IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
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,
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child
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
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,120
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.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz

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
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
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
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,120
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.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
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: 8,750
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
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
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
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
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 25th May 2018, 12:16 PM   #1768
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,120
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."
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz

Last edited by SpitfireIX; 25th May 2018 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 25th May 2018, 01:44 PM   #1769
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,120
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.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
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 25th May 2018, 02:49 PM   #1770
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
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; 25th May 2018 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 26th May 2018, 02:14 AM   #1771
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
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; 26th May 2018 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 26th May 2018, 03:39 AM   #1772
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
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; 26th May 2018 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
Old 26th May 2018, 01:25 PM   #1773
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,120
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

Continuing evasion noted. When are you going to answer the questions that have been put to you? Especially:
  • Please explain, in detail, how Germany was going to conquer France and Britain in the fall of 1938 or the spring of 1939.
  • Please provide some real evidence that Chamberlain knew war with Germany was inevitable, and was only stalling to gain time for rearmament.
  • Please explain how Chamberlain's words and actions in 1938 square with the above claim.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
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 26th May 2018, 01:52 PM   #1774
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Continuing evasion noted. When are you going to answer the questions that have been put to you? Especially:
  • Please explain, in detail, how Germany was going to conquer France and Britain in the fall of 1938 or the spring of 1939.
  • Please provide some real evidence that Chamberlain knew war with Germany was inevitable, and was only stalling to gain time for rearmament.
  • Please explain how Chamberlain's words and actions in 1938 square with the above claim.


Agreed - it's about time you came up with the goods, Henri.
__________________
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 26th May 2018, 02:19 PM   #1775
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,120
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Agreed - it's about way past time you came up with the goods, Henri.

FTFY
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
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 26th May 2018, 02:52 PM   #1776
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
FTFY
Of course - how silly of me!
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat.
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 01:37 AM   #1777
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Me, I'm enjoying watching the metaphorical kicking that more knowledgeable posters have been administering.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
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 27th May 2018, 02:24 AM   #1778
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Continuing evasion noted. When are you going to answer the questions that have been put to you? Especially:
  • Please explain, in detail, how Germany was going to conquer France and Britain in the fall of 1938 or the spring of 1939.
  • Please provide some real evidence that Chamberlain knew war with Germany was inevitable, and was only stalling to gain time for rearmament.
  • Please explain how Chamberlain's words and actions in 1938 square with the above claim.

There are some interesting opinions about this matter on this forum, some of which make sense to me, though not very academic:

http://www.theminiaturespage.com/boa...g.mv?id=194298

Quote:
Alright I'll say what you all want to say – we Brits would have to fight the lot of them for 3 years on our own and not two.

NoLongerAMember
21 Mar 2010 1:46 p.m. PST

Stoodley, go forth and multiply with that old chestnut. At no point in WW2 did Britain stand alone in any sense except a purely geographical one.
1938, Britain forces were a disaster, the RAF and Army were re-arming and modernising as fast as they could, but they were a long way from being ready and they knew it.

Also, if France had not supported the stand over the Czechs, we had no physical way of aiding them. Munich was a case in do what you can diplomatically, and then back down if your bluff is called, while being ready for it to not be a bluff next time.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th May 2018 at 02:27 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 27th May 2018, 05:56 AM   #1779
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,120
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There are some interesting opinions about this matter on this forum, some of which make sense to me, though not very academic:

http://www.theminiaturespage.com/boa...g.mv?id=194298

Sigh. Continuing evasion noted. Why can't you just attempt to answer the questions that have been asked, rather than repeating semi-relevant opinions of anonymous Internet posters for which no supporting evidence is provided, and many of which are demonstrably incorrect? Is it because you don't want to admit that you can't answer?
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
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 27th May 2018, 06:16 AM   #1780
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Sigh. Continuing evasion noted. Why can't you just attempt to answer the questions that have been asked, rather than repeating semi-relevant opinions of anonymous Internet posters for which no supporting evidence is provided, and many of which are demonstrably incorrect? Is it because you don't want to admit that you can't answer?
It's not exactly evading the discussion as being in a completely different place to the discussion.

Here's a link to some information about the WWII, and I agree with some of it - however I leave you to guess which parts these are:

en.wikipedia.org
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
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 27th May 2018, 06:48 AM   #1781
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Sigh. Continuing evasion noted. Why can't you just attempt to answer the questions that have been asked, rather than repeating semi-relevant opinions of anonymous Internet posters for which no supporting evidence is provided, and many of which are demonstrably incorrect? Is it because you don't want to admit that you can't answer?
Evidence is like waffle, a word Henri doesn't understand. He think if he can find enough other people who share the same opinion as him that balances off everyone here who rejects his claims. He is simply unwilling to do any proper research, too afraid he will find proof he his 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 27th May 2018, 07:13 AM   #1782
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There are some interesting opinions about this matter on this forum, some of which make sense to me, though not very academic:

http://www.theminiaturespage.com/boa...g.mv?id=194298
Indeed, so why don't you cite them? For instance, this one:
Quote:
Katzbalger 21 Mar 2010 1:10 p.m. PST

A hard stand against Hitler would probably have made him back down, as Germanhy was in even worse shape (militarily) than UK and France.
[...]
If we are assuming Poland, Hungary, and Romania are neutral and its Britain and France with the Czechs, I think Germany would ahve had a VERY rough time--enough so that perhaps Hitler would have been kicked out, though Germany would probably not have been conquered. France would have borne the brunt of any action in the west (but it would not be significant). The Brits would be doing a blockade and mayben some pinprick type operations.
That's basically what we've been telling you all this thread.
__________________
"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 27th May 2018, 10:11 PM   #1783
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Indeed, so why don't you cite them? For instance, this one:

That's basically what we've been telling you all this thread.
Just a reminder, Henri cannot be wrong therefore we all have to be wrong. So he'll just keep repeating the same nonsense. This thread is dead but Henri cannot bring himself to accept his defeat. The Italians, Japanese and Germans and a host of satellites did but Henri, no he'll never surrender.

Expect more and more vapid postings.
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 28th May 2018, 04:39 PM   #1784
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,077
Part 2 of my alternate history "The War That Might Have Been..."

late January 1939 - The Czechs are holding out against the German forces, barely.

In the rough terrain of western Czechoslovakia have been able to halt the German penetration and stalemate the German offensive.

In the air the battle was more problematic . The original 50 Curtiss Hawk
aircraft had been ground down to barely 20 - many of them rebuilt several times from wrecks. The engines were worn out and performance suffered.

The losses forced the Czechs to carefully husband their resources. The Luftwaffe, noticing the slackening of the Czech air forces took full advantage
by upping the tempo of operations. Many towns were "blitzed", by the Luftwaffe causing severe damage. Even then the Czechs counterpunched conducting small scale limited attacks. Intruder missions where small numbers of light bombers, Tupolev SB purchased from the Soviet Union, would trail German formations back to their base attacking the air base just as the returning aircraft were landing, Several dozen German aircraft were
destroyed or damaged in this manner. The Luftwaffe were forced to divert fighters to patrol over the airbases and "clean" arriving formations to avoid
infiltrators. A spy in Austria reported some 2 dozen JU 52 transports parked on an airfield near Weiner Neustad. A low level attack, flying down the Danube
just above the river destroyed some 15 JU 52, escaping unscathed.

In the west The British were doing their part, naval forces blockaded Germany cutting off sea borne supplies, interdicting the flow of Swedish iron ore via the Norwegian port of Narvik. Limited air attacks against Northern German ports and the Ruhr were conducted by RAF Whitley and Hampden bombers, mainly at night to avoid the Luftwaffe. The Committee to Save Czechoslovakia had been established in Britain to aid the Czech government. Many members of the upper class lending their names (and money) to the cause kept up the pressure on the British government. The British offered send some surplus Hawker Hurricanes to assist the Czech air force, which the
Czechs demurred on to avoid complicatedly the logistical situation.

The French, on the outer hand, proved maddingly slow on organizing a offensive into Germany. The callup of reserve forces was slow and chaotic and the General Staff labored to man the forts of the Maginot Line while attempting to organize an offensive push into the Saar.

Even then the entry of Britain and French into the war against Czechoslovakia
forced the Germans to keep large forces on the Franco - German border. The
Luftwaffe was forced to maintain several squadrons of fighters in western Germany along with other aircraft to counter British attacks.

Help was on the way for the beleaguered Czechs. The French had agreed to divert their order of American Curtiss Hawk aircraft to the Czech air force. The ARMEE L 'AIRE sent a contingent of pilots to help the Czech fly them.

The Roosevelt administration used some slick lawyering (and winking at) bypassing Neutrality laws in order to ship the aircraft to the Czechs. Some 30 Curtiss Hawks of an improved type with more powerful 1050 hp engine and 6 machine gun armament would soon arrive.

The weather, would providently, provide a respite. Heavy fogs and snow storms shut down air activity for a week. The Czechs used the lull to maximum advantage, readying the newly arrived aircraft and using a shipment of spare engines to replace the worn engines of the existing aircraft.

Tactics were sharpened, including a new and terrifying tactic. the head on attack . A small number of aircraft would attack head on, closing to near suicidal range before opening fire . At a closing speed of nearly 500 mph
the risk of collision was distinct possibility. The head on attacks concentrated
fire on the most vulnerable sections of the aircraft. The terrifying sight of the
oncoming aircraft passing just meters away unnerved German fliers and broke up formations allowing the remainder of the squadron to pick off the bombers
njslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2018, 05:38 PM   #1785
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,077
The War That Might Been - Continued

January 31, 1939

Warned by the British that the weather would soon break, the Czechs waited for the impending onslaught

The Luftwaffe, noticing the slackening Czech Aerial response, had prepared a massive assault against Prague and several other Czech cities with the intent
of breaking the defenders morale

Goring boasted that his Luftwaffe would eradicate the Czech Untermensch

January 31 1939 dawned clear and cold, perfect flying weather.

Starting at dawn German recon and weather aircraft flew over Czechoslovakia, scoping out their targets

The Czechs did not molest the German aircraft, husbanding their resources for the coming assault. Pilots sat in their cockpits, engines warmed up waiting for the order to takeoff. They did not have long to wait

Ground observers reported massive formations of German aircraft heading into Czechoslovakia from airbases in Germany and recently annexed Austria

Czech pilots scrambled aloft into holding patterns, waiting to see the outline of the oncoming attack before committing their squadrons

Once the outline of the German attack was revealed the Czechs high command released their fighters, Curtiss Hawks an Avias against the German
formations.

Swirling dogfights crisscrossed the skies over Bohemia as the Czech fighters piled into the Luftwaffe. The head on attacks proved effective at disrupting
German formations allowing Czech fighters to take on the German bombers.
Throughout the day Czech fighters flew continuous sorties, landing to refuel and rearm, the pilots gulping hot sugary coffee to keep alert.

Many of the bombers were carrying heavy loads of 1 kg incendiary bombs designed to start numerous fires on the ground

Czech civil defense forces on the ground were hard pressed to find and extinguish the bombs before they could start a serious fire

Ever since the crisis had started civil defense had been uppermost in the Czech government. Short civil defense films were played at the beginning and end of feature films in the cinema. Tables were set up in the lobbies to distribute civil defense literature and sign up members for local civil defense
organizations. One Prague cinema would only play civil dense films continuously. Home and business owners were told to keep buckets of sand and water handy, along with tools like shovels (to scoop up burning incendiary)
and axes to cut away burning sections.

When the short winter day put an end to the combats, some 43 German aircraft had been downed with many more damaged, Czech losses were half that of the Germans. The Czechs had been able to deflect many of the German bomber formations.

The following day, February 1, German bomber formations were again on the attack, but the Czech head on attacks were proving effective at disrupting the
German bomber formations and more critically effecting morale .

Many of the bombers were dropping their loads at the first sign of Czech fighters to gain maneuvering speed and running for home

Because of this only 25 German aircraft were lost . Goring ranted at his aircrews, condemning them as cowards and malingers and threatening to fly the lead aircraft against the Czechs if his men would not
njslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 05:34 AM   #1786
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
Originally Posted by njslim View Post
The War That Might Been - Continued

January 31, 1939

Warned by the British that the weather would soon break, the Czechs waited for the impending onslaught

The Luftwaffe, noticing the slackening Czech Aerial response, had prepared a massive assault against Prague and several other Czech cities with the intent
of breaking the defenders morale

Goring boasted that his Luftwaffe would eradicate the Czech Untermensch

January 31 1939 dawned clear and cold, perfect flying weather.

Starting at dawn German recon and weather aircraft flew over Czechoslovakia, scoping out their targets

The Czechs did not molest the German aircraft, husbanding their resources for the coming assault. Pilots sat in their cockpits, engines warmed up waiting for the order to takeoff. They did not have long to wait

Ground observers reported massive formations of German aircraft heading into Czechoslovakia from airbases in Germany and recently annexed Austria

Czech pilots scrambled aloft into holding patterns, waiting to see the outline of the oncoming attack before committing their squadrons

Once the outline of the German attack was revealed the Czechs high command released their fighters, Curtiss Hawks an Avias against the German
formations.

Swirling dogfights crisscrossed the skies over Bohemia as the Czech fighters piled into the Luftwaffe. The head on attacks proved effective at disrupting
German formations allowing Czech fighters to take on the German bombers.
Throughout the day Czech fighters flew continuous sorties, landing to refuel and rearm, the pilots gulping hot sugary coffee to keep alert.

Many of the bombers were carrying heavy loads of 1 kg incendiary bombs designed to start numerous fires on the ground

Czech civil defense forces on the ground were hard pressed to find and extinguish the bombs before they could start a serious fire

Ever since the crisis had started civil defense had been uppermost in the Czech government. Short civil defense films were played at the beginning and end of feature films in the cinema. Tables were set up in the lobbies to distribute civil defense literature and sign up members for local civil defense
organizations. One Prague cinema would only play civil dense films continuously. Home and business owners were told to keep buckets of sand and water handy, along with tools like shovels (to scoop up burning incendiary)
and axes to cut away burning sections.

When the short winter day put an end to the combats, some 43 German aircraft had been downed with many more damaged, Czech losses were half that of the Germans. The Czechs had been able to deflect many of the German bomber formations.

The following day, February 1, German bomber formations were again on the attack, but the Czech head on attacks were proving effective at disrupting the
German bomber formations and more critically effecting morale .

Many of the bombers were dropping their loads at the first sign of Czech fighters to gain maneuvering speed and running for home

Because of this only 25 German aircraft were lost . Goring ranted at his aircrews, condemning them as cowards and malingers and threatening to fly the lead aircraft against the Czechs if his men would not
Fascinating! And thanks!

Did you know that the Luftwaffe used the same head-on attacks against the USAF bombers?
__________________
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 30th May 2018, 01:41 PM   #1787
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Fascinating! And thanks!

Did you know that the Luftwaffe used the same head-on attacks against the USAF bombers?
As did the RAF in the Battle of Britain.

If you are trying to disrupt a bombing formation, flying straight at it is an obviously good approach. Especially if you have a lot of firepower.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
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 30th May 2018, 02:31 PM   #1788
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,077
Head on attacks were effective in that many bombers lacked heavy forward firing armament

Most had only 1, maybe 2 mg often aimed by navigator or bombardiers doubling as gunners

Targeting the nose of the aircraft yields dividends in that the pilots and control
systems are based there

Also the front of the engine nacelles often have to the radiators and oil coolers - damage them and the engine seizes

To counter German head one attacks US fitted a turret with 2 .50 mg in the nose (Chin turret ) of Boeing B17 G model
njslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 02:36 PM   #1789
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,042
German Aircraft like the Heinkel 111 and the JU88 had a very exposed nose with lots of glass panels, the pilots were particularly easy to hit from a head on attack.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 02:44 PM   #1790
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
German Aircraft like the Heinkel 111 and the JU88 had a very exposed nose with lots of glass panels, the pilots were particularly easy to hit from a head on attack.
Yes, the bombers have to keep formation for most effective bombing, they didn't have that much forward armament and certainly needed to have vision and deflection shooting was less important.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
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 30th May 2018, 07:08 PM   #1791
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
German Aircraft like the Heinkel 111 and the JU88 had a very exposed nose with lots of glass panels, the pilots were particularly easy to hit from a head on attack.
Same for the Dornier 17 (the M variant was the most common, P was the recon version - 17 Z used during the Battle of Britain was not in service until 1939)

Luftwaffe liked to group the crews close together in the cockpit for mutual support and morale
njslim 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 31st May 2018, 12:11 PM   #1792
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by njslim View Post
Same for the Dornier 17 (the M variant was the most common, P was the recon version - 17 Z used during the Battle of Britain was not in service until 1939)

Luftwaffe liked to group the crews close together in the cockpit for mutual support and morale
So ideal for bringing Britain to it's knees in 1938.

Along with the Me262 - which was an aircraft that the RAF couldn't match in 1938.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
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 1st June 2018, 01:57 AM   #1793
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Chamberlain was a realist.
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 1st June 2018, 02:31 AM   #1794
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was a realist.
So that's it? You can't even be bothered to try and back up your claims with irrelevant websites anymore? There is not one shred of evidence to back up the notion that Chamberlain expected war, he certainly fell drastically short in preparing for one if he did. The army received little or no attention until it was far too late. So either your statement is wrong or Chamberlain was an utterly incompetent realist.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 04:17 AM   #1795
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 14,284
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was a realist.
No. Dangerous incompetent war-causing short-sighted person.
__________________
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 1st June 2018, 11:16 AM   #1796
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was a realist.
...are you sure you know what that means?

Now when you are working on the definition it may help to realize you aren't one.

"a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly"
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 11:20 AM   #1797
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
So that's it? You can't even be bothered to try and back up your claims with irrelevant websites anymore? There is not one shred of evidence to back up the notion that Chamberlain expected war, he certainly fell drastically short in preparing for one if he did. The army received little or no attention until it was far too late. So either your statement is wrong or Chamberlain was an utterly incompetent realist.
I would say Chamberlain was at best an non-realistic person having unrealistic expectations in regards to the situation he was in. He completely mistook Hitler as a politician with humane goals instead of the Mein Kampf nutcase he was.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 12:01 PM   #1798
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
I would say Chamberlain was at best an non-realistic person having unrealistic expectations in regards to the situation he was in. He completely mistook Hitler as a politician with humane goals instead of the Mein Kampf nutcase he was.
And this, along with his willingness to believe the most pessimistic estimates of German strength/British weakness constitutes the best defence of Chamberlain's actions. The problem for Henri is that when the real situation is take into account it still makes Chamberlain wrong and Churchill right, which is anathema to Henri.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 12:07 PM   #1799
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
And this, along with his willingness to believe the most pessimistic estimates of German strength/British weakness constitutes the best defence of Chamberlain's actions. The problem for Henri is that when the real situation is take into account it still makes Chamberlain wrong and Churchill right, which is anathema to Henri.
I have seen it argued that Chamberlain was pessimistic because he was suffering from depression caused by his terminal illness. It makes sense to me. Mum's last paintings were very different in tone to all the rest.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
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 1st June 2018, 12:24 PM   #1800
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
And this, along with his willingness to believe the most pessimistic estimates of German strength/British weakness constitutes the best defence of Chamberlain's actions. The problem for Henri is that when the real situation is take into account it still makes Chamberlain wrong and Churchill right, which is anathema to Henri.
Yeah he does seem to have a thing against both Churchill and Hillary Clinton always going on for years about her wanting to 'march on Moscow' or some such nonsense.

Hey Henri did you know that Hillary Clinton was Churchill's illegitimate daughter?
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
Reply

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

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 07:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.