Posted on 09/03/2011 11:20:17 PM PDT by nickcarraway
It came in kit form..the assembly instructions were in Korean...
By the time Poland occured, Hitler didn't believe that the allies would declare war.
Chamberlain didn't buy time, he put Britain in a weaker position by allowing Germany to grow confident and divide up a powerful Czech nation.
Allowing millions of people to be taken over by the Nazi's?
It was Churchill that pressed for rearmament and constantly warned about the Nazi threat, while Chamberlain lived in his own fantasy world of the League of Nations.
The French, perhaps - they had a large army and a lot of capability. The British did not. Hitler would not have paid any attention to a threat from the British, because they didn't have the ability to enforce a threat.
Remember the British Expeditionary Force only started building in 1938. Even when war began in September 1939, only about 200,000 men were available.
By the time Poland occured, Hitler didn't believe that the allies would declare war.
Correct. Because he was assuming they were still too weak to do so. But they were significantly stronger by then than they had been previously.
Chamberlain didn't buy time, he put Britain in a weaker position by allowing Germany to grow confident and divide up a powerful Czech nation.
Under Chamberlain, the Royal Navy built five battleships and five aircraft carriers, the size of the army was increased. The Royal Air Force was considerably modernised. If you think he left Britain in a weaker position, I think your definitions are skewed.
Well enough as a Prime Minister who presided over the latter part of the rearmament.
It was Churchill that pressed for rearmament and constantly warned about the Nazi threat, while Chamberlain lived in his own fantasy world of the League of Nations.
Actually it was Churchill and Sir Austen Chamberlain - Neville's brother who were among the most vocal members of the rearmament push - and if you want to talk about being part of a fantasy world, look at Sir Austen who won the Nobel Peace Prize because of the 1925 Pact that he claimed made war impossible - but Neville Chamberlain was the Prime Minister. If he hadn't supported rearmament, it would not have happened. Churchill was a backbench Member of Parliament with no real power. Yes, he made a lot of speeches, but he had no power to get anything done. Why did rearmament happen? Because Cabinet took the steps to make it happen. Who was in charge of the Cabinet? Why, it was the Prime Ministers - MacDonald, Baldwin, and then Neville Chamberlain.
It is fairly absurd to try and place credit for rearmament on a backbench MP who, himself, believed his political career had ended after the abdication crisis, and deny it to the Prime Minister who presided over the Cabinet meetings, and the budgets that made it possible.
Recently the Military Channel ran a series on “Hitler’s Bodyguards”. One episode dealt with Chamberlain’s dealings with Adolph Hitler prior to the outbreak of WWII. Just prior to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia a group of senior generals was about to force Hitler out of power or kill him; but the entire plot fizzled because Chamberlain contacted Mussolini to intervene and made possible a deal between them. Hitler would have been dead had it not been for Chamberlain, who may even have tipped off Hitler about the plot against him to curry favor with the dictator. Fast forward to today - read “Carter” or “Obama” rather than “Chamberlain” and you get the picture. My prediction, the entire Middle East, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya will be lost to US interests within three years or less under Obama - all Americans who bravely fought and died there will have done so in vain, winning the battle but loosing the war thanks to one man. My sources in the military inside Iraq confirm that more and more people are dying every day there now, due to a resurgent Al-Qaeda, now that Obama is Commander in Chief. Likewise with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, witness the downing of the CH-47 carrying members of Seal Team Six after Obama and Biden shot off their mouths for political gain about Seal Team Six taking out Bin Ladin, something that should never have even been whispered due to Operational Security issues associated with release of that kind of information. Taiwan will also be ‘annexed’ by China without a struggle of any kind, unless the Taiwanese go solo against them. The man is a disaster to America, a total rookie and a total incompetent on all fronts.
In 1938 Britain and France had very antiquated forces, but they had forces. The Germans were about 90% bluff, even through the phony war they had very little.
During the assault on Poland the Germans were 100% committed, with no reserves. Had the French simply attacked at that point, they would have been unopposed.
1938-1940 saw Germany gain material advantage over the allies, not vice versa, so its hard to support the claim that the allies “had no choice” but to roll over during that period.
By 1940, Frances air force was 90% obsolete, but in 1938, it would have crushed the German Luftwaffe.
Yes, material state was weak in 1938, but it was as good as it was ever going to get for France, and Britain would never see another day (until the USA and USSR took over) that they would have as good of chances against the Germans.
What the allies lacked in 1938 was the capability to bluff the Germans into backing down and the will to carry through with a fight.
“Remember the British Expeditionary Force only started building in 1938.”
The United States sent Britton emergency shipments of previously un-issued Civil War era Spencer rifles. The Spencer was the first military repeating rifle with a .50 cal, short range magazine in the stock which I believe held 10 rounds.
I was thinking the same thing. Yeesh.
The Marxist globalists have been playing treasonous geopolitical games for at least 60-110 years.
The DimRats and the GOP are merely two good-cop/bad-cop sides of, essentially, the same coin.
Distract the serfs and slaves with political theater in liu of lions and Christians in the Collisium.
I've voted GOP virtually all my adult life. However, the lesser of two treasonous weasels is getting to be such a stench, I don't know how much longer I can stomach it.
And if someone had stated that this had occurred he would be labeled a conspiracy nut.
Tell me about it. Sigh.
Agreed.
Though, sadly, Churchill ended up marching to the orders of the globalists, and their games, too.
Interesting discussion.
By 1938 the period of being able to stop Hitler without serious warfare was past. (The Rhineland crisis was a whole other story.) While the French seriously outweighed the Germans in manpower and materiel, particularly in alliance with the Czechs, the problem was that the French had absolutely no will to attack. Without the will, the other factors were utterly meaningless.
If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.
FTM, the Allies had significantly more men, planes and tanks than the Germans during the Battle of France. Did them a whole lot of good.
While the British expanded their forces from 1938 to 1940, so did the Germans. The absolute level of British military power was irrelevant, only its power relative to the enemy’s. A good chunk of the German weaponry was taken from the Czechs.
The claims that the Wehrmacht would have overthrown Hitler had war started over Czechoslovakia are interesting, but will remain forever speculative. They might have done so, they might have tried and failed, or they might have chickened out at the last moment. Many German officers plotted, with varying degrees of sincerity, at different times during the Nazis’ reign. Very few followed through.
No, I'm not. I'm just aware that the British were even less ready for war - but knew they would be much more ready in a year or two.
During the assault on Poland the Germans were 100% committed, with no reserves. Had the French simply attacked at that point, they would have been unopposed.
Yes - that's France, not Britain. I am talking about Britain. As I said in a previous message "The French, perhaps - they had a large army and a lot of capability."
France's problem was different from Britain's. The French had a large military capability but were happy to sit behind their borders, relying on things like the Maginot line, rather than attempting to project force beyond their borders. Britain did not have the capability to project force until at least late 1939.
Yes, material state was weak in 1938, but it was as good as it was ever going to get for France, and Britain would never see another day (until the USA and USSR took over) that they would have as good of chances against the Germans.
So Britain should have gone to war before it was ready to do so, because the French were ready? If France was ready, perhaps France should have gone to war. But it was in British interests to wait. To let the rearmament process begun in 1934 actually reach its first stage of readiness. At the time of Munich, that was still about a year away, and the British knew it.
Look - just consider the issue of Battleships and Aircraft Carriers alone. In 1938, the Royal Navy's most modern Battleships were HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney - laid down in 1922, and commissioned in 1927 and 1930. Every other Battleship they had was World War I era (admittedly somewhat modernised).
Five new battleships were under construction - laid down in 1937. They were due to come on line starting in 1940 (and indeed, did so).
Aircraft Carriers, the story is similar. Britain had no 'modern' Aircraft Carriers at the time of Munich. The most modern carrier they had was the 1918 design, HMS Hermes, which was commissioned in 1923.
But HMS Ark Royal was nearly complete at Munich, and the four Illustrious carriers were building as well, again to start coming online in 1940. HMS Implacable was also laid down in the year between Munich and the start of the war.
Britain was building in 1938. It wasn't ready yet. It was going to be ready by 1940 - and forestalling war until near the end of 1939 made a vast difference to its capabilities.
When the war began, the Allies were in a weaker State because Germany has annexed both Austria and Czechoslovakia, which had a fine army.
Why the attempt to rescue Chamberlain from the infamy he so justly deserves?
Because as a military historian, I don’t believe he deserves it.
And, frankly, I always find it amusing that Americans are so quick to criticise him when they come from a nation that did its level best to avoid getting involved in combat in either World War despite clearly deciding near the start of both wars which side they supported.
Apparently it’s a virtue for Americans to avoid major wars until there’s no choice, but not for anyone else to do it. I think it’s a virtue for all.
I believe you fight when you have to - and I spent over twenty years in uniform and went to war myself when my country called - but you don’t fight a war you’re not ready to fight unless you have absolutely no choice.
Si vis pacem, para bellum - but give peace a chance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.