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 10th April 2018, 03:33 AM   #1321
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
I'd like to offer a big vote of thanks to Spitfire IX and Captain Swoop for clarifying and correcting my post.



Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
I was in a rush, so chose Wikipedia - but now I have a much better source!

I just recently discovered that web site. From their home page:

"Welcome to HistoryOfWar.org. We aim to make our site your first call for information on any aspect of military history."
__________________
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 10th April 2018, 09:12 AM   #1322
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,012
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
. . . I found this from what appears to be an official historical monograph from 1957, The Defence of the United Kingdom, digitized on Gawdzilla's website . . .

I just noticed I forgot to list the page numbers for the quotation; it's from pp. 65-66.
As an aside, he's still over on Badscience...
__________________
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 11th April 2018, 02:17 PM   #1323
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,478
So now let's examine Henri's claim that Britain would have been bombed into submission in a week in the fall of 1938.

I found the following stats on the Luftwaffe's strength in September 1938, copied from a Czech aviation magazine (source). One or two of these are questionable, but overall they provide a good starting point; I'll correct them if and when I find better information.

Heinkel He 111B.....................219
Heinkel He 111E.....................141
Heinkel He 111F ......................30
Heinkel He 111J.......................78
Junkers Ju 86A/D/G................200
Dornier Do 17E/M...................300*
Junkers Ju 87A.......................120*
Henschel Hs 123A...................150*
Messerschmitt Bf 109B/C.........510
Messerschmitt Bf 109D...............0
Arado Ar 68E/F.......................400*
Dornier Do 17F/P....................180*
Heinkel He 45M......................150*
Heinkel He 70F.........................49
Henschel Hs 126A-O.................42
Totals .................................2500*

*approximate

In general, the totals for bombers and fighters fit reasonably well with a table in the official British monograph I linked above; 1128 and 773 respectively. That table also lists 226 dive bombers and 195 "ground attack" aircraft; I suspect the latter refers to the Hs 123A, a biplane dive bomber.

It seems unlikely to me that there were no Bf 109Ds in squadron service by September, as they were first sent to fight in Spain with the Condor Legion in June, but I suppose it's possible. I'll have to do some more research on that.

To be continued . . .
__________________
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 11th April 2018, 02:44 PM   #1324
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
So now let's examine Henri's claim that Britain would have been bombed into submission in a week in the fall of 1938.

I found the following stats on the Luftwaffe's strength in September 1938, copied from a Czech aviation magazine (source). One or two of these are questionable, but overall they provide a good starting point; I'll correct them if and when I find better information.

Heinkel He 111B.....................219
Heinkel He 111E.....................141
Heinkel He 111F ......................30
Heinkel He 111J.......................78
Junkers Ju 86A/D/G................200
Dornier Do 17E/M...................300*
Junkers Ju 87A.......................120*
Henschel Hs 123A...................150*
Messerschmitt Bf 109B/C.........510
Messerschmitt Bf 109D...............0
Arado Ar 68E/F.......................400*
Dornier Do 17F/P....................180*
Heinkel He 45M......................150*
Heinkel He 70F.........................49
Henschel Hs 126A-O.................42
Totals .................................2500*

*approximate

In general, the totals for bombers and fighters fit reasonably well with a table in the official British monograph I linked above; 1128 and 773 respectively. That table also lists 226 dive bombers and 195 "ground attack" aircraft; I suspect the latter refers to the Hs 123A, a biplane dive bomber.

It seems unlikely to me that there were no Bf 109Ds in squadron service by September, as they were first sent to fight in Spain with the Condor Legion in June, but I suppose it's possible. I'll have to do some more research on that.

To be continued . . .
Those numbers go a long way to explaining why the Luftwaffe concluded a bombing campaign against the UK couldn't be carried out in 1938. The Bf 110 wasn't in service so the bombers would have been plodding across the North Sea without any fighter cover whatsoever.
__________________
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 11th April 2018, 09:48 PM   #1325
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,631
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Those numbers go a long way to explaining why the Luftwaffe concluded a bombing campaign against the UK couldn't be carried out in 1938. The Bf 110 wasn't in service so the bombers would have been plodding across the North Sea without any fighter cover whatsoever.
I think Henri will tell us about the top super secret plan to disguise German bombers using moustaches. The British fighters would not recognize them.


Last edited by Hans; 11th April 2018 at 09:49 PM.
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 12th April 2018, 10:11 AM   #1326
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The anti-aircraft system in 1938 seems to me to have been woefully inadequate. In 1938 it was just assumed that any air attack would come from Germany in the east. . . .

There is a bit about the matter in the Battle of Britain book 1989 by Alfred Price:

Quote:
The part played by the heavy anti-aircraft gun batteries during the Battle of Britain has usually been neglected. The task of the heavy gun defences was four-fold: first, to shoot down or damage enemy aircraft; secondly to split up the enemy formations so that the fighters could engage the bombers more easily; thirdly, to indicate the position of enemy aircraft to the fighters; and fourthly, to prevent or hinder accurate bombing. And while they were rarely successful in achieving the first three of these, the gunners were consistently able to achieve the fourth.

I just wanted to point out that this applies mainly to tactical bombing, and, to a lesser extent, daylight "precision" bombing. Night area bombing, not so much.
__________________
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 12th April 2018, 04:26 PM   #1327
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,631
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
I just wanted to point out that this applies mainly to tactical bombing, and, to a lesser extent, daylight "precision" bombing. Night area bombing, not so much.
Both sides ability to find and destroy bombers at night was very limited. But of course both sides bombers would have challenges in finding the target too. The German's did have the advantage of having the Thames pointing to London. Which was used by Zeppelins, Gothas and ZS'ers in WWI.
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 14th April 2018, 05:47 AM   #1328
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Those numbers go a long way to explaining why the Luftwaffe concluded a bombing campaign against the UK couldn't be carried out in 1938.

Exactly. A lot of these planes, notably the Do 17E&M and the Ju 86G, couldn't even reach London from Germany, and most of the others could only do so with reduced bomb loads.

Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
The Bf 110 wasn't in service so the bombers would have been plodding across the North Sea without any fighter cover whatsoever.

Worse still, the first Bf 110s couldn't reach England from Germany. The Bf-110D, introduced in 1940, was the first long-range variant, but it had some teething problems, due to its initial use of a conformal auxiliary fuel tank ("dachshund's belly") which adversely affected performance and proved to be both unreliable and dangerous. Only when later production D models were equipped to carry drop tanks did the aircraft finally become effective as a long-range fighter-bomber.
__________________
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 14th April 2018, 06:10 AM   #1329
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,478
Henri, we're still waiting for you to explain how, with the bomber force listed, Germany was going to bomb Britain into submission in a week in 1938, granting, arguendo as usual, that the Luftwaffe would have assigned all of its bombers capable of reaching London to the task.

Also, please explain why, if the above assertion is correct, Britain didn't surrender despite the Luftwaffe's dropping 24,000 tons of bombs on London during the Blitz?
__________________
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 14th April 2018, 08:36 AM   #1330
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Henri, we're still waiting for you to explain how, with the bomber force listed, Germany was going to bomb Britain into submission in a week in 1938, granting, arguendo as usual, that the Luftwaffe would have assigned all of its bombers capable of reaching London to the task.

Also, please explain why, if the above assertion is correct, Britain didn't surrender despite the Luftwaffe's dropping 24,000 tons of bombs on London during the Blitz?
He's gone off to the Syria thread to exercise his anti-Semitism there.

If he reappears here we can expect nothing but another fringe reset, but I suspect you knew that.
__________________
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 14th April 2018, 09:15 AM   #1331
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Henri, we're still waiting for you to explain how, with the bomber force listed, Germany was going to bomb Britain into submission in a week in 1938, granting, arguendo as usual, that the Luftwaffe would have assigned all of its bombers capable of reaching London to the task.

Also, please explain why, if the above assertion is correct, Britain didn't surrender despite the Luftwaffe's dropping 24,000 tons of bombs on London during the Blitz?
There is an interesting posting on another forum about all this which makes sense to me. The RAF were giving Chamberlain advice which contradicts what Garrison is saying on this forum:

Quote:
Odd how Chamberlain is regularly accused of being duped by Hitler yet Churchill who it can be argued was taken in by Stalin to a greater extent almost never is. The situation in 1938 was a lot more complicated for Chamberlain than Hitler.

Chamberlain had to take into account the situation in the Far East with Japan. Would it strike against Britain and France if they were fighting a major European war? From what happened in 1942 we know that the Japanese would have gone through the British like a knife through butter. There was also the question of which way would Mussolini jump.

The Cz military alliance with the USSR was supposed to come into effect if France went to war over Cz. If my memory serves me I believe Chamberlain said he had no wish to see the Red Army in Vienna.

Britain could only field a small force in 1938 it would be the French who would be doing almost all the ground fighting. He had the impression that they did not want to fight but could not bring themselves to say it.

His Chiefs of Staff were telling him that the RAF could not stop devastating German air raids on Britain. Also that Britain and France could do nothing to prevent the German army overrunning Cz. The country would only be reconstituted after a long war that slowly ground Germany down. He thought that another long war against Germany would ruin Britain and leave it dependent on the USA. He was right.

A war would be over whether the Sudeten land should be given to Germany or whether it should have autonomy within Cz. Churchill supported autonomy. Again if my memory serves me Chamberlain said that he did not give a hoot if the area was in Germany or Cz. He thought that it would be very difficult to get the Commonwealth to support Britain if it went to war over the issue.

He believed that another great war had to be avoided, if that could only be done by letting Hitler have the Sudetenland then so be it. He thought Hitler would keep his word but re-armament never stopped it speeded up. Contrary to what many people think Britain was not poorly prepared for war when it came. Hitler breaking the Munich treaty was a surprise.

That Hitler made demands over Danzig was no surprise he had predicted Germany would want its return over a decade previously. The pass would be held at Poland but he wanted the Poles to make concessions so as to avoid war. Chamberlain and Halifax thought German economic and political dominance of Eastern Europe was inevitable in the long run and they were right. However they were not prepared to see Germany achieve dominance by force.

With regard to the Spanish civil war the British preferred Franco to a possible communist government.
Top

steverodgers801
Member
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 14th April 2018, 09:21 AM   #1332
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,074
That posting above came from this forum if anybody is interested:

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewto...03870&start=45
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 14th April 2018, 09:48 AM   #1333
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting posting on another forum about all this which makes sense to me. The RAF were giving Chamberlain advice which contradicts what Garrison is saying on this forum:
Again this is not true. I have clearly stated that Chamberlain was working on the basis of a gross over-estimation of the capability of the Luftwaffe, as have any number of other posters who you have ignored. No one is disputing that. What multiple posters have explained is that the reality was completely different and have provided you with facts that show such a bombing campaign could not be mounted in 1938, a conclusion the Luftwaffe agreed with, something else you keep ignoring.

Asked for facts you return to the thread yet again making up claims about what I have said and instead of evidence for your other claims you simply dredge up yet another anonymous internet poster who repeats the same claims you've posted here without offering one shred of evidence.

Perhaps you would care to address the facts provided by Spitfire IX with some actual evidence?
__________________
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 15th April 2018, 06:11 AM   #1334
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting posting on another forum about all this which makes sense to me. The RAF were giving Chamberlain advice which contradicts what Garrison is saying on this forum:

Continuing evasion noted. Further, as has been pointed out to you, ad nauseam as usual, no one cares that you found some obscure Internet poster who agrees with you, and might even be you, in another guise.

Additionally, you are continuing to attempt to change horses without admitting it, but, frankly, you're doing an extremely poor job. I'll have more on this in a later post.

As for the post you quote, two observations. First, as always, the remark about Churchill is utterly irrelevant, and merely provides you with an opportunity to take a shot, by proxy, at one of your great bêtes noires. And, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, Churchill and FDR/Truman were in no position to prevent the Soviets from dominating Eastern Europe, so the question of whether they were "taken in by Stalin" is moot.

Second, and far more important, all of the arguments against going to war with Germany in October 1938 still held in September 1939, plus, despite your continuing to deny the point, Britain, France, and Poland were in a much weaker position with respect to Germany, both militarily and politically, than Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia had been a year earlier.
__________________
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; 15th April 2018 at 07:58 AM. Reason: italics
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 15th April 2018, 08:41 AM   #1335
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Second, and far more important, all of the arguments against going to war with Germany in October 1938 still held in September 1939, plus, despite your continuing to deny the point, Britain, France, and Poland were in a much weaker position with respect to Germany, both militarily and politically, than Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia had been a year earlier.
I don't go along with this weak little Germany in 1938 argument. Hitler had introduced conscription in 1935 for a start, and so he had a large number of fully trained troops at his disposal, unlike Britain. I have never seen any secret documents by Air Intelligence at the time, but I do know that the RAF advised Chamberlain to delay going to war. The RAF were the professionals and experts.

There is another posting on another forum about the matter which also makes sense to me:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/thread...r.32311/page-2

Quote:
Yes, England went so very, very wrong! We're actually quite proud of that!

For your later comments, I believe Germany probably had an advantage - the Bf109 had been in service for some time and, by August 1938, the Bf109D made up roughly half of Germany's fighter force which has been listed as approx 650 total first-line fighters in late 1938. However, the D-model still had difficulties with wing strength, lack of armament etc.

I suspect Germany may have had a harder time had war broken out in 1938, indeed I suspect we'd have seen an extended "Phony War" period through, perhaps, the middle of 1939 as both the Allies and the Germans sought to strengthen forces and get ready for the big fight.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th April 2018 at 08:43 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 15th April 2018, 09:51 AM   #1336
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,423
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
..........

There is another posting on another forum about the matter which also makes sense to me:

.............
Good for you.

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Continuing evasion noted. Further, as has been pointed out to you, ad nauseam as usual, no one cares that you found some obscure Internet poster who agrees with you, and might even be you, in another guise.

.........
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 15th April 2018, 10:27 AM   #1337
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,116
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't go along with this weak little Germany in 1938 argument. Hitler had introduced conscription in 1935 for a start, and so he had a large number of fully trained troops at his disposal, unlike Britain. I have never seen any secret documents by Air Intelligence at the time, but I do know that the RAF advised Chamberlain to delay going to war. The RAF were the professionals and experts.

There is another posting on another forum about the matter which also makes sense to me:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/thread...r.32311/page-2
Was Britain going to fight Germany alone?

Here is a poster in another forum that I think makes sense!

I'm currently listening to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. According to his sources, Czechoslovakia (who had about a million men, of which 800.000 where front line units, and who were relatively well armed) and France together outnumbered Germany by more than 2 to 1.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...r-1938.623701/
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 15th April 2018, 11:46 AM   #1338
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,631
Why does Henri think the French wouldn't have been in this early war and if the German used any of the useful methods of attacking France so would the Belgian Army would also be thrown into the mix (we'll ignore poor little Luxembourg)

The Belgians and French air forces would have bled away a significant portion of the Lufties.

Additionally given the strategy of 1940 would the Germans have had to take Denmark and Norway like they previous did or lose their iron ore source?

Last edited by Hans; 15th April 2018 at 11:47 AM.
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 15th April 2018, 12:46 PM   #1339
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't go along with this weak little Germany in 1938 argument.

Straw man, along with lame appeal to ridicule. No one said "weak little Germany." We just keep pointing out, and you keep ignoring, the fact that Germany was considerably stronger in September 1939 than October 1938, and gained much more, militarily and politically, by the year's delay, than Britain and France did.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Hitler had introduced conscription in 1935 for a start, and so he had a large number of fully trained troops at his disposal, unlike Britain.

As lobosrul5 pointed out, France and Czechoslovakia, whose combined armies outnumbered Germany's by a wide margin, would have also been fighting alongside Britain. And those two countries had had conscription since well before 1935. Further, the Heer was not "fully trained." The rapid expansion meant that many divisions had one or two regiments of reservists and/or recent conscripts. Fail.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have never seen any secret documents by Air Intelligence at the time, but I do know that the RAF advised Chamberlain to delay going to war. The RAF were the professionals and experts.

First, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, even if they were the experts, they were still wrong. Second, I'll renew the question you've repeatedly ducked: Why are you so keen to accept the verdicts of British experts who were working from what we know now were greatly exaggerated estimates of the Wehrmacht's strength and capabilities, but you ignore the pronouncements of the German experts, with access to realistic appraisals, who said that Germany couldn't have won a war in 1938?

Further, as has been repeatedly explained to you, and you have ignored, appeasement had disastrous political consequences, in addition to the disastrous military ones. The military opinions of the Chiefs of Staff do not change that.

Finally, here is a passage from Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945, by Williamson Murray (a real historian), pp. 18-19, again digitized on Gawdzilla's website:
Nevertheless, in the final analysis, fears about the Luftwaffe probably were not decisive in molding the British response to German threats before Munich. In fact, by September 1938 many leading appeasers felt that the West could beat Germany in a war,92 while the British military in late September came around to the view that "the latent resources of our Empire and the doubtful morale of our opponents under the stress of war give us confidence as to the ultimate outcome [of a war]." But the terrible costs of World War I lingered in British minds and tempered the response. . . .

What is surprising, given the predilection of some historians to argue that Munich saved Britain from the Luftwaffe, is the fact that the German air force had made almost no preparation to wage war against the British. In August 1938, a staff officer of Luftflotte 2, responsible in 1938 for operations over the North Sea and against the British Isles, suggested that Germany's current capability to attack Britain would amount to pin pricks. In late September, General Felmy, Commander of Second Air Force, warned the high command that "given the means at his disposal, a war of destruction against England seemed to be excluded." In May 1939, Felmy concluded an address by highlighting the lack of preparation for a "strategic" bombing offensive against Britain. He doubted whether the Luftwaffe could achieve more than a limited success in 1940 and admitted that the Luftwaffe would not have one air division fully trained and prepared to attack Britain in the summer of 1939. Considering Second Air Force's equipment, preparations for an air offensive on Britain were totally inadequate (völlig ungenügend). [some notes omitted]
__________

92Neville Henderson admitted that Germany might not last more than "a certain number of months." PRO FO 800/309, Part IV, letter from Henderson to Cadogan, 4.9.38. Halifax told the Cabinet in mid-September 1938 that "he had no doubt that if we were involved in war now, we should win it after a long time." PRO CAB 23/95, Cab 39(38), Meeting of the Cabinet, 17.9.38., pp. 98-99.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is another posting on another forum about the matter which also makes sense to me:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/thread...r.32311/page-2

Just to add to what fagin wrote, this passage actually contradicts your argument. "I suspect Germany may have had a harder time had war broken out in 1938 . . ." Fail.
__________________
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; 15th April 2018 at 12:53 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 15th April 2018, 12:50 PM   #1340
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't go along with this weak little Germany in 1938 argument.
We know that you believe this, we also know you have failed dismally to explain how the Wehrmacht were going to defeat Britain in a week.

Quote:
Hitler had introduced conscription in 1935 for a start, and so he had a large number of fully trained troops at his disposal, unlike Britain.
And yet that army was much weaker in 1938 than 1939, which is what people here keep explaining to you.

Quote:
I have never seen any secret documents by Air Intelligence at the time, but I do know that the RAF advised Chamberlain to delay going to war.
We know you know that, because you posted the same thing yesterday and then ignored the answer to the next part...

Quote:
The RAF were the professionals and experts.
..Which is that they based their conclusions on faulty information, why do you refuse to acknowledge this?

Quote:
There is another posting on another forum about the matter which also makes sense to me:
And no one in this thread cares anymore than we did the last 20 times you found some anonymous internet poster who is as ignorant of the facts as you are.
__________________
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 16th April 2018, 02:50 AM   #1341
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
[indent]Nevertheless, in the final analysis, fears about the Luftwaffe probably were not decisive in molding the British response to German threats before Munich. In fact, by September 1938 many leading appeasers felt that the West could beat Germany in a war,92 while the British military in late September came around to the view that "the latent resources of our Empire and the doubtful morale of our opponents under the stress of war give us confidence as to the ultimate outcome [of a war]." But the terrible costs of World War I lingered in British minds and tempered the response. . . .
The fact is that the "latent resources of our Empire" were not there in 1938. Australia and Canada and New Zealand were opposed to war in 1938. Roosevelt in America congratulated Chamberlain on his Munich so-called agreement. Pro-German Ireland remained neutral. South Africa only declared war a year later with the narrowest of parliamentary majorities. Most Afrikaan people were pro-Nazi. Most people in the world had never heard of Sudetanland, and they certainly didn't want to go war over it.

I don't know about the doubtful morale of our opponents. Hitler had a lot of public support in Germany.

Quote:
In 1941 the German Army which faced the Russians was probably the finest military machine that has ever been produced. Nothing had been spared to make it as perfect and as efficient as possible. This army had been training at full strength for many years before the war and it had now won two great campaigns against Poland and France respectively.
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 16th April 2018, 02:52 AM   #1342
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,704
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The fact is that the "latent resources of our Empire" were not there in 1938.
I think you need to look up the word "latent".

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 04:49 AM   #1343
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,422
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know about the doubtful morale of our opponents. Hitler had a lot of public support in Germany.
Quote:
In 1941 the German Army which faced the Russians was probably the finest military machine that has ever been produced. Nothing had been spared to make it as perfect and as efficient as possible. This army had been training at full strength for many years before the war and it had now won two great campaigns against Poland and France respectively.
Lets review this ONCE again. 1941 is not 1938.

In 1938, the German military had NOT won three campaigns (the anonymous author of your quote forgot about Norway and Denmark) and was NOT the force that launched Barbarossa in '41.

In 1938, the Kriegsmarine was not ready for offensive operations with an inadequate U-Boat force to deal with British shipping or the British Navy, let alone the combined British and French navies. It was the match of the Czech navy, which I believe consisted of three rowboats commanded by the good soldier Svjiek....

In 1938, despite the lack of Spitfires , the RAF was not outclassed by the Luftwaffe in overall striking ability. Combine the RAF with the French and Czechoslovakian air forces and the Luftwaffe is severely outmatched in overall combat power. The Luftwaffe is unable to significantly attack the UK.

In 1938, the panzer arm of the Heer is small, and equipped primarily with vehicles that are inferior to those used by Britain, France and Czechoslovakia. The vast majority of the Heer used horses for transport, while Britain is completely mechanized and France is far more mechanized than Germany.

The quote you selected is objectively wrong on a number of counts and I suspect was written by some sort of fanboy.
__________________
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 16th April 2018, 05:23 AM   #1344
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,507
And another quote about 1941.
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 16th April 2018, 07:26 AM   #1345
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The fact is that the "latent resources of our Empire" were not there in 1938.

What Dave said.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Australia and Canada and New Zealand were opposed to war in 1938.

Everyone except Hitler and his most fanatical supporters was opposed to war; that doesn't mean they wouldn't have gone along with Britain. Further, Australia and New Zealand had no say in the matter, as those countries had not yet ratified the Statute of Westminster. Had Britain declared war in 1938, that declaration would have automatically included every British colony and dominion except South Africa and Canada, just as the 1939 declaration did. Fail.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Roosevelt in America congratulated Chamberlain on his Munich so-called agreement.

You are assuming that FDR did this because he thought it was a good thing, rather than for domestic political consumption, or simply as a matter of form.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Pro-German Ireland remained neutral.

Ireland was not "pro-German"; the Irish were simply "anti-British," for perfectly understandable reasons. This is a moot point, however, as Ireland was no longer a part of the British Empire in 1938, and of course remained neutral throughout the war (though, despite much bad blood, they were tacitly supporting Britain).

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
South Africa only declared war a year later with the narrowest of parliamentary majorities.

No. Eighty to 67 is not "the narrowest of parliamentary majorities." (source)

Further, you conveniently omitted to mention that the Parliament of Canada, the only other part of the Commonwealth that wasn't automatically at war, voted overwhelmingly to support Britain (and France) by declaring war on Germany; I couldn't find an authoritative source, but I believe the motion passed the Commons by unanimous consent, and the Senate with only two dissenting votes. So there's no reason to believe that Canada wouldn't have declared war in 1938.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Most Afrikaan people were pro-Nazi.

Even if this were true, which is debatable, the Afrikaners only made up 60% of the white population of South Africa. The other 40% were Anglo South Africans, who were overwhelmingly pro-Britain. Further, I strongly suspect that German support in South Africa declined significantly after Hitler invaded the Netherlands.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Most people in the world had never heard of Sudetanland, and they certainly didn't want to go war over it.

Yet most people in the world had heard of Danzig (Gdansk), and they did want to go to war over it?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know about the doubtful morale of our opponents. Hitler had a lot of public support in Germany.

When the war was going well for Germany he had a lot of public support. But the war was overwhelming likely to have gone badly in 1938. And Italian morale was unquestionably "doubtful."

As for the quotation, what Border Reiver and Captain_Swoop said.

Finally, why did you ignore all of my other points, and only respond to the one you felt you could attack? Is it because you have no answers? And speaking of answers, we're still waiting for you to answer all the questions that have been put to you.
__________________
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; 16th April 2018 at 07:27 AM.
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 16th April 2018, 08:20 AM   #1346
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post


Everyone except Hitler and his most fanatical supporters was opposed to war; that doesn't mean they wouldn't have gone along with Britain. Further, Australia and New Zealand had no say in the matter, as those countries had not yet ratified the Statute of Westminster. Had Britain declared war in 1938, that declaration would have automatically included every British colony and dominion except South Africa and Canada, just as the 1939 declaration did. Fail.
That's not quite correct. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were not colonies in 1938, though thank goodness they were on our side. They were willing to declare war against Germany in 1939, but not in 1938:

https://quizlet.com/139651631/why-di...t-flash-cards/

Quote:
This meant that it was vital to protect this Empire. In the mid 1930s, Chiefs of Staff had warned Britain's leaders that could not afford to fight a war on three fronts- Germany in Europe, Italy in the Middle East and Japan in the Far East. Mussolini tried to stir up trouble in the Empire in 1937 by encouraging the Arab Revolt which threatened the Suez canal, a vital trade route.

Led to appeasement as Britain chose to concentrate their limited armed forces on the defence of the Empire as the threat here was seen as much greater than Hitler's actions in Europe. They therefore had no choice but to appease Germany as they didn't have enough military resources to do both.

At the Imperial Conference in London in 1937, member states of the British Empire, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, made it clear that they would not take part in another war in Europe due the horrors of the first one.

Led to appeasement, as addressing Germany's grievances was seen as a safer option than going to war without military back-up.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th April 2018 at 08:24 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 16th April 2018, 08:41 AM   #1347
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,422
Henri - you're having temporal issues again.

Protip - 1937 is not 1938. When the conference was happening (May 12-June 28, 1937)the issues at hand was the then recent militarization of the Rhineland and Italy's attacks on Ethiopia- the Anschluss (March 12, 1938) and the Munich Crisis hadn't happened yet.
__________________
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 16th April 2018, 09:14 AM   #1348
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
South Africa only declared war a year later with the narrowest of parliamentary majorities.
80-67 is not the narrowest majority, nor do 5 days make a year:
Quote:
Although there was unanimity between Premiere J. B. M. Hertzog and General Jan Smuts about the right of South Africa to remain neutral in war, their views were not identical as to what would happen if Britain were to be attacked. In a fateful Cabinet meeting of 2 September 1939, Hertzog declared that he was going to remain neutral, and under no circumstances would he allow South Africa to enter the war. Two days later, in the Assembly he repeated that South Africa would not be plunged into a war unless the circumstances of the country itself demanded such action. But by 80 votes to 67 the Prime Minister's neutrality motion was defeated and, consequently, South Africa would, on 6 September, join Britain, France and the other Commonwealth nations in declaring itself to be in a state of war with Germany. Hertzog resigned and Smuts became Premiere.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Most Afrikaan people were pro-Nazi.
No, most were just anti-British due to the Boer Wars and wanted to stay neutral.
__________________
"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

Last edited by ddt; 16th April 2018 at 09:18 AM.
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 16th April 2018, 09:28 AM   #1349
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's not quite correct. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were not colonies in 1938
It's pointed out you are factually wrong so you double down and pretend you weren't while avoiding addressing the long list of outstanding questions asked of you. Your claim was that Australia and New Zealand would not have gone to war in 1938, which is plain wrong. Are you incapable of finding any relevant source that discusses the real balance of forces in 1938 or do you just not like what those sources have to say since they utterly contradict your beliefs?
__________________
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; 16th April 2018 at 09:30 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 16th April 2018, 10:28 AM   #1350
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Further, you conveniently omitted to mention that the Parliament of Canada, the only other part of the Commonwealth that wasn't automatically at war, voted overwhelmingly to support Britain (and France) by declaring war on Germany; I couldn't find an authoritative source, but I believe the motion passed the Commons by unanimous consent, and the Senate with only two dissenting votes. So there's no reason to believe that Canada wouldn't have declared war in 1938.
According to this Globe and Mail article from 11 Sept 1939, there was no recorded vote. It mentions no dissenters in the Senate, and three in the Commons: two French-Canadians, Liguori Lacombe and Wilfrid Lacroix, who proposed a "non-participation amendment", whatever that may mean (political support but no military support?).

The third dissenter was James Woodsworth, a methodist minister, avowed pacifist and the leader of the CCF, the precursor of the NDP:
Quote:
In a riveting parliamentary moment, the CCF allowed its leader – ill, failing, demoralized – to present his lonely call for Canadian neutrality. But it was his heir-apparent and by then de facto CCF leader M. J. Coldwell who offered the party's official and, with but one exception, unanimous support for the prime minister's motion of war.

Repeating that war settles nothing, Mr. Woodsworth declared: "I rejoice that it is possible to say these things in a Canadian Parliament under British institutions. It would not be possible in Germany, I recognize that ... and I want to maintain the very essence of our British institutions of real liberty. I believe that the only way to do it is by an appeal to the moral forces which are still resident among our people, and not by another resort to brute force."

[...]

In the end, addressing his own historic motion for war, the prime minister said:

"There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament."
__________________
"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 16th April 2018, 01:14 PM   #1351
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Repeating that war settles nothing, Mr. Woodsworth declared: "I rejoice that it is possible to say these things in a Canadian Parliament under British institutions. It would not be possible in Germany, I recognize that ... and I want to maintain the very essence of our British institutions of real liberty. I believe that the only way to do it is by an appeal to the moral forces which are still resident among our people, and not by another resort to brute force."
A noble, if misguided, sentiment and one which would indeed have gotten you a one way trip to a concentration camp in Germany in 1938. I wonder if Kristallnacht had taken place before Munich rather than after would the outcome of the conference have been different?
__________________
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; 16th April 2018 at 01:16 PM.
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2018, 02:43 AM   #1352
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
80-67 is not the narrowest majority, nor do 5 days make a year:

No, most were just anti-British due to the Boer Wars and wanted to stay neutral.
There is a bit about South African politics at the time in a book called Africa on a Tightrope by Henry Gibbs 1954:

Quote:
The most formidable opposition came from the Ossewa-Brandwag ("Oxwaggon-Sentinels"), the OB, an organization which sought to evolve a nationalist mystery similar to that of the Nazis and with whom the Nationalists had a working partnership. Other bodies in existence were the Greyshirts, the Volksparty, the Boere Nation, and more overlapping In emotional appeal and directed largely towards younger people. All indicated friendliness to Hitler's Germany.

From the outbreak of war members of each group showed hostility towards those in uniform. Dance-halls, cinemas, and clubs, displayed notices: "Soldiers in uniform not admitted." men and women in uniform were attacked and missiles thrown at their quarters and transports. In Johannesburg, Pretoria, and elsewhere, rowdy elements made a point of picking quarrels with servicemen. These incidents were caused almost without exception by bearded members of the OB; political shirts had been banned and OB members grew beards to demonstrate their feelings. When uniformed men replied in like measure they were accused of violence and misconduct little short of bestiality. Nationalist members delivered many weighty speeches upon the conduct of servicemen.
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 17th April 2018, 03:11 AM   #1353
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit about South African politics at the time in a book called Africa on a Tightrope by Henry Gibbs 1954:
Which in no way supports your previous assertion that:

Quote:
only declared war a year later with the narrowest of parliamentary majorities
Why can't you simply admit your claim was false? You have offered nothing to support your claim that the likes of Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa would not go to war in 1938, instead you have yet again ignored evidence to the contrary and offered more irrelevant twaddle rather than simply conceding you were wrong.
__________________
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 17th April 2018, 05:08 AM   #1354
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,422
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
A noble, if misguided, sentiment and one which would indeed have gotten you a one way trip to a concentration camp in Germany in 1938. I wonder if Kristallnacht had taken place before Munich rather than after would the outcome of the conference have been different?
Kristallnacht would have needed to take place before June 1937 for it to have had an effect on the Imperial Conference.
__________________
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 17th April 2018, 05:24 AM   #1355
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,409
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Kristallnacht would have needed to take place before June 1937 for it to have had an effect on the Imperial Conference.
Should probably have put that as a separate post but I really was thinking of whether it would have affected Munich.
__________________
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 17th April 2018, 06:59 AM   #1356
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's not quite correct. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were not colonies in 1938, though thank goodness they were on our side.

I never said they were colonies. Go back and reread what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
They were willing to declare war against Germany in 1939, but not in 1938:

Wishful thinking. From the Canadian Encyclopedia:
Canadians wanted nothing to do with another war in Europe, and neither did France and Britain, both desperately seeking to placate Hitler through negotiations and appeasement. In Ottawa, the Liberal government of William Lyon Mackenzie King hoped to steer Canada along a path of neutrality. However, the wily prime minister also knew that English Canadians would never agree to let Britain fight Germany alone without support from Canada and the other dominions.

King, too, had pledged support to Britain as far back as 1923. "If a great and clear call of duty comes, Canada will respond . . . as she did in 1914,” King had said – although he feared such public pronouncements upon his return to power in 1935 would alienate Québec. . . .

King despaired at the prospect of another overseas bloodbath dragging Canada into conflict. Nonetheless, he wrote in September 1938 that “it was a self-evident national duty, if Britain entered war, that Canada should regard herself as part of the British empire.”

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
https://quizlet.com/139651631/why-di...t-flash-cards/

Quote:
This meant that it was vital to protect this Empire. In the mid 1930s, Chiefs of Staff had warned Britain's leaders that could not afford to fight a war on three fronts- Germany in Europe, Italy in the Middle East and Japan in the Far East. Mussolini tried to stir up trouble in the Empire in 1937 by encouraging the Arab Revolt which threatened the Suez canal, a vital trade route.

Led to appeasement as Britain chose to concentrate their limited armed forces on the defence of the Empire as the threat here was seen as much greater than Hitler's actions in Europe. They therefore had no choice but to appease Germany as they didn't have enough military resources to do both.

At the Imperial Conference in London in 1937, member states of the British Empire, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, made it clear that they would not take part in another war in Europe due the horrors of the first one.

Led to appeasement, as addressing Germany's grievances was seen as a safer option than going to war without military back-up.

First, this is yet another anonymous online pronouncement you've dredge up, with no sources given. Second, granting that the non-highlited portions are at least somewhat accurate, they still applied in September 1939.

The hilited passage, however, is blatantly false. In addition to King's views about Canada that I mentioned above, Malcolm McKinnon (a real historian), writes, in Interdependence and Foreign Policy: New Zealand in the World Since 1935:
At the 1937 Imperial Conference, when McKenzie [sic] King of Canada supported appeasement and resisted involvement in war, [New Zealand Prime Minister Michael Joseph] Savage opposed appeasement and offered unqualified support to Britain in the event of war. . . . During the Munich crisis, the prospect of war involving Great Britain, and through it, New Zealand, did temper the government's zeal for speaking out on issues of war and peace. . . . But this did not mean that the government would not be on Britain's side in the event of war--quite the contrary: it was the appeasement of Hitler that caused them anxiety. And the government did not want loyalty to be an issue: 'I think it inadvisable for me to make any statement', Savage was reported saying on 5 September. 'Should Britain become involved in a war the policy of the New Zealand Government is wellknown [sic] to the authorities at Home.' [emphasis original; emphasis added; notes omitted]
__________________
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 17th April 2018, 07:28 AM   #1357
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit about South African politics at the time in a book called Africa on a Tightrope by Henry Gibbs 1954:
https://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossewabrandwag:
Quote:
Teen 1941 het die organisasie reeds ongeveer 350 000 lede gehad.
and in 1942, the Ossewabrandwag was outlawed.

At the time, the Afrikaander population was about 1.2 million, so 350,000 is still no evidence of a majority.
__________________
"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 17th April 2018, 07:32 AM   #1358
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
A noble, if misguided, sentiment and one which would indeed have gotten you a one way trip to a concentration camp in Germany in 1938.
Indeed. And I think it's admirable how respectful both the CCF and PM King engaged with it.

Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
I wonder if Kristallnacht had taken place before Munich rather than after would the outcome of the conference have been different?
I vote for no.

First, in international law and relations, it's considered worse when you invade even a square meter of foreign soil than that you slaughter millions of your own citizens. The latter is "internal affairs".

Second, the Runciman Report on which Chamberlain relied w.r.t. Sudetenland, wasn't exactly flattering on how the Czechs treated the Sudeten Germans either.
__________________
"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 17th April 2018, 08:11 AM   #1359
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,074
There is a bit about appeasement and Chamberlain, relevant to this thread, in a book by the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, Sir Robert Menzies called Afternoon Light 1967:

Quote:
Chamberlain's 'appeasement' at Munich was an appeasement from military weakness. He believed that Britain was not capable of a major war, and, in short, that the best must be made of a bad job. I have never been able to convince myself, though I know that better men have disagreed, that if Chamberlain had thrown down the gage at Munich, we would have won the ensuing war.

The real test is - what happened to British armament between Munich and September 1939? Winston Churchill made no secret of his belief that Hitler gained more strength from that fateful year than we did; that his taking over of Czechoslovakia gave him enormous resources of a military kind.. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that British equipment in fighter aircraft-
the development and production of the Hurricane and the Spitfire - grew rapidly under the energetic and imaginative administration of Lord Swinton.

I have not the slightest qualification to decide the issue. If Chamberlain believed not that he had secured a lasting accommodation with Hitler but that he had time to prepare, and if he acted vigorously in the gained period, then the later judgement that he was gulled and quiescent must be revised. Meanwhile, it must be recognized that when war came, and France fell, the House of Commons had no doubts, and rejected Chamberlain, and turned to Churchill.
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 17th April 2018, 08:23 AM   #1360
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,527
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Indeed. And I think it's admirable how respectful both the CCF and PM King engaged with it.


I vote for no.

First, in international law and relations, it's considered worse when you invade even a square meter of foreign soil than that you slaughter millions of your own citizens. The latter is "internal affairs".

Second, the Runciman Report on which Chamberlain relied w.r.t. Sudetenland, wasn't exactly flattering on how the Czechs treated the Sudeten Germans either.
I guess Henlein knew how to stage things...
__________________
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
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 05:17 PM.
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.