ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags World War II history

Reply
Old 5th December 2018, 04:00 AM   #1921
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
No. As we've discussed, and you've continually ignored or attempted to handwave away, public opinion in Britain and the Commonwealth would have generally supported a war to stop Hitler in 1938, even if that support might have been reluctant in some quarters.

There is no hard documentary evidence that the Commonwealth would have generally supported a war to stop Hitler in 1938, and certainly no evidence that America or Russia would have been useful allies at the time. As Chamberlain once said war is a fearful thing. A war without allies is even more fearful, and the French were not much help.

As I have said before the Czechs were a faraway country of which we know nothing and the argument was between peoples of which we know nothing. It's a bit like Brexit now. The British public were only interested in beer, cigarettes and football, and perhaps in cricket and snooker. Like now they didn't want to march on Moscow or Tehran.

Schoolchildren are now being told in history lessons that Hitler was appeased because the British were more opposed to communism in Russia than Hitler which I think is a misreading of the facts. As I have said before Chamberlain was making a military rather than an emotional judgment and he had right judgment. With what?

There is some background to all this at:

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.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th December 2018 at 04:06 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 5th December 2018, 04:19 AM   #1922
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,326
Uh, yes, there is documentary evidence that Russia would have helped as Russia had signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia a couple of years earlier that specificed that it would, if France did.

Stalin was all for it.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 04:34 AM   #1923
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 18,129
Quote:
Schoolchildren are now being told in history lessons that Hitler was appeased because the British were more opposed to communism in Russia than Hitler
Where are schoolchildren being told this?
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 5th December 2018, 04:48 AM   #1924
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Where are schoolchildren being told this?
I seem to remember it was somewhere on this youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZNtakTs_DY&t=78s
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 05:04 AM   #1925
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,326
Maybe if you actually found a History syllabus stating it, rather than some random You Tube video.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 06:23 AM   #1926
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 18,129
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I seem to remember it was somewhere on this youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZNtakTs_DY&t=78s
YouTube is not part of the national curriculum.
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 5th December 2018, 09:16 AM   #1927
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
There is a website for history teachers which looks at appeasement from an Australian perspective at:

https://michaelmolkentin.com/wp-cont...tage-6-Day.pdf

Quote:
This debate centres on the questions of when Britain and its allies adopted a policy of appeasement, who was responsible for it and why (for what reasons) they appeased Hitler.

Traditionally, historians have seen appeasement as a product of Britain’s weak leaders in the 1930s and an aberration of British foreign policy. More recent scholarship, however, explains appeasement by referring to the economic, military and political difficulties that Britain’s leaders faced in the inter-war period and, in any case, note that appeasement had been a long standing feature of British foreign policy before the 1930s.

- British and French approaches to appeasement in the 1930s

When considering this debate students can compare how historians have explained the contribution that France and Britain made to the policy of appeasement respectively. French historians have often blamed the British for being too soft on Germany while, conversely, British historians have sometimes been quick to point out France’s weakness between the wars and the way in which this constrained British action.

- international reactions to appeasement in the 1930s

Studies written in English have traditionally been Eurocentric in their analysis of appeasement: British, Germany, France and Italy have taken centre stage. In recent decades historians have taken a broader view of appeasement, considering it in a more global context and indicating the significance of the way in which other nations, especially the United States and the British Dominions reacted to appeasement.

- appeasement and the origins of the Second World War

Since the 1960s the causes of the Second World War have been a contentious issue among scholars. Up for debate is the relative significance of such factors as the Treaty of Versailles, the failure of the League of Nations, the Great Depression, Hitler’s foreign policy goals and, of course, appeasement, in causing the war. Some see appeasement as a response to these other issues and not significant in itself of causing the war. Others perceive it as a principal cause of the war – one which, if replaced with a different approach, might have averted war altogether.

- the extent of the successes and/or failures of appeasement.

A major concern in most commentary on appeasement is an evaluation of its results: was it a success in that it delayed war while Britain prepared to fight? Or was it a failed attempt at avoiding war altogether. And even within these two interpretations there is a diversity of views as to in what ways and to what extent it was a success or failure. At the heart of this debate lies a question about the goal of appeasement: was it to delay war or prevent it altogether?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th December 2018 at 09:19 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 5th December 2018, 01:58 PM   #1928
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,492
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a website for history teachers which looks at appeasement from an Australian perspective at:

https://michaelmolkentin.com/wp-cont...tage-6-Day.pdf

And how does that support this claim

Quote:
Schoolchildren are now being told in history lessons that Hitler was appeased because the British were more opposed to communism in Russia than Hitler which I think is a misreading of the facts.
What you've quoted is nothing but a restatement of the very same questions that have been discussed at length in this thread, and it doesn't include one word about the USSR. Appeasement is a failure whichever way you look at it. If it was intended to preserves peace it failed and if it was an attempt to buy time it failed because Hitler's Germany gained far more from the extra time than the Allies did.
__________________
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 6th December 2018, 03:53 AM   #1929
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Uh, yes, there is documentary evidence that Russia would have helped as Russia had signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia a couple of years earlier that specificed that it would, if France did.

Stalin was all for it.
That's the Russian historical propaganda now, but the fact is that the Red Army was a laughing stock in 1938, like the American army and French army at the time. Stalin regarded Britain and France as his enemy rather than Germany. Stalin had bumped off most of his best generals and officers by then. Zhukov did warn Stalin of the grave peril from a German invasion but Stalin ignored and rejected that criticism. Stalin was seduced by the possibility of acquiring the Baltic sates and eastern Poland with a pact and appeasement with Germany.

I agree that it's all very upsetting that the Czechs were abandoned, but you have to face facts in these situations. There is some waffle about all this at this website which I concede again may not be the pure unadulterated historical truth, but which makes sense to me:

http://www.intriguing-history.com/ap...gmatic-policy/

Quote:
But Chamberlain’s view was in some ways more pragmatic and realistic at this particular point in time. Britain simply was not ready even if it was willing to go to war and certainly there was no public or popular support to take such drastic action in the critical period of 1938-1939.

When Chamberlain falls dreadfully short seems to be when he is caught unaware of the likely outcome of Appeasement, once his last gambit for peace had been played. Did he really ever believe Appeasement would actually work or was it just a phase of tactically delaying Hitler and playing for time? Time was critically needed to mobilise and make ready for war. Britain was caught out in that lack of preparation but that was not down to Chamberlain alone.

Churchill in spite of his rhetoric could not have transformed Britain’s readiness for war overnight anymore than Chamberlain could have. Hitler was on the move and Britain as well as Europe was not ready to effectively resist it.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th December 2018 at 03:59 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 04:10 AM   #1930
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: 28,159
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's the Russian historical propaganda now, but the fact is that the Red Army was a laughing stock in 1938, like the American army and French army at the time.
The Japanese dead at Nomonhan were not laughing.

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 6th December 2018, 04:28 AM   #1931
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The Japanese dead at Nomonhan were not laughing.

Dave
I agree that Zhukov was a good Russian general and that the Siberian troops were crack troops who were extremely tough and used to winter warfare. The performance of the Red Army in the short war with Finland was pathetic and this fact was noticed by Hitler.

My father always used to say when he was alive that the best news of the war was when Germany invaded Soviet Russia.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 05:12 AM   #1932
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,681
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The Japanese dead at Nomonhan were not laughing.

Dave
Precisely. I've long said that Khalkin Gol was the turning point of WWII. Somewhat hyperbolic, yes, but the gist is right.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 05:18 AM   #1933
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,681
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's the Russian historical propaganda now, but the fact is that the Red Army was a laughing stock in 1938, like the American army and French army at the time. Stalin regarded Britain and France as his enemy rather than Germany. Stalin had bumped off most of his best generals and officers by then. Zhukov did warn Stalin of the grave peril from a German invasion but Stalin ignored and rejected that criticism. Stalin was seduced by the possibility of acquiring the Baltic sates and eastern Poland with a pact and appeasement with Germany.

I agree that it's all very upsetting that the Czechs were abandoned, but you have to face facts in these situations. There is some waffle about all this at this website which I concede again may not be the pure unadulterated historical truth, but which makes sense to me:

http://www.intriguing-history.com/ap...gmatic-policy/
Not sure why I'm bothering as your performance to date indicates it is a futile attempt, but the bit I highlighted is laughable given how you have repeatedly and insistently ignored the facts presented to you and given that even you say your latest link may not be factual.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that Zhukov was a good Russian general and that the Siberian troops were crack troops who were extremely tough and used to winter warfare. The performance of the Red Army in the short war with Finland was pathetic and this fact was noticed by Hitler.

My father always used to say when he was alive that the best news of the war was when Germany invaded Soviet Russia.
Crack troops but a laughing stock. And yet facts matter.

The Winter War performance was a matter of poor leadership. As was shown repeatedly, the Soviets performed quite well when led well, particularly after gaining some experience, which, by the way, is true of nearly all militaries. The German army in 1938 was not quite a laughing stock, but it was more of a shell than was the Soviet army, and in the invasion of France its success was due more to a bunch of "in spite ofs" than it was to a bunch of "because ofs."

And it is apparent that you completely misunderstand your father's meaning.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 05:30 AM   #1934
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: 28,159
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
My father always used to say when he was alive that the best news of the war was when Germany invaded Soviet Russia.
Had the Red Army truly been a laughing stock, it would have been extremely bad news, of course; a Third Reich with the oil and resources of European Russia and no credible enemy in the East would have been a terrifying prospect.

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 6th December 2018, 09:16 AM   #1935
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
If it was intended to preserves peace it failed and if it was an attempt to buy time it failed because Hitler's Germany gained far more from the extra time than the Allies did.
Chamberlain provided another year to get organised.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:22 AM   #1936
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,681
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain provided another year to get organised.
The facts you ignore, still.

Chamberlain provided another year for Germany to "get organised," and that time served Germany better. Everything else is distraction.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:41 AM   #1937
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
The German army in 1938 was not quite a laughing stock, but it was more of a shell than was the Soviet army, and in the invasion of France its success was due more to a bunch of "in spite ofs" than it was to a bunch of "because ofs."
I don't think that is quite correct. In the book The Russian Outlook published by Lieutenant -General Sir Giffard Martel in 1947 he writes:

Quote:
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. No wonder that the German forces and their commanders were full of confidence.....
There is a bit of waffle about all this on another forum which I admit might not be listening to experts:


https://www.reddit.com/r/history/com...d_powers_1939/

Quote:
This won't all be sourced, as most of it is cobbled together from my past research on the subject. Unfortunately, I can't find many figures for these things either, so I can only talk in broad terms. But hopefully it will help answer your question somewhat.

Army/Air Force

France: In 1939 the French Army was widely considered the best in the world. Notably, France outnumbered Germany in tanks, planes, and just about everything else. Its equipment was top-of-the-line and was in most cases equal to or better than what the Germans had. However, the French military suffered from poor leadership, poor morale and outdated doctrine.

Germany: Contrary to popular belief, the Wehrmacht in 1939 was materially quite poorly off. Its equipment was decent enough, though the French had better, but it was otherwise fairly unremarkable, and it was quite lacking in tanks, planes and so forth. It did, however, have excellent leadership, high morale and better doctrine than anyone realized at the time, even the Germans themselves.

Soviet Union: The Red Army was the largest in the world in 1939 and even in 1941 the USSR had more planes, tanks, men, et al. than Germany. However, it was poorly equipped compared to France and Germany, and terribly lead, mostly thanks to Stalin killing almost every military leader with half a brain. Its abysmal performance against Finland was a testament to this.

Japan: Very large army, as the Imperial Japanese Army was currently invading and occupying much of China. However, it was poorly equipped, having almost no tanks and fairly low-quality guns, and was decisively defeated by the Red Army in border conflicts in 1939.

United Kingdom: The British Army was well-equipped, superbly trained, and pathetically small. The UK had recently begun rearming itself in response to increased German aggression, but it was too late.

Italy: Poor morale, leadership and equipment made the Italian Army a laughing stock. Its "might" was displayed to the world in 1940 with the Italian invasion of Greece.

United States: Had the 17th largest army in the world at the time, behind Portugal. A joke.

So, to rank overall (very subjective, mind you):
France
Germany
Soviet Union
Japan
United Kingdom
Italy
United States

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th December 2018 at 10:46 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:55 AM   #1938
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,681
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
The German army in 1938 was not quite a laughing stock, but it was more of a shell than was the Soviet army, and in the invasion of France its success was due more to a bunch of "in spite ofs" than it was to a bunch of "because ofs."
I don't think that is quite correct. In the book The Russian Outlook published by Lieutenant -General Sir Giffard Martel in 1947 he writes:

Quote:
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. No wonder that the German forces and their commanders were full of confidence.....
There is a bit of waffle about all this on another forum which I admit might not be listening to experts:


https://www.reddit.com/r/history/com...s_1939</span>/

Quote:
This won't all be sourced, as most of it is cobbled together from my past research on the subject. Unfortunately, I can't find many figures for these things either, so I can only talk in broad terms. But hopefully it will help answer your question somewhat.

Army/Air Force

France: In 1939 the French Army was widely considered the best in the world. Notably, France outnumbered Germany in tanks, planes, and just about everything else. Its equipment was top-of-the-line and was in most cases equal to or better than what the Germans had. However, the French military suffered from poor leadership, poor morale and outdated doctrine.

Germany: Contrary to popular belief, the Wehrmacht in 1939 was materially quite poorly off. Its equipment was decent enough, though the French had better, but it was otherwise fairly unremarkable, and it was quite lacking in tanks, planes and so forth. It did, however, have excellent leadership, high morale and better doctrine than anyone realized at the time, even the Germans themselves.

Soviet Union: The Red Army was the largest in the world in 1939 and even in 1941 the USSR had more planes, tanks, men, et al. than Germany. However, it was poorly equipped compared to France and Germany, and terribly lead, mostly thanks to Stalin killing almost every military leader with half a brain. Its abysmal performance against Finland was a testament to this.

Japan: Very large army, as the Imperial Japanese Army was currently invading and occupying much of China. However, it was poorly equipped, having almost no tanks and fairly low-quality guns, and was decisively defeated by the Red Army in border conflicts in 1939.

United Kingdom: The British Army was well-equipped, superbly trained, and pathetically small. The UK had recently begun rearming itself in response to increased German aggression, but it was too late.

Italy: Poor morale, leadership and equipment made the Italian Army a laughing stock. Its "might" was displayed to the world in 1940 with the Italian invasion of Greece.

United States: Had the 17th largest army in the world at the time, behind Portugal. A joke.

So, to rank overall (very subjective, mind you):
France
Germany
Soviet Union
Japan
United Kingdom
Italy
United States
I will post just this once more in direct response to you. If you acknowledge your obvious errors, I may post more; if not, I will simply recognize you as someone uninterested in actual discussion or actual facts and not worth my time and will restrict my comments to others in the thread.

Do you see the problems in comparing the highlighted parts?
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 01:54 PM   #1939
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,492
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain provided another year to get organised.
Which in no way contradicts my point, the Germans gained far more from that extra time than the British did.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that Zhukov was a good Russian general and that the Siberian troops were crack troops who were extremely tough and used to winter warfare.
What a shame for the Soviets then that Khalkin Gol was a summer campaign...

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't think that is quite correct. In the book The Russian Outlook published by Lieutenant -General Sir Giffard Martel in 1947 he writes:

Two things wrong with that quote. First that was 1941 not 1938 and secondly the notion that nothing had been spared is nonsense. Had you bothered to looked at a source that benefitted from the decades of research since 1947 you would be aware that the Wehrmacht of 1941 was desperately overstretched and crossing its fingers that the Soviets would collapse before the Heer's logistics broke down.

And as for your next quote:

Quote:
France: In 1939 the French Army was widely considered the best in the world. Notably, France outnumbered Germany in tanks, planes, and just about everything else. Its equipment was top-of-the-line and was in most cases equal to or better than what the Germans had. However, the French military suffered from poor leadership, poor morale and outdated doctrine.

Germany: Contrary to popular belief, the Wehrmacht in 1939 was materially quite poorly off. Its equipment was decent enough, though the French had better, but it was otherwise fairly unremarkable, and it was quite lacking in tanks, planes and so forth. It did, however, have excellent leadership, high morale and better doctrine than anyone realized at the time, even the Germans themselves.

Which literally contradicts your claim that French Army was a laughing stock. It also makes it clear that even by 1939 the Heer was far from overwhelming. Do you read any of the material you quote?
__________________
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; 6th December 2018 at 02:04 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 6th December 2018, 02:08 PM   #1940
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,492
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
I will post just this once more in direct response to you. If you acknowledge your obvious errors, I may post more; if not, I will simply recognize you as someone uninterested in actual discussion or actual facts and not worth my time and will restrict my comments to others in the thread.

Do you see the problems in comparing the highlighted parts?
I'm afraid that honest debate is not in Henri's vocabulary. He will simply post some poorly researched quotes from some blog, or political editorial relating appeasement to modern politics, without bothering to read the whole thing, meaning that it more often than not says the opposite of what he thinks it says. I don't think anyone is really posting for Henri's benefit.
__________________
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 6th December 2018, 03:04 PM   #1941
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,681
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
I'm afraid that honest debate is not in Henri's vocabulary. He will simply post some poorly researched quotes from some blog, or political editorial relating appeasement to modern politics, without bothering to read the whole thing, meaning that it more often than not says the opposite of what he thinks it says. I don't think anyone is really posting for Henri's benefit.
It becomes rather obvious, yes. Still, an interesting thread. I've a military background and am considered the military historian in my large circle of friends, but I find myself amazed at how much more people on this site know.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 05:57 AM   #1942
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,495
I might trust the LGen's opinion more if he hadn't made the obvious error that the finest military machine was not the Heer of 1941, but rather the Canadian Corps of 1918.

It was a highly trained force that was considered innovative in its tactics, highly practiced in combined arms warfare, with excellent morale and equipment.

Yes, I'm biased.
__________________
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 7th December 2018, 09:42 AM   #1943
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,480
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
It becomes rather obvious, yes. Still, an interesting thread. I've a military background and am considered the military historian in my large circle of friends, but I find myself amazed at how much more people on this site know.
Hey, you're well ahead of me.

But at least I know that the Bismark wasn't a threat to the Royal Navy before it was commissioned, and that it was unreasonable to expect Chamberlain to have warned Stalin of the details of the planning for the invasion of Russia before the Germans started planning it.
__________________
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 7th December 2018, 09:46 AM   #1944
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: 28,159
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
[...] it was unreasonable to expect Chamberlain to have warned Stalin of the details of the planning for the invasion of Russia before the Germans started planning it.
Or, alternatively, after he was dead.

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 7th December 2018, 09:50 AM   #1945
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,480
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Or, alternatively, after he was dead.

Dave
Indeed, I should have said, when the planning started after Chamberlain had died.
__________________
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 7th December 2018, 02:46 PM   #1946
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,849
Today is Dec 7th, and in the US we are getting the usual articlas and stories about Pearl Harbor.
ANd also the usual "FDR Knew About the Attack In Advance" crap.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 8th December 2018, 03:33 AM   #1947
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Hey, you're well ahead of me.

But at least I know that the Bismark wasn't a threat to the Royal Navy before it was commissioned, and that it was unreasonable to expect Chamberlain to have warned Stalin of the details of the planning for the invasion of Russia before the Germans started planning it.
Chamberlain was fully aware of Hitler's intention to invade Soviet Russia several years back. It's what is known technically as our SECRET service. Zhukov also had his half-suspicions and he had given the Japanese a bloody nose in the far east with his Siberian troops. One aspect of this is that if Churchill and Eden and France had declared war in 1938 the public and House of Commons would forever be blaming Britain for starting the war, which would be most unfair. Stalin was only interested in invading eastern Poland. What a twit!

There is a discussion about all this on this forum which I admit may not be profound enough:

www.theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=87032

Quote:
Actually I've been contemplating the same question.

See Occupation of Poland topic in WWII Books.

Just finished Master of Spies, the Memoirs of Frantisek Moravec. You'll be fascinated to know that Czech intelligence was well aware of what Germany was planning. What is shocking is how apathetic the Czech government's response was.

The lack of support from its allies was a big factor in the lack of Czech resistance. It is hard to say how it would fared militarily. The Czechs had a good idea of what they were up against, which helps a lot. But, they would have depended on swift intervention by France and Russia. I get the feeling Russia was actually collaborating with Germany at this point in history.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th December 2018 at 03:37 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 8th December 2018, 10:32 AM   #1948
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,492
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was fully aware of Hitler's intention to invade Soviet Russia several years back. It's what is known technically as our SECRET service.
Everyone who read Mein Kampf knew Hitler intended to invade the USSR, so Chamberlain had no special knowledge. SIS certainly did discover information about Barbarossa, after Chamberlain was dead. That info reached the Soviets, in no small part via Philby but Stalin ignored it, along with the fact that the entire Heer was parked on his borders.

Quote:
Zhukov also had his half-suspicions and he had given the Japanese a bloody nose in the far east with his Siberian troops.
Have you figured out which season the Khalkin Gol campaign took place in yet?

Quote:
One aspect of this is that if Churchill and Eden and France had declared war in 1938 the public and House of Commons would forever be blaming Britain for starting the war, which would be most unfair.
Again nonsense. Prior to Munich Britain was preparing for war, no one wanted war but there seems to have been a general sense that Hitler was determined to start one, hence the hysterical overreaction when Chamberlain sold out the Czechs.

Quote:
Stalin was only interested in invading eastern Poland. What a twit!
Stalin was interested in getting Germany to focus on fighting France, hoping for a rerun of the Western Front in WWI. That was why he signed up to the M-R Pact, the territorial gains were a bonus. Really Henri you need to stop reading political blogs and start reading some actual history books about the period.

Quote:
There is a discussion about all this on this forum which I admit may not be profound enough:
Profundity is irrelevant as it is plain wrong about Stalin co-operating with Hitler in 1938. It was only after Munich demonstrated that the British and French were prepared to throw their allies to the wolves that his attitude changed. Likewise Hitler was still hoping for a grand anti-Communist alliance with the British in 1938. So yet again you've found an irrelevant blog rather than doing any proper reading. If you want to post something 'profound' try picking up a history book, any of the ones discussed in this thread would be a start.
__________________
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 8th December 2018, 02:35 PM   #1949
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post

Have you figured out which season the Khalkin Gol campaign took place in yet?
There is a bit of background information to that Khalkin Gol battle at this website:

https://historyofrussia.org/khalkhin...ttle-nomonhan/

Quote:
Under the then unknown General Georgy Zhukov, the Soviets won a crushing victory at the battle of Khalkhin-Gol (known in Japan as the Nomonhan Incident).

Defeat persuaded the Japanese to expand into the Pacific, where they saw the United States as a weaker opponent than the Soviet Union. If the Japanese had not lost at Khalkhin Gol, they may never have attacked Pearl Harbor.
The Russians were never invited to the Munich agreement in the same way as they were never invited for the treaty of Versailles. I still maintain Stalin was a useless ally of the Czechs for signing a non aggression pact with Hitler. I suppose he might have changed his mind when he fired his Jewish diplomats, and I think foreign Minister Litvinov and replaced him with Molotov. At least the French promised to go to war if Hitler continued after he occupied Prague. The British were never legally bound to go to war over the Czech problem, and neither was the Commonwealth, or America.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th December 2018 at 02:47 PM.
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 8th December 2018, 02:39 PM   #1950
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,492
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit of background information to that Khalkin Gol battle at this website:

https://historyofrussia.org/khalkhin...ttle-nomonhan/
Henri, are you really this dense?

You were the one who posted:
Quote:
I agree that Zhukov was a good Russian general and that the Siberian troops were crack troops who were extremely tough and used to winter warfare.
When Khalkin Gol was fought in the summer. Simply regurgitating information you obtained from other posters here as if you were offering some insight is fooling no one. It was painfully obvious you knew nothing about Khalkin Gol, that you've frantically googled up a website that mentions it earns you no credit.
__________________
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; 8th December 2018 at 02:40 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 9th December 2018, 03:13 AM   #1951
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Henri, are you really this dense?

You were the one who posted:


When Khalkin Gol was fought in the summer. Simply regurgitating information you obtained from other posters here as if you were offering some insight is fooling no one. It was painfully obvious you knew nothing about Khalkin Gol, that you've frantically googled up a website that mentions it earns you no credit.
All I was saying is that the Siberian troops under Zhukov gave the Japanese a bloody nose whether it was winter or summer. The Russians staged some very successful counter attacks against the Germans, who were no match for the Russians in fighting under these conditions of intense cold. It's lack of vision.
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 9th December 2018, 04:49 AM   #1952
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,492
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All I was saying is that the Siberian troops under Zhukov gave the Japanese a bloody nose whether it was winter or summer.
No what you were saying was:

Quote:
but the fact is that the Red Army was a laughing stock in 1938
Khalkin Gol was brought up to point that this was incorrect. You responded by some hasty googling to find out what Nomonhan was and made such a hash of it you waffled on(which BTW is a correct use of that word) about winter warfare. In other words you yet again made an extravagant claim in the same vein as 'Britain would be defeated in a week' and rather than simply admitting it was wrong you're blustering and pretending you knew about Nomonhan all along even as your weak reading comprehension reveals the opposite.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 09:45 AM   #1953
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
No what you were saying was:



Khalkin Gol was brought up to point that this was incorrect. You responded by some hasty googling to find out what Nomonhan was and made such a hash of it you waffled on(which BTW is a correct use of that word) about winter warfare. In other words you yet again made an extravagant claim in the same vein as 'Britain would be defeated in a week' and rather than simply admitting it was wrong you're blustering and pretending you knew about Nomonhan all along even as your weak reading comprehension reveals the opposite.
I have always said that the Siberian troops were crack troops under Zhukov and that they were particularly good at winter warfare. That Russian Normonhan battle against the Japanese is something that is given very little publicity nowadays in TV documentaries, probably because there were no film cameramen there at the time to witness it. If it was summer or winter is not all that relevant.

The point I was making is that it was a poor performance by the Red Army against Finland and they were supposed to be an ally of the Czechs by a signed agreement, unlike the British. If Britain had gone to war on its own in 1938, or to have a military conflict over Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland and Austria with no reliable allies it would have been a military disaster, and it would not have had public support even if it was honourable as Churchill or Eden seemed to think.

There is a bit of background information to that Red Army war against Finland at :

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Finlan...r-against-USSR

Quote:
A factor in the poor Red Army performance was Stalin’s purge of the Red Army, killing many competent officers and assigning more to the Gulag. They were replaced with Party hacks. For Stalin, loyalty was more important than competence.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th December 2018 at 09:47 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 9th December 2018, 01:52 PM   #1954
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,492
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have always said that the Siberian troops were crack troops under Zhukov and that they were particularly good at winter warfare. That Russian Normonhan battle against the Japanese is something that is given very little publicity nowadays in TV documentaries, probably because there were no film cameramen there at the time to witness it. If it was summer or winter is not all that relevant.

What's relevant is that you knew nothing about it but still opined that the Soviet army was a 'laughing stock' and maybe if you tried to learn about history from something other than TV documentaries maybe you wouldn't make so many ludicrous claims.

Quote:
The point I was making is that it was a poor performance by the Red Army against Finland and they were supposed to be an ally of the Czechs by a signed agreement, unlike the British.
And that performance had no effect on peoples opinion of the Red Army in 1938, and it wasn't the Red Army that the Heer was afraid of in 1938, it was the French.

Quote:
If Britain had gone to war on its own in 1938, or to have a military conflict over Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland and Austria with no reliable allies it would have been a military disaster, and it would not have had public support even if it was honourable as Churchill or Eden seemed to think.
Again you spout the same nonsense, the French army of 1938 was overwhelmingly more powerful than the Heer, you simply assert they were somehow unreliable in defiance of all the facts presented to you. And again Churchill is irrelevant to the events of 1938.

Quote:
There is a bit of background information to that Red Army war against Finland at :
No Henri, no one is interested in whatever blog you've dredged up this time, do some real reading about history instead of counting on Google if you want your claims to be taken seriously
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 02:24 PM   #1955
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 983
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have always said that the Siberian troops were crack troops under Zhukov and that they were particularly good at winter warfare. That Russian Normonhan battle against the Japanese is something that is given very little publicity nowadays in TV documentaries, probably because there were no film cameramen there at the time to witness it. If it was summer or winter is not all that relevant.
Actually it is because you dismissed the Red Army has an effective fighting force in 1938. You were then told about Normonhan. You responded by implying that it was a winter battle, and thus why the Soviets won. The implication being that the Red Army would not have done will in a summer / autumn battle. It was pointed out the battle was in summer. So guess what whether it was summer or winter is relevant.

P.S. it also shows despite the disastrous effects of the purges the Red army could be very effective even in 1938.

Quote:
The point I was making is that it was a poor performance by the Red Army against Finland and they were supposed to be an ally of the Czechs by a signed agreement, unlike the British. If Britain had gone to war on its own in 1938, or to have a military conflict over Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland and Austria with no reliable allies it would have been a military disaster, and it would not have had public support even if it was honourable as Churchill or Eden seemed to think.
Henri repeating the same refuted nonsense over and over again doesn't make it any more valid. I note that you forget that it was France that also had a military alliance with Czechoslovakia. During the whole Munich crisis the British were pressuring the French to abandon the Czechs. The British also rebuffed efforts of the Soviets to be involved and support the Czech government.

Also has a participant in the treaties that ended the First World War it is at least arguable that Britain had a legal obligation to protect Czechoslovakia. And thanks for the straw men,. Britain would not of gone to war alone in 1938. France would have almost certainly have gone to war also along with Czechoslovakia and very likely the Soviet Union would have provided aid at least. And France and the Czechs would certainly have been reliable allies at the time.

And of course if any allies were unreliable to any extent that would have been at least partly due to British appeasement policy often undercutting Britain's allies. Thus for example Munich largely destroyed the Western alliance system in Eastern Europe. As one Eastern power after the other concluded that both the French and British could not be counted on has allies and it was best to seek an accommodation with Germany and Italy. And of course it powerfully encouraged Stalin to also seek an accommodation with Germany. (The first hints of that were in April 1939 just after the occupation of Prague by the Nazis.)

As for being a "military disaster" isn't it so interesting that the German Generals and their staffs were predicting utter disaster for the Reich if war happened in late 1938. That they believed eventual defeat nearly certain if war came then. You should of course read Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction which makes it absolutely clear that Germany was not ready for war in late 1938 and that almost certainly the result would have been defeat for Germany, as the German Generals and their staffs at the time thought.

As for your mentioning of the Rhineland crisis of 1936. Does it have to be pointed out again that Hitler had given instructions that if the French in response to German troops moving in, moved their troops into the Rhineland. That the German troops were to withdraw at once. The French considered doing so and asked for British support. The British refused to support such a move so the French didn't respond. There would not have been a war at all. Instead a very humiliated Nazi regime would likely have been discredited. And of course neither the Brits nor the French were at the time in any danger of defeat at the hands of the utterly inferior, then, German army.

I also note that in the Munich agreement the Brits and the French guaranteed the territorial etc., integrity of the rump Czechoslovakia. When Hitler violated the agreement Chamberlain did very little and was still looking for ways to continue appeasement. Chamberlain ruled out sanctions of any kind and even has I have said before agreed to turn over the Czech gold reserves held in the Bank of England to the Nazis. The only positive acts were that Chamberlain was forced very reluctantly to agree to greater rearmament measures. But those like certain other policies he adopted at the time were things he was basically forced to do. I also note that after the invasion of Poland Chamberlain tried to find a petty fogging legalistic reason to avoid declaring war on Germany. His Cabinet revolted and forced him to do so.

As for lack of popular support. Once again asserting what is not so doesn't make it so. The evidence in fact indicates popular support for going to war among the allies. But if we are going to play this game of popular. German documentation indicates that if any population was extremely reluctant to go to war and a lack of popular support for such a move it was the German population!

I note that you also continue to repeat your nonsense about going to war in 1938 would have been a disaster for the British. Just how? The U-Boat threat would have been vastly less than in 1939. The ability of the Germans to wage a strategic air campaign against Britain was close to zero. And of course Germany would have felt the effects of a blockade without the powerful assist of Soviet aid. So why are you repeating arrant nonsense.

The whole point is that appeasement helped greatly to strengthen the Nazi regime and was very effective in undermining allied power and influence in much of Europe. It was neither clever nor smart in the long term. The end result was to diplomatically isolate France and Britain, destroy the alliance structure that furthered the allied goal of maintaining the peace. The appeasers were very successful in strengthening their enemies, and undermining their friends.

As it is your ignorance is amazing. For starters I suggest you read the book I mentioned above.

Quote:
There is a bit of background information to that Red Army war against Finland at :

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Finlan...r-against-USSR
The name of the url doesn't encourage me, since Finland lost the Winter War in reality.

Last edited by Pacal; 9th December 2018 at 02:33 PM.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 02:32 AM   #1956
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: 28,159
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Actually it is because you dismissed the Red Army has an effective fighting force in 1938. You were then told about Normonhan. You responded by implying that it was a winter battle, and thus why the Soviets won.
Whereas they didn't do so well in the Winter War. I'm not exactly sure what season that was fought in, but I'm sure that whatever the Red Army did in 1940 was something everyone factored into their assessments in 1938.

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 10th December 2018, 03:35 AM   #1957
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,326
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I still maintain Stalin was a useless ally of the Czechs for signing a non aggression pact with Hitler.
Seriously, Henri.
Your timelines are all over the place.
It really doesn't do your arguments any good when you come out with rubbish like this.

I'll help you here:
Sept/Oct 1938 - Munich Agreement and handing over of the Sudetenland
March 1939 - German occupation of the Czech part of Czecholslovakia, and creation of Slovak state.
August 1939 - Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

So, as you can see, the non-aggression pact would have had no effect on Czechoslovakia, or Stalin's stance as an ally towards them, as they had ceased to exist 6 months earlier.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 06:08 AM   #1958
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,607
Finland gave it to the Russians in 1939 and 1944.

Germany didn't even go into full war production until 1943. But by then bombers were already destroying much of their efforts.

The German army was utilizing tactics that the others had to catch up to. Coordinated air power, fast strikes through lines causing encirclements, platoon officers allowed to make decisions on the battlefield instead of the waiting for orders from the top, (This handcuffed French defenses, as troops were waiting for orders from the top, while the German officers were already 2-3 moves ahead of the French troops). Waiting for orders from divisional officers, when your communications lines have been destroyed can be rather deadly.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot 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 December 2018, 07:01 AM   #1959
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,326
Germany was in "full war production" from about 1937.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 08:20 AM   #1960
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,607
The economy of Germany during the war's beginning was still a peace time economy.

They had only dreams of lightning wars early in the war. Consumer goods were still being produced to keep the people happy.

Only Albert Speer after taking over in 1942 made the decision to devote the entire economy to wartime production.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot 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 04:15 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.