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 23rd May 2018, 08:11 AM   #1761
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,838
I'd add one, actually. I was kinda saving it for the nazi competence thread, but actually it fits together with your post better.

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

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

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

It was only after the fall of France that the Nazi propaganda actually started painting a bigger than life picture of its many mighty tank divisions,
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 23rd May 2018, 12:08 PM   #1762
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,353
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There needs to be comprehensive vision, and not lack of vision about all this.

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

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You could argue that the French army was stronger than the German army in 1940, but actual events proved otherwise.

No. All events proved was that the German Army won.
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

--Ecclesiastes 9:11 (King James)
Further, the Heer was unquestionably much weaker in May of 1939 than in 1940, and would have been far more so had it been forced to fight to conquer Czechoslovakia.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
From what I know about France at that time there was political chaos and the French High Command was in a bad state.

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

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's possible that the French would have fought with the Czechs if Britain had declared war in 1938, but in my opinion Germany would have won.

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

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You need to have strategic ability about all this.

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

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There seems to be some sensible waffle about all this at this website:

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

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-79936.html?page=2
Quote:
The majority of Cabinet, however, sided with Halifax and Chamberlain. They judged that there was little that Great Britain or France could do to save Czechoslovakia. Moreover, they concluded that it was still too early to challenge Hitler militarily because the RAF and British air defenses were not yet ready to withstand an assault by German bombers. They judged, however, that the situation would improve within two years, when “the Royal Air Force would at any rate be armed with up-to-date aeroplanes and the anti-aircraft defences with modern weapons.”

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

As for the paper as a whole, two observations. First, the authors (who are political scientists, and not historians) are demonstrably mistaken in their claim that Chamberlain appeased Hitler in order to gain time for rearmament, and their evidence for this is extremely weak. Second, they do not claim that appeasement was the correct policy. In fact, the paper contains much evidence that it was not, which, as usual, you ignore. Come to that, it also contradicts several of your other claims as well, which is par for the course.
__________________
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; 23rd May 2018 at 12:11 PM. Reason: tpyo
SpitfireIX 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 23rd May 2018, 01:06 PM   #1763
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Further, the Heer was unquestionably much weaker in May of 1939 than in 1940, and would have been far more so had it been forced to fight to conquer Czechoslovakia.
It is hard to imagine how a war starting in 1938 could have gone worse for the French than the one starting in 1939, conquered, occupied, suffering the depredations of Nazi looting and brutality for 4 years. And of course if it goes better for the French then that has huge benefits for the British, no Blitz, no threat of invasion, not mention no likelihood of war in the Far East and the prospect that Italy thinks better of starting war in the Middle East without the Germans on the Channel Coast.

There are reasons why politicians like Chamberlain chose Appeasement that made sense at the time, but they were based a tragic misreading of Hitler and a gross overestimation of German military strength, this of course is an argument that Henri simply cannot accept because it would mean Churchill was right to oppose it...
__________________
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 24th May 2018, 04:57 AM   #1764
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,353
Henri, here's another question that I imagine you'll ignore or evade: If Hitler was hell-bent on war with France and Britain, as you claim, and those countries were far more vulnerable in 1938 than in 1939, then why didn't Hitler attack them in 1938? Both countries' rearmament plans were matters of public record, so he must have known that his best chance was slipping away.
__________________
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 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 24th May 2018, 07:11 AM   #1765
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 7,664
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Henri, here's another question that I imagine you'll ignore or evade: If Hitler was hell-bent on war with France and Britain, as you claim, and those countries were far more vulnerable in 1938 than in 1939, then why didn't Hitler attack them in 1938? Both countries' rearmament plans were matters of public record, so he must have known that his best chance was slipping away.
Excellent point!
__________________
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 24th May 2018, 08:49 AM   #1766
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,659
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Henri, here's another question that I imagine you'll ignore or evade: If Hitler was hell-bent on war with France and Britain, as you claim, and those countries were far more vulnerable in 1938 than in 1939, then why didn't Hitler attack them in 1938? Both countries' rearmament plans were matters of public record, so he must have known that his best chance was slipping away.
Personally, I think that was a strategic mistake by Hitler. Our secret service knew what was going on, and that he was determined to have a war with Soviet Russia, and so did Chamberlain and Halifax. War was inevitable, though Chamberlain talked a lot of politician's blah-blah about 'peace in our time' and the Anglo-German Naval agreement, and that he has no plans. It was just a question of timing. Chamberlain gave Hitler the dog's bone with the Czechs, while he made Britain too strong to be attacked. I agree there were German generals who were in disagreement with Hitler, but that was like trying to stop John Bolton now:

http://ww2today.com/chamberlain-clai...missed-the-bus

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

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th May 2018 at 08:51 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 24th May 2018, 10:36 AM   #1767
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Personally, I think that was a strategic mistake by Hitler. Our secret service knew what was going on, and that he was determined to have a war with Soviet Russia, and so did Chamberlain and Halifax. War was inevitable, though Chamberlain talked a lot of politician's blah-blah about 'peace in our time' and the Anglo-German Naval agreement, and that he has no plans. It was just a question of timing. Chamberlain gave Hitler the dog's bone with the Czechs, while he made Britain too strong to be attacked. I agree there were German generals who were in disagreement with Hitler, but that was like trying to stop John Bolton now:

These are the same thread bare claims that you've repeated a dozen times. You've presented nothing to support them and willfully ignored a wealth of evidence that debunks your claims Are you simply incapable of actually doing any proper research or answering the questions put to you? All you have demonstrated to date is your utter ignorance of the topic and your inability to find a source that's relevant and supports your statements.
__________________
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, 12:16 PM   #1768
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,353
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Personally, I think that was a strategic mistake by Hitler.

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

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Our secret service knew what was going on, and that he was determined to have a war with Soviet Russia, and so did Chamberlain and Halifax.

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

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

Again, how about some real evidence?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain gave Hitler the dog's bone with the Czechs, while he made Britain too strong to be attacked.

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

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree there were German generals who were in disagreement with Hitler, but that was like trying to stop John Bolton now:

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

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
http://ww2today.com/chamberlain-clai...missed-the-bus
Quote:
The result was that when war did break out German preparations were far ahead of our own, and it was natural then to expect that the enemy would take advantage of his initial superiority to make an endeavour to overwhelm us and France before we had time to make good our deficiencies. Is it not a very extraordinary thing that no such attempt was made? Whatever may be the reason—whether it was that Hitler thought he might get away with what he had got without fighting for it, or whether it was that after all the preparations were not sufficiently complete—however, one thing is certain: he missed the bus.

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

Second, Chamberlain clearly implies, probably incorrectly, that the Wehrmacht could have overwhelmed Britain and France if Hitler had ignored Poland and struck west in September 1939. Please explain how this squares with your claim that Chamberlain waited to start the war until Britain was "too strong to be attacked."
__________________
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; Yesterday at 12:35 PM. Reason: tpyo
SpitfireIX 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, 01:44 PM   #1769
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,353
I got Australia and Appeasement yesterday, so I've temporarily put aside The Change in the European Balance of Power, 1938-1939. I got most of the way through the chapters about the Sudeten crisis last night and this morning, and, wonder of wonders, Waters presents a lot of information that flatly contradicts Henri's claims. I'll have a long, comprehensive post on the subject when I've finished reading and taking notes.
__________________
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 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, 02:49 PM   #1770
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 7,664
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
I got Australia and Appeasement yesterday, so I've temporarily put aside The Change in the European Balance of Power, 1938-1939. I got most of the way through the chapters about the Sudeten crisis last night and this morning, and, wonder of wonders, Waters presents a lot of information that flatly contradicts Henri's claims. I'll have a long, comprehensive post on the subject when I've finished reading and taking notes.


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

Maybe next time we visit the library, we'll ask if they could get a copy!
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...

Last edited by Rincewind; Yesterday at 02:51 PM.
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, 02:14 AM   #1771
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,659
There is some interesting gossip about appeasement in 1938 at this website:

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

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

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


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


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

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 02:17 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, 03:39 AM   #1772
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is some interesting gossip about appeasement in 1938 at this website:

http://www.adespicabletruce.org.uk/page59.html
A site created by a religious fanatic, with some cherry picked quotes that provided not one shred of factual evidence to support the idea that appeasement was a sound policy, and you even call it gossip. How exactly did you expect this to shore up your arguments? If I can abuse the term to cover the nonsense you keep posting..
__________________
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 03:47 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
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 10:28 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.