits.
I'm also not convinced Poland would act.
After all, if they attacked Czechoslovakia then that would instantly open them up to Soviet reprisals.
Tolls 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 7th February 2018, 06:35 AM   #437
Hubert Cumberdale
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,097
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Ah yes, forgot about the 35.
All told there were some 300 in 1938?

That outnumbers the Germans PzIII and PzIV (some 40 of the former and 80 or so of the latter). However you can't look at these in isolation.

It has to be looked at with the tactics overall
, so the Luftwaffe.



This is one of the questions that comes up in briefing documents for Chamberlain in '38. Could anyone actually intervene fast enough. And the analysis that seemed to come back each time was "no".



They had hundreds of 109s in 1938. No one else had a frontline fighter that would match that.



As I say above, you can't do that in isolation.
Wehrmacht tactics were substantially honed in the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Hubert Cumberdale 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 7th February 2018, 07:31 AM   #438
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale View Post
Wehrmacht tactics were substantially honed in the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Weren't the "flying artillery" tactics already in place?
I know other parts were changed, but I thought the core tank and air support tactics were in place by Munich?
Tolls 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 7th February 2018, 09:04 AM   #439
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Two things.

1. This is not a quote from a Czech general.
2. Quote from where? Putting it in Google results in no hits.
If you scroll down to the bottom of the page at this website there are several quotes from military experts about the matter of Czech defences including Brigadier Stronge, who seems to have been the British military attache there:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-hav...he-Sudetenland

Poland was a Czech enemy at the time and eventually did a Czech land grab after Munich.

Chamberlain was playing a diplomatic poker game. For him to go to war in 1938 would have resulted in a world war in which he would have had practically no reliable allies, and for which the British armed forces were ill-equipped and ill-trained. The verdict of history is that Hitler started the war by breaking the Munich agreement, and the German-Soviet pact. That's when conscription was introduced. There are people on the internet now who accuse Churchill of starting the war. If there had been war in 1938, which nearly happened, Chamberlain and the Czechs would have been blamed for starting it.
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 7th February 2018, 09:08 AM   #440
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
By and large the defences were there to channel troops. There was a limit to the fire zones, and the whole Czech plan was to withdraw from the Western part to buy time. Post-Austria, this withdrawal became faster as they feared getting a large chunk of their army trapped by a pincer.



This was how long (and I do wish I could find the reference) they would stand without significant Western intervention. Considering what happened the following year, the French would not have been in a position to do a great deal.

Where things change is what happened next.

As Pacal suggests, how would a Germany without the 2 or 300 Czech tanks fare against the French and British. I'm not convinced they would do any worse...however, the big question is what happens in the east. And I have no idea on that one.
Stalin is now pissed off that his ally was attacked by Germany. No Molotov-Ribentrop pact. He probably sees Germany as a more immediate threat rather than not even believing reports on the day Barbarossa started. Can't see him being OK with Germany taking Poland.
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
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 02:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.