• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most Gifted/Able/Intelligent Politician/diplomat in history

Not really. The annexation of Austria had opened up the Czech southern flank to attack, and it's border defenses were never as good as claimed. Like almost all pre-war defenses they lacked depth, only 5km at their deepest, 100 meters as their narrowest. Key industrial areas were also very close to the border, so any fallback would also have crippled Czech war production. Even worse, in 1938 the fortifications weren't even complete, and they lacked heavy artillery. The line was manned largely by maneuverable-incapable defensive divisions, and lacked the essential ability for local and large scale counter attacks, which was proven in WWII to be required for a sufficient defensive line to be manned.
Again you are vastly overestimating German strength in 1938 and vastly underestimating Czech.
In 1938 the Czechs and French had the best tanks in the world. The LT vz. 35 and the CharB, SOMUA35. The Germans only had the PZI and PZII, the PzIII didn’t become operational until 1939. Czechs and French also had better anti-tank guns, Czech 4.7 cm vzor 38 field ATGbeing considered the best in the world at the time. How they would have broken through any defences with not much more the very weak tanks that at best could be considered reconnaissance vehicles in difficult terrain is hard to imagine. The Luftwaffe was not even close to the force it was a year later so they would not have been as decisive a factor as they were later on.
There was also the very real threat of Poland and Hungary taking the opportunity to seize their claims in the disputed border, stretching Czech forces even further.
Poland in 1938 already feared Hitler and there is no way that they would jeopardize themselves by alienating France/Britain by attacking the Czechs. The Hungarians might have but in all likelihood would have waited to see how things were going before making any moves IF France/Britain stood up to Hitler. Similar to Italy waiting ‘til France was pretty much toast before attacking.

Except the French didn't have any offensive plans. France was incapable of helping the Czechs because the French military hadn't drawn up any plans to attack Germany in a meaningful way. Public opinion in France was also extremely against another war in Germany, not hard to understand why given the million plus casualties the French had sustained. If the French government had pursued hostilities with Germany, they would've faced immense opposition from home, and would've struggled to meaningfully impacted the effort.
Doesn’t take long to formulate plans when all you have to do is walk into Germany as there would have been nothing to stop them. Heck there was nothing to stop them in 1939. All they needed was resolve.
Again, not really.


"For its part, (snipped to fit under character max)

Most of the Wehrmacht approved of what Hitler was doing in general, or at least wasn't willing to rock the boat given Hitler's popularity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_Conspiracy
German Generals 1938 Conspiracy to oust Hitler Regime
You have your sources I have mine, we can only agree to disagree on this point. As to the military, there were some who were pro-Hitler but in general the military didn’t like Hitler much. They wanted to use him to get what they wanted, not be controlled by him. It was his successful peaceful takeover of Czechoslovakia that quashed any real opposition to him in the military

Britian didn't start major rearmament until after Munich. And what makes you so certain France was going to save the day? How would they have done so?
Germany was in an even worse position to fight Czechoslovakia and France than they were a year later in a fight with France/Poland. All that was needed was some initiative on the part of France
 
Again you are vastly overestimating German strength in 1938 and vastly underestimating Czech.
In 1938 the Czechs and French had the best tanks in the world. The LT vz. 35 and the CharB, SOMUA35. The Germans only had the PZI and PZII, the PzIII didn’t become operational until 1939. Czechs and French also had better anti-tank guns, Czech 4.7 cm vzor 38 field ATGbeing considered the best in the world at the time. How they would have broken through any defences with not much more the very weak tanks that at best could be considered reconnaissance vehicles in difficult terrain is hard to imagine. The Luftwaffe was not even close to the force it was a year later so they would not have been as decisive a factor as they were later on.


Tank Quality doesn't mean jack **** when there's no proper doctrine or organization to them. The German success in 1940 at the Battle of France came from their superior understanding of armored warfare than the Western Allies, not because of superior tank quality or numbers.

German tanks were never really that good during the war. They were either too light like early models or too expensive to field in large numbers like the Tiger. German armored victory came because they understood the capabilities of tanks and built an effective doctrine around it, using independent armored formations. They understood modern war better than the French and the British, which allowed them to circumvent French/British superiority in quality and quantity.

Czech defensive fortifications were based on the assumption that the French and British shared; future wars would be fought like WWI. WWII showed different, especially in that modern defensive lines required the ability of the defenders to conduct local and large scale counterattacks, not just sit there and try to absorb the blows. The Czechs dug in too close to their own factories and were also outflanked by the annexation of Austria. Their large arms manufacturing base would've have accounted to much if the Czechs were forced to abandon it or risk being outflanked and crushed in a series of decisive border battles.

Poland in 1938 already feared Hitler and there is no way that they would jeopardize themselves by alienating France/Britain by attacking the Czechs. The Hungarians might have but in all likelihood would have waited to see how things were going before making any moves IF France/Britain stood up to Hitler. Similar to Italy waiting ‘til France was pretty much toast before attacking.


Nazi Germany had signed a non-aggression pact with Poland in 1934. At the time it was in fact a very popular move, even among the Western Powers because it brought an end to the trade war the Wiemar Republic had been waging with the Poles.

All of Eastern Europe was full of nations that consisted of long suppressed ethnic groups that were eager to establish themselves and their claimed territory. Poland had already demonstrated it's willingness to resort to armed conflict with it's war against the Soviets.


Doesn’t take long to formulate plans when all you have to do is walk into Germany as there would have been nothing to stop them. Heck there was nothing to stop them in 1939. All they needed was resolve.

They didn't have resolve in 1940 despite having actually built up a considerable armaments programs following the Munich Crisis. French tank production accounted for something like 1,000 tanks in 1939 alone, a much needed upgrade over the hundreds of outdated and unorganized armor they had laying around. France's doctrine was entirely defensive, even when war broke out Gamelin's plan was to wait for France to fully re-arm before attacking, even though it would've taken probably until 1941.


Germany was in an even worse position to fight Czechoslovakia and France than they were a year later in a fight with France/Poland. All that was needed was some initiative on the part of France


In 1939 the French and British economies had greatly outstripped German war production. In fact in early 1939 Germany faced problems with it's re-armament program due to a lack of resources. Chamberlain knew that the Germany economy couldn't handle the demands that the Wehrmacht was making. That was part of the reason he wanted peace at Munich; it would give France and Britain time to start up their larger economic and industrial bases and out-produce and manufacture the Germans.
 
Tank Quality doesn't mean jack **** when there's no proper doctrine or organization to them. The German success in 1940 at the Battle of France came from their superior understanding of armored warfare than the Western Allies, not because of superior tank quality or numbers.
With actual battle tanks including many czech tanks as opposed to the crap they had in 1938

German tanks were never really that good during the war. They were either too light like early models or too expensive to field in large numbers like the Tiger. German armored victory came because they understood the capabilities of tanks and built an effective doctrine around it, using independent armored formations. They understood modern war better than the French and the British, which allowed them to circumvent French/British superiority in quality and quantity.
In 1938 they could at best be described as reconssaisance vehicules, not battle tanks.

Czech defensive fortifications were based on the assumption that the French and British shared; future wars would be fought like WWI. WWII showed different, especially in that modern defensive lines required the ability of the defenders to conduct local and large scale counterattacks, not just sit there and try to absorb the blows. The Czechs dug in too close to their own factories and were also outflanked by the annexation of Austria. Their large arms manufacturing base would've have accounted to much if the Czechs were forced to abandon it or risk being outflanked and crushed in a series of decisive border battles.
In 1940 the germans went around the mahginot line, something they couldnt have done vs Czechs. You areassuming they could use blitzkrieg tactics without the weapons needed to do so. They couldnt


Nazi Germany had signed a non-aggression pact with Poland in 1934. At the time it was in fact a very popular move, even among the Western Powers because it brought an end to the trade war the Wiemar Republic had been waging with the Poles.

All of Eastern Europe was full of nations that consisted of long suppressed ethnic groups that were eager to establish themselves and their claimed territory. Poland had already demonstrated it's willingness to resort to armed conflict with it's war against the Soviets.
Yet they were still very wary of Hitler and his intentions. The fact that they were wary of Stalin as well doeesnt change that fact.

They didn't have resolve in 1940 despite having actually built up a considerable armaments programs following the Munich Crisis. French tank production accounted for something like 1,000 tanks in 1939 alone, a much needed upgrade over the hundreds of outdated and unorganized armor they had laying around. France's doctrine was entirely defensive, even when war broke out Gamelin's plan was to wait for France to fully re-arm before attacking, even though it would've taken probably until 1941.
That is what the whole argument is about if they had the resolve but like Chamberlain they didnt.
It is a what if scenario.
If they stood up to him then obvioulsy they would have had the necessary resolve.

In 1939 the French and British economies had greatly outstripped German war production. In fact in early 1939 Germany faced problems with it's re-armament program due to a lack of resources. Chamberlain knew that the Germany economy couldn't handle the demands that the Wehrmacht was making. That was part of the reason he wanted peace at Munich; it would give France and Britain time to start up their larger economic and industrial bases and out-produce and manufacture the Germans.
No Chamberlain believed the German propoganda that their military was far far stronger than it actually was and he foolishly though tht could treat with a maniac like Hitler.
He was wrong on all accounts and deserves the infamy associated with his name.
 
With actual battle tanks including many czech tanks as opposed to the crap they had in 1938


In 1938 they could at best be described as reconssaisance vehicules, not battle tanks.


...Again, tank quality doesn't matter if your doctrine completely ends up negating your conventional superiority. The French in 1940 had better numbers and in some cases better tanks than the Germans. They were undone due to their poor understanding of armored warfare, just

In 1940 the germans went around the mahginot line, something they couldnt have done vs Czechs. You areassuming they could use blitzkrieg tactics without the weapons needed to do so. They couldnt


Yeah, it's not like the Germans had just annexed a major state south of Czechoslovakia that opened up a salient that wasn't defended properly...

Oh wait, they did. Austria. And even if they didn't, Czech defenses weren't up to the task of withstanding the Germans.


And the Germans never had a concept of Blitzkrieg. The Lighting War everyone talks about was the fault of the Wehrmacht never being more than 17% mechanized and the Panzers constantly outrunning their supply lines. The Soviets were able to exploit this to great effect.

Yet they were still very wary of Hitler and his intentions. The fact that they were wary of Stalin as well doeesnt change that fact.

That's not the point at all. Did you even read what I pointed out?

Relations between Poland and Germany actually improved under Hitler, at least until the Sudetenland was annexed and then the Nazi's turned their attention on Danzing.


That is what the whole argument is about if they had the resolve but like Chamberlain they didnt.
It is a what if scenario.
If they stood up to him then obvioulsy they would have had the necessary resolve.


Standing up to Hitler doesn't solve the bigger issue that the French weren't well prepared for war and had no offensive plans in place to deal with Germany. They found their resolve in 1940 and still didn't do jack ****.

No Chamberlain believed the German propoganda that their military was far far stronger than it actually was and he foolishly though tht could treat with a maniac like Hitler.
He was wrong on all accounts and deserves the infamy associated with his name.

No, he wasn't. Chamberlain correctly knew that the German economy couldn't handle the rearmament program and that the French and British could outproduce the Nazis, which is what he fell back; giving the Western Allies the time to build up and re-arm their forces in preparation for a war with Germany. It was Chamberlain who ordered the arming programs that build the RADAR network, mechanized the army and prepared Britain for war, and it was Chamberlain who actually declared war on Germany. While western military observers did overstate the effectiveness of the Wehrmacht, they Germans were in fact mobilized and ready for war, something neither France nor Britain were.
 
...Again, tank quality doesn't matter if your doctrine completely ends up negating your conventional superiority. The French in 1940 had better numbers and in some cases better tanks than the Germans. They were undone due to their poor understanding of armored warfare, just
It does matter if you dont have any actual battle tanks. Germans had the theory not the means in 1938. They acquired that partially through the absorption of Czech arms.


Yeah, it's not like the Germans had just annexed a major state south of Czechoslovakia that opened up a salient that wasn't defended properly...

Oh wait, they did. Austria. And even if they didn't, Czech defenses weren't up to the task of withstanding the Germans.
Tough terrain and the German military was a paper tiger in 1938 they had the doctrine no the arms.


And the Germans never had a concept of Blitzkrieg. The Lighting War everyone talks about was the fault of the Wehrmacht never being more than 17% mechanized and the Panzers constantly outrunning their supply lines. The Soviets were able to exploit this to great effect.
The idea was to use the armor as a breakthrough weapon and then encircle the enemy. That required armaments capable of making the breakthrough. They didn't have them in 1938.

That's not the point at all. Did you even read what I pointed out?

Relations between Poland and Germany actually improved under Hitler, at least until the Sudetenland was annexed and then the Nazi's turned their attention on Danzing.
On the surface yes they did improve, but the Poles were no fools they were rearming rapidly before 1938
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1939–45)#Rearmament_and_first_annexations

Standing up to Hitler doesn't solve the bigger issue that the French weren't well prepared for war and had no offensive plans in place to deal with Germany. They found their resolve in 1940 and still didn't do jack ****.
Yes it does solve the bigger picture the German army in 1938 was a paper tiger all bark and no bite. The French army was way way way more powerful. Czech army was very powerful as well. Germans were in no position to fight a 2 front war.
Best tactics in the world cannot help you if you are completely and utterly outgunned.


No, he wasn't. Chamberlain correctly knew that the German economy couldn't handle the rearmament program and that the French and British could outproduce the Nazis, which is what he fell back; giving the Western Allies the time to build up and re-arm their forces in preparation for a war with Germany. It was Chamberlain who ordered the arming programs that build the RADAR network, mechanized the army and prepared Britain for war, and it was Chamberlain who actually declared war on Germany. While western military observers did overstate the effectiveness of the Wehrmacht, they Germans were in fact mobilized and ready for war, something neither France nor Britain were.

That is some interesting revisionist history there. Chamberlain was ecstatic when he proclaimed "peace in our time" He later became disillusioned because Hitler made it clear he was going to continue to be agressive.
If chamberlain was just going for a delay to catch up to Germany (a silly notion since German army was all propaganda) Then he would have immediately started major re-armarment. He didn't because he actually believed he could treat with Hitler.
In the aftermath of Munich, Chamberlain continued to pursue a course of cautious rearmament. He told the Cabinet in early October, "t would be madness for the country to stop rearming until we were convinced that other countries would act in the same way. For the time being, therefore, we should relax no particle of effort until our deficiencies had been made good."[140] However, later in October, he resisted calls to put industry on a war footing, convinced that such an action would show Hitler that the Prime Minister had decided to abandon Munich.[140] Chamberlain hoped that the understanding he had signed with Hitler at Munich would lead toward a general settlement of European disputes. However, Hitler expressed no public interest in following up on the accord.[141] Having considered a general election immediately following Munich[142] Chamberlain instead reshuffled his Cabinet.[143] By the end of the year, however, public concerns caused Chamberlain to conclude that "to get rid of this uneasy and disgruntled House of Commons by a General Election" would be "suicidal".[144]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain#Aftermath_and_reception
 
It does matter if you dont have any actual battle tanks. Germans had the theory not the means in 1938. They acquired that partially through the absorption of Czech arms.

Germany produced it's own tanks and armored vehicles. It doesn't matter if your equipment is ****, if you have the right training and good troops they will make up for their deficiencies in combat. That's been proven numerous times in history.



Tough terrain and the German military was a paper tiger in 1938 they had the doctrine no the arms.

The Germans have four Panzer divisions in 1938. They had the arms, just because they were inferior in quality doesn't rule them out.



The idea was to use the armor as a breakthrough weapon and then encircle the enemy. That required armaments capable of making the breakthrough. They didn't have them in 1938.

They have four Panzer divisions and a largely unprotected front on the Austrian-Czechoslovakian border. You're argument that German tanks are too light doesn't really solve any of this.


On the surface yes they did improve, but the Poles were no fools they were rearming rapidly before 1938


Your own link says that the Poles dispatched troops to Zaolzie to try to help break up Czechoslovakia.

Yes it does solve the bigger picture the German army in 1938 was a paper tiger all bark and no bite.

Not really. In fact the German army in 1938 was in in some ways of higher quality than in 1939, as the rapid conscription hadn't diluted the number of good NCOs and officers.

The French army was way way way more powerful.

The French Army had no offensive plans and were entirely defensive in nature, not to mention the French had only two light brigades of tanks organized. They were not prepared for war in 1938.

Czech army was very powerful as well.

No they weren't. The bulk of the Czech defenses lacked depth (only 5km at the widest) and were too close to the heavy industries necessary for war production. They were manned by immobile fortress divisions that had already been pre-sighted for artillery fire by the Germans and were still outflanked by Austria.


Germans were in no position to fight a 2 front war. Best tactics in the world cannot help you if you are completely and utterly outgunned.

Except they weren't. The French Army was in no position to attack and the Czechs were doomed.



That is some interesting revisionist history there. Chamberlain was ecstatic when he proclaimed "peace in our time" He later became disillusioned because Hitler made it clear he was going to continue to be agressive.

Well, duh. Once it became clear Hitler wasn't going to accept what was offered, Chamberlain ordered major rearmament.

If chamberlain was just going for a delay to catch up to Germany (a silly notion since German army was all propaganda) Then he would have immediately started major re-armarment. He didn't because he actually believed he could treat with Hitler.

It's not a silly notion. The British Army was just 220,000 men in 1938 against 600,000 Germans. Most of the British Army was also stationed overseas across the Empire. Britain was in no shape for war. It did however, have the economy to prepare for war, which is what Chamberlain made use of.
 
Great topic for a thread, blackjack50.

My vote is for Sam Houston.

Governor of Tennessee
President of the Republic of Texas X2
Governor of the State of Texas
Senator from Texas

How many people get to be a president TWICE, a senator, and a governor TWICE in their lifetimes. I think Sam Houston is the only one.

Not to mention a very successful general. Resisting the popular cry to kill the vanquished enemy general because he knew he still had the power to command the other two armies in Texas to leave. Had he killed him, us Texicans would have had to fight two more big armies with doubtful results.

Early on he was honored by Andrew Jackson for his courage in a battle with the Creeks. Storming to the top of their log fort and then fighting down in the inside. He was wounded many times and have seven (7) bullet holes in his clothes.
 
Last edited:
Germany produced it's own tanks and armored vehicles. It doesn't matter if your equipment is ****, if you have the right training and good troops they will make up for their deficiencies in combat. That's been proven numerous times in history.
Only to a certain extend. If your tactics rely upon equipment you do not yet posses then you are in trouble. As to Germany producing its own tanks etc. Yes they did. But in 1938 they were basically training vehicules and they never could produce enough, which is why they used so much Czech equipment and continued to use the Czech production facilities to make more. In fact they used any equipment they could lay their hands on

The Germans have four Panzer divisions in 1938. They had the arms, just because they were inferior in quality doesn't rule them out.
Not with viable battle tanks, PZIII (first viable battle tank) didn't become operational til 1939

They have four Panzer divisions and a largely unprotected front on the Austrian-Czechoslovakian border. You're argument that German tanks are too light doesn't really solve any of this.
Yes it does because they were not battle tanks and the Czechs had superior equipment and were not going to just roll over if the Brits/French would have supported them.
Not that it matters because the Germans would never had invaded, Hitler would have been in jail or dead before that happened.

Your own link says that the Poles dispatched troops to Zaolzie to try to help break up Czechoslovakia.
When they saw the Brits/French sell out the Czechs they tried to get a piece of the pie. No doubt Chamberlain had some balls and stood up to Hitler the Poles would not have sent an ultimatum to the Czechs.

Not really. In fact the German army in 1938 was in in some ways of higher quality than in 1939, as the rapid conscription hadn't diluted the number of good NCOs and officers.
Completely untrue it was not even close to being comparable.


The French Army had no offensive plans and were entirely defensive in nature, not to mention the French had only two light brigades of tanks organized. They were not prepared for war in 1938.
They would have been in better shape than in 1939 as the Germans were proportionately much much weaker.

No they weren't. The bulk of the Czech defenses lacked depth (only 5km at the widest) and were too close to the heavy industries necessary for war production.
They were manned by immobile fortress divisions that had already been pre-sighted for artillery fire by the Germans and were still outflanked by Austria.
Irrelevant as Germany didn't have the means to force a breakthrough and the terrain would have slowed them down as much as anything else.

Except they weren't. The French Army was in no position to attack and the Czechs were doomed.
French were in a better position than they were in 1939 and the Czechs were not doomed. Hitler however would have been doomed.


Well, duh. Once it became clear Hitler wasn't going to accept what was offered, Chamberlain ordered major rearmament.
Only once it became beyond apparent, Chamberlain was reluctant to re-arm and was basically forced to do so. So any claims that Chamberlain sold the Czechs out to gain time is false as he actually believed he had bought "peace in our time".
 
Part 2
It's not a silly notion. The British Army was just 220,000 men in 1938 against 600,000 Germans. Most of the British Army was also stationed overseas across the Empire. Britain was in no shape for war. It did however, have the economy to prepare for war, which is what Chamberlain made use of.

False equivalency. It wasnt the British army vs the Germans it would have been the Brits/French/Czechs vs the Germans.
And the Brits were always aware that their main contribution would not be in soldiers on the ground but their command of the seas.
Chamberlain didn't make use of anything he wasted most of the time after the Munich crisis and only started to ramp up re-armament at the very end of 1938. Chamberlain was more concerned with the economy than he was with Hitler.
More inhibiting still and much more fundamental were the difficulties of finance. Until the autumn of 1938 rearmament of the three Services continued to be limited by financial allocations, and in some fields the limits were not to be removed until the spring of 1939 of even until Dunkirk. No doubt the financial limits seem much narrower in retrospect than they must have appeared to some contemporaries, and above all the men who set them up. Measured in absolute terms or related to the financial provisions of the early twenties, the budgetary allocations for rearmament between 1935 and 1939 appear generous in the extreme. The annual cost of equipment and stores for the fighting Services rose nearly eightfold from about £37 millions in the financial year ending March 1934 to £273 millions in the year ending March 1939 and, as Table 2 shows, was strongly rising all the time. By 1938 the expenditure was far greater than that even incurred by this country in peace. To finance it the Government raised the standard rate of income tax from 4s. 6d. in the pound in 1934 to 5s. 6d. in 1936 and 7s. 6d. in 1939; and in 1937 it launched a five-year rearmament loan of £400 millions, which in its turn was raised in the spring of 1939 to £800 millions.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-WarProduction/UK-Civil-WarProduction-2.html
 


Replying line by line is getting tedious so I'm going to stop and just reply in bulk.

First off, do you not understand the purpose of armored warfare? It's not to destroy other armor. The purpose of tanks is to bring machine guns to bear on the enemy's rear. This isn't completely true anymore but it was extremely relevant in the second world war. Your argument that the German Panzer II is too light is ridiculous. It was used to great affect in Poland and France, and in the invasion of France it was the most numerous tank in the Panzer divisions, and was used to great affect in performing breakthroughs and advances. Your dismissal of it as "too light" and a "recon tank" demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how armored warfare plays out.

You're argument that because the Czechs produced a lot of weapons they would've been able to stop the Germans is ridiculous. Quality of equipment has never been the sole determinant of warfare. You also are either purposely ignoring of just forgetting that Austria was German territory at the time of the Munich Crisis. It opened up a massive front that would've allowed the German to invade from the south and completely invalidate the Czech border defenses. Your claim they didn't have the means to do this is ridiculous. The Germans fielded four Panzer divisions of Panzer IIs, the same tanks they used to great success in France and Poland. Why would think it would've been any different in Czechoslovakia is beyond me. The entire invasion of Czechoslovakia would've become a hammer-and-anvil scenario. And finally, you seem to fail to understand the Czech army drew many of it's conscripts from Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians and Poles, none of which shared the Czech will to defend the country. The Czech army would've been short of manpower and outflanked if Hitler decided to invade. Your comments that he would've been disposed are relying on Beck to find a way to scrounge up support against Hitler. He failed in reality and he would fail here again.

Finally, the French and the British were in the better position in 1939. They fielded more modern tanks and more aircraft than the Germans. As it was so aptly demonstrated in 1940, that didn't matter. Why on earth you think a French army in 1938, lacking modern fighters, fielding only two light brigades of tanks, and having a defensive mindset would've somehow found the courage to go on the offensive, when they didn't in 1940 despite their numerical and equipment superiority, is beyond me. The French fielded900,000 active duty men, 5 million in reserve, 4,200 armored vehicles, and 2,000 aircraft. Even though a number of them were older models, in between the Munich Crisis and the invasion of Poland production of modern equipment had skyrocketed.
 
Replying line by line is getting tedious so I'm going to stop and just reply in bulk.

First off, do you not understand the purpose of armored warfare? It's not to destroy other armor. The purpose of tanks is to bring machine guns to bear on the enemy's rear.
Simplification but yes it is to disrupt the rear of the enemy.

This isn't completely true anymore but it was extremely relevant in the second world war. Your argument that the German Panzer II is too light is ridiculous. It was used to great affect in Poland and France, and in the invasion of France it was the most numerous tank in the Panzer divisions, and was used to great affect in performing breakthroughs and advances. Your dismissal of it as "too light" and a "recon tank" demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how armored warfare plays out.
PzI and PzII were not strong enough to make the breakthrough to get to the rear of the enemy.
that is the problem they needed the PZIII and PZ 35/38 (whcih they got from the Czechs) to do that.

You're argument that because the Czechs produced a lot of weapons they would've been able to stop the Germans is ridiculous. Quality of equipment has never been the sole determinant of warfare. You also are either purposely ignoring of just forgetting that Austria was German territory at the time of the Munich Crisis.
Not my argument at all. My argument is that the Germans could not have pushed through the Czechs nearly as easily in 1938 as tyou seem to think they could because their armarments were far to weak to make such a breakthrough
It opened up a massive front that would've allowed the German to invade from the south and completely invalidate the Czech border defenses. Your claim they didn't have the means to do this is ridiculous. The Germans fielded four Panzer divisions of Panzer IIs, the same tanks they used to great success in France and Poland.
PzII only did well because they worked with PzIII`s and PZ35 and 38s. Alone they sucked. and most German tanks were PZI at the time

Why would think it would've been any different in Czechoslovakia is beyond me. The entire invasion of Czechoslovakia would've become a hammer-and-anvil scenario. And finally, you seem to fail to understand the Czech army drew many of it's conscripts from Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians and Poles, none of which shared the Czech will to defend the country. The Czech army would've been short of manpower and outflanked if Hitler decided to invade. Your comments that he would've been disposed are relying on Beck to find a way to scrounge up support against Hitler. He failed in reality and he would fail here again.

We can only agree to disagree. You seem to think the German army is far more powerful in 1938, Czech army far weaker than I and you seem to comnpletely ignore the French and Brits.

Finally, the French and the British were in the better position in 1939. They fielded more modern tanks and more aircraft than the Germans. As it was so aptly demonstrated in 1940, that didn't matter. Why on earth you think a French army in 1938, lacking modern fighters, fielding only two light brigades of tanks, and having a defensive mindset would've somehow found the courage to go on the offensive, when they didn't in 1940 despite their numerical and equipment superiority, is beyond me. The French fielded900,000 active duty men, 5 million in reserve, 4,200 armored vehicles, and 2,000 aircraft. Even though a number of them were older models, in between the Munich Crisis and the invasion of Poland production of modern equipment had skyrocketed.

Wow you are way off. The French and Brits were not much better off in 1939 then they were in 1938 but the Germans were a lot stronger having absorbed the equipment and armarments factories of the Czechs.
Production didnt skyrocket between the Munich crisis and the start of the war. Chamberlain resisted efforts to increase the military and the French were having lots of labour and other troubles severly slowing down their re-armarment. They only really got going after war had been declared and shortly before the fall of France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf

If you look at the statistics the French and Brits only really started re-arming AFTER the war had started. As already shown Chamberlain resisted as long as he could any significant increase in military spending
So any claims that Chamberlain was playing for time is obviously false.
 
Without Secretary of State William Seward during the Civil War, the Union would've lost. Seward cowered and cajoled England into being inactive for the South. England liked America's initiative to free the slaves but many, many, jobs were being lost in England from the shortage of cotton. If England had participated in the Civil War, they would've shattered the blockade the north placed on southern ports.
 
PzI and PzII were not strong enough to make the breakthrough to get to the rear of the enemy.

What are you basing that on? Do you have any evidence to actually show that the Panzer II was incapable of penetrating enemy defenses?


Not my argument at all. My argument is that the Germans could not have pushed through the Czechs nearly as easily in 1938 as tyou seem to think they could because their armarments were far to weak to make such a breakthrough

Your entire argument rests on German tanks not being powerful enough to break through, ignoring the poor strategic position of the Czechs, and their less than adequate border defenses and doctrine. You have yet to actually counter any of these points, instead you've just kept repeating that "German tanks weren't good enough", ignoring that even low quality equipment, used effectively and intelligently, will beat the most cutting edge gear. That's been demonstrated so many times throughout history is actually kind of sad you keep repeating it.

PzII only did well because they worked with PzIII`s and PZ35 and 38s. Alone they sucked. and most German tanks were PZI at the time

No, most German tanks used in the Panzer divisions in the invasion of France were PZIIs. They achieved plenty of success on their own.


We can only agree to disagree. You seem to think the German army is far more powerful in 1938, Czech army far weaker than I and you seem to comnpletely ignore the French and Brits.


Oh my god the irony.

Germany isn't more powerful in 1938 by itself. It's more powerful relative to the allies. By 1939 the French and British had outproduced Germany in both aircraft and tanks, not to mention the Germany economy was facing shortages in 1939. France and Britain were in a better position at the outbreak of war, fielding roughly 5,400 tanks, 4,800 planes, and 13,600 guns. Not to mention the British not only mechanized their army (to a degree), but they begun production of the Hurriance and Spitfire, and had set up the RADAR network that would save them during the battle of Britain. Your argument that because Britain didn't expand like the Wehrmacht did means they didn't re-arm is foolish.



If you look at the statistics the French and Brits only really started re-arming AFTER the war had started. As already shown Chamberlain resisted as long as he could any significant increase in military spending
So any claims that Chamberlain was playing for time is obviously false.


I'm sorry, did you even READ your own wiki link? It says right there that French armored vehicle production before was greater than after September 1st, 1939. 4436 vehicles vs 1,690. Are you for real?
 
I wish some of the younger Debate Politics members would do a little research on Tip O'neill.

He was the ultimate politician, and a great Speaker Of The House.

yHRElFzV.jpg
 
What are you basing that on? Do you have any evidence to actually show that the Panzer II was incapable of penetrating enemy defenses?

Your entire argument rests on German tanks not being powerful enough to break through, ignoring the poor strategic position of the Czechs, and their less than adequate border defenses and doctrine. You have yet to actually counter any of these points, instead you've just kept repeating that "German tanks weren't good enough", ignoring that even low quality equipment, used effectively and intelligently, will beat the most cutting edge gear. That's been demonstrated so many times throughout history is actually kind of sad you keep repeating it.
No the Germans also didnt have the aircraft/artillery etc.. that they would have later on either. I used only tanks in my posts to keep an already long discussion shorter. As to why I think the Germans would have had problems it is because the Germans thought so themselves including Hitler once he had inspected the Czech defences.
In fact, after Hitler had toured Sudetenland after the annexation, he was surprised to realize that if Germany had to resort to force to take Czechoslovakia, German troops would have been bogged down, thus would expose western Germany to a potential invasion for much longer.
Munich Conference and the Annexation of Sudetenland | World War II Database

No, most German tanks used in the Panzer divisions in the invasion of France were PZIIs. They achieved plenty of success on their own.
Perhaps my wording led to confusion, I was talking about 1938, in 1938 the majority were PzI not PzII.

Oh my god the irony.

Germany isn't more powerful in 1938 by itself. It's more powerful relative to the allies. By 1939 the French and British had outproduced Germany in both aircraft and tanks, not to mention the Germany economy was facing shortages in 1939. France and Britain were in a better position at the outbreak of war, fielding roughly 5,400 tanks, 4,800 planes, and 13,600 guns. Not to mention the British not only mechanized their army (to a degree), but they begun production of the Hurriance and Spitfire, and had set up the RADAR network that would save them during the battle of Britain. Your argument that because Britain didn't expand like the Wehrmacht did means they didn't re-arm is foolish.
No Irony, If Chamberlain was playing for time to re-arm as you claim then he would have started to re-arm right away not only when it became clear he had NOT bought "peace in our time"


I'm sorry, did you even READ your own wiki link? It says right there that French armored vehicle production before was greater than after September 1st, 1939. 4436 vehicles vs 1,690. Are you for real?

Please take a closer look at the article the figures for before 1 September 1939 doesnt represent buildup in 1938 but everything they had built prior to that.
For example the most numerous tank was the Renault FT which was a WW1 tank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT
I also mentioned that the French actually tried to re-arm but had difficulties in doing so unlike the Brits who under Chamberlain wasted a lot of time before they started to re-arm.

BTW there is no need to get surly. I have backed up what I have said, you can agree or disagree but lets debate not name call.
 

There's a reason I wanted to avoid doing this line by line.

For starters, the Germany had superiority in artillery and aircraft over the Czechs. In fact they had a 4-1 superiority in aircraft. Unlike the British and French who only fielded only a handful of modern aircraft (Less than 20 Hawker Hurricaines and the French produced just 65 modern fighters a year), the Germans had over 500 Messerschmitts. The Czechs were actually hurting for artillery, one of the big reasons they faced such an uphill fight against Germany. And just to put this notion to rest that the Czechs could've somehow stemmed the tide, they themselves estimated they would only last three weeks against a German invasion.

Again with the tanks, you seem to be obsessed with an idea that tank quality is the only thing that matters. It's not. Well trained, well led crews with ancient weapons will defeat idiots armed with cutting edge gear every day of the week. What made the Wehrmacht so effective early on had little to do with their equipment or weaponry, it was their training, doctrine of 'bewungskrieg' (coupled with full armored divisions of course), and their coordination and communication between units on the ground, artillery, and air forces that enabled them to reach such success. If you're just going to keep trotting out "German tanks are too light" then, I don't think I have the crayons to explain this to you.


I don't see what you mean about Chamberlain. My point is that Chamberlain pushed for re-armament once it was clear that Hitler was not going to stop with just the Sudetenland. That was never a disagreement of mine. It was under Chamberlain that Britain survived thanks to the Dowding system. You can certainly criticize Chamberlain for not understanding Hitler, but it's also misleading to say he was completely duped by him. Hitler's Nazi Germany, especially early on, was a confusing state to deal with even for experienced politicians.

Finally, are you actually quoting Hitler for military anecdotes? Hitler was in no way a qualified tactician, strategist, or even capable war leader. His comments on anything military-related can be discounted with ease.
 
There's a reason I wanted to avoid doing this line by line.

For starters, the Germany had superiority in artillery and aircraft over the Czechs. In fact they had a 4-1 superiority in aircraft. Unlike the British and French who only fielded only a handful of modern aircraft (Less than 20 Hawker Hurricaines and the French produced just 65 modern fighters a year), the Germans had over 500 Messerschmitts. The Czechs were actually hurting for artillery, one of the big reasons they faced such an uphill fight against Germany. And just to put this notion to rest that the Czechs could've somehow stemmed the tide, they themselves estimated they would only last three weeks against a German invasion.

Again with the tanks, you seem to be obsessed with an idea that tank quality is the only thing that matters. It's not. Well trained, well led crews with ancient weapons will defeat idiots armed with cutting edge gear every day of the week. What made the Wehrmacht so effective early on had little to do with their equipment or weaponry, it was their training, doctrine of 'bewungskrieg' (coupled with full armored divisions of course), and their coordination and communication between units on the ground, artillery, and air forces that enabled them to reach such success. If you're just going to keep trotting out "German tanks are too light" then, I don't think I have the crayons to explain this to you.
Yet again even the Germans thought it would be far harder than you do, so Ill stick with the actual experts on this issue.

I don't see what you mean about Chamberlain. My point is that Chamberlain pushed for re-armament once it was clear that Hitler was not going to stop with just the Sudetenland. That was never a disagreement of mine. It was under Chamberlain that Britain survived thanks to the Dowding system. You can certainly criticize Chamberlain for not understanding Hitler, but it's also misleading to say he was completely duped by him. Hitler's Nazi Germany, especially early on, was a confusing state to deal with even for experienced politicians.
Of course he was duped. If he wasn't he would not have sold the Czechs down the river. The fact that he realized he was duped later on doesn't change the fact that he WAS duped.

Finally, are you actually quoting Hitler for military anecdotes? Hitler was in no way a qualified tactician, strategist, or even capable war leader. His comments on anything military-related can be discounted with ease.
The German military was of the same opinion.
 
Yet again even the Germans thought it would be far harder than you do, so Ill stick with the actual experts on this issue.

Jesus man, if you're going to just cop out like that why even bother replying.


Of course he was duped. If he wasn't he would not have sold the Czechs down the river.

He would've have been able to do jack **** even if he decided to fight. Britain wasn't prepared for war at all.


The German military was of the same opinion.

Many German generals also thought an offensive through the Ardennes was impossible, save for a few. Guess how that turned out?
 
Jesus man, if you're going to just cop out like that why even bother replying.

I actually posted links to back my statements, you posted insults and opinion.
Ill stick to the facts.


He would've have been able to do jack **** even if he decided to fight. Britain wasn't prepared for war at all.
Relatively speaking they were in better shape than they were in 1939.
Not that that has any bearing on the fact that he was duped.

Many German generals also thought an offensive through the Ardennes was impossible, save for a few. Guess how that turned out?

Except Hitler who you dismissed as having no clue, yet even he admitted invading Czechoslovakia in 1938 would have been far tougher.
So again I'll stick with the experts.
 
I actually posted links to back my statements, you posted insults and opinion.
Ill stick to the facts.

Are you serious? You've done nothing but post unsubstantiated statements with little to no actual data backing them up, just random statistics and quotes that don't even fully embrace your argument.

You have failed repeatedly to justify your claim that the allies in 1938 could've taken Nazi Germany. The very same arguments you used to say the Czechs would've held their own are the same ones that could've been said for France in 1940.



Relatively speaking they were in better shape than they were in 1939.

With the non-mechanized army, no RADAR system, only a handful of modern planes? Yeah, Britian was ready to kick ass in 1938. Give me a break.



Except Hitler who you dismissed as having no clue, yet even he admitted invading Czechoslovakia in 1938 would have been far tougher.
So again I'll stick with the experts.

"Hitler"

"Expert"

You're not even trying are you.
 
Are you serious? You've done nothing but post unsubstantiated statements with little to no actual data backing them up, just random statistics and quotes that don't even fully embrace your argument.

You have failed repeatedly to justify your claim that the allies in 1938 could've taken Nazi Germany. The very same arguments you used to say the Czechs would've held their own are the same ones that could've been said for France in 1940.
Yes I am serious I have proved my point. You have failed to prove yours.
Your failure to comprehend the differences between the situation in Czechoslovakia in 1938 and France is the problem.

With the non-mechanized army, no RADAR system, only a handful of modern planes? Yeah, Britian was ready to kick ass in 1938. Give me a break.
Strawman argument again.
You keep trying to compare Britain alone to Germany as opposed to Britain/France AND Czechoslovakia. As to modern equipment, Germany was lacking that as well.

"Hitler"

"Expert"

You're not even trying are you.

I posted the links if you check them you would see Hitler only thought so AFTER he inspected the Czech defences, german military leaders had that opinion both before and afterwartds.
Within the German Army itself, Hitler did not have unilateral support either. Erich von Manstein, for one, thought the move to be too daring. "[H]ad Czechoslovakia defended her self, we would have been held up by her fortifications," he said, "for we did not have the means to break through." In secret, some German Army leaders such as Franz Halder were organizing a revolt should Hitler come too close to plunging Germany into a war with Britain and France, a situation that was unwinnable according to the generals
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=87

Chamberlain was duped by Hitler and his refusal to start re-armament until Hitler made it obvious he had duped Chamberlain proves that he was not playing for time.
Your claim is debunked Chamberlain deserves his ignominy.
 
Yes I am serious I have proved my point. You have failed to prove yours.
Your failure to comprehend the differences between the situation in Czechoslovakia in 1938 and France is the problem.

You have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding the situation facing Czechoslovakia. You have never addressed the austrian front, you never explained how the woefully lacking-in-depth Czech defenses would've held with little strategic fallback options, nor have you explained how the Czech Army would've operated in the face of manpower shortages, considering they got many of their conscripts from ethnic minorities that didn't share the Czech's sentiments, nor how the immobile Czech fortress divisions would've been able to maintain a defensive line when WWII proved that the ability to mount local and large scale counterattacks was necessary for a modern defensive line.

Your only argument was that German tanks are too light, ignoring that tank quality can easily be overlooked when comparing more important things like doctrine or organization. When you can actually address the above you might actually succeed in making your point.



Strawman argument again.
You keep trying to compare Britain alone to Germany as opposed to Britain/France AND Czechoslovakia. As to modern equipment, Germany was lacking that as well.

France wasn't really in better shape. Their armor was not organized, they lacked any kind of offensive planning, nor did they field many modern aircraft as well. Why you continue to insist 1938 France would do what they failed to do in 1940 despite having significant advantages is beyond me.


I posted the links if you check them you would see Hitler only thought so AFTER he inspected the Czech defences, german military leaders had that opinion both before and afterwartds.

Hitler's opinion on military matters are largely irrelevant. He demonstrated complete incompetence several times over the course of the war, if you want to believe otherwise and use him as justification that's your own doing.

Munich Conference and the Annexation of Sudetenland | World War II Database

Chamberlain was duped by Hitler and his refusal to start re-armament until Hitler made it obvious he had duped Chamberlain proves that he was not playing for time.
Your claim is debunked Chamberlain deserves his ignominy.

Hindsight is 20/20. I know it must feel good to pretend that if you were in his position you would've done better, but that's pretty unlikely.
 
You have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding the situation facing Czechoslovakia. You have never addressed the austrian front, you never explained how the woefully lacking-in-depth Czech defenses would've held with little strategic fallback options, nor have you explained how the Czech Army would've operated in the face of manpower shortages, considering they got many of their conscripts from ethnic minorities that didn't share the Czech's sentiments, nor how the immobile Czech fortress divisions would've been able to maintain a defensive line when WWII proved that the ability to mount local and large scale counterattacks was necessary for a modern defensive line.

Your only argument was that German tanks are too light, ignoring that tank quality can easily be overlooked when comparing more important things like doctrine or organization. When you can actually address the above you might actually succeed in making your point.
I have tried to make my poijnt clear but you are determined to ignore what I say or actually read and understand the links I have posted.
I have backed up my claims and you have done nothing but offer unbacked personal opinion.
Opinion NOT shared by the majority of military strategists then or now.


France wasn't really in better shape. Their armor was not organized, they lacked any kind of offensive planning, nor did they field many modern aircraft as well. Why you continue to insist 1938 France would do what they failed to do in 1940 despite having significant advantages is beyond me.

How was France better in 1940 than they were in 1938 relative to Germany?

Hitler's opinion on military matters are largely irrelevant. He demonstrated complete incompetence several times over the course of the war, if you want to believe otherwise and use him as justification that's your own doing.

It wasnt just Hitler's opinion as I have already stated.

Hindsight is 20/20. I know it must feel good to pretend that if you were in his position you would've done better, but that's pretty unlikely.
You are pretending that Chamberlain sold the Czechs out to gain time to re-arm when his words and actions prove otherwise.
 
I have tried to make my poijnt clear but you are determined to ignore what I say or actually read and understand the links I have posted.
I have backed up my claims and you have done nothing but offer unbacked personal opinion.

I have made points you have either refused to address or simply ignored. If you are not going to counter them then I see no point in continuing this debate.


Opinion NOT shared by the majority of military strategists then or now.

Actually all you've done is make generalized statements and use generic quotes that don't address the points I have brought up.



How was France better in 1940 than they were in 1938 relative to Germany?

By the time war broke out French production of aircraft and tanks had outpaced Germany, thanks to resource shortages in Germany but also the larger French economy.

In 1938 much of the French war capabilities were based on "paper stockpiles", armaments and weapons that were out of date and not organized. Earlier Jack Hays pointed out that France had over 4,000 tanks, but failed to mention the vast majority were old and more importantly, not organized in any meaningful fashion. The French in 1938 only had around two light brigades of tanks operational, and their production of modern aircraft was only 65 per year. In 1939 alone France produced 1,000 modern tanks. By 1940 the French were armed with many more modern tanks and aircraft, an undeniable improvement over 1938. By may of 1940, France fielded 3,200 tanks, more than the Germans attacked them with. The French were also purchasing equipment wholesale from the United States.




You are pretending that Chamberlain sold the Czechs out to gain time to re-arm when his words and actions prove otherwise.

I am not saying that. I said part of the reason Chamberlain didn't want to go to war in 1938 was because Britain was unprepared and wouldn't be able to save Czechoslovakia. He did know however that British and French economic output outpaced that of Germany, so he attempted to placate Hitler by offering the Sudenteland, knowing that if Hitler really wanted it there was nothing really stopping him from taking it. France wasn't about to go to war and the Czechs themselves were telling the Western Allies that they couldn't hold out. So he pushed for a peace that he hoped would avoid war. Once it became clear that Hitler wasn't going to stop and seized the rest of Czechoslovakia, he set Britain on the path to war with Germany, allying with Poland and modernizing the British Military.
 
I have made points you have either refused to address or simply ignored. If you are not going to counter them then I see no point in continuing this debate.
When I posted the links to military strategists who disagreed with you I was both adressign and refuting your points.

Actually all you've done is make generalized statements and use generic quotes that don't address the points I have brought up.
No I pointed out that others more versed in the subject than either of us didnt share your opinion. You also havent provided any sources to back your claims.

By the time war broke out French production of aircraft and tanks had outpaced Germany, thanks to resource shortages in Germany but also the larger French economy.

In 1938 much of the French war capabilities were based on "paper stockpiles", armaments and weapons that were out of date and not organized. Earlier Jack Hays pointed out that France had over 4,000 tanks, but failed to mention the vast majority were old and more importantly, not organized in any meaningful fashion. The French in 1938 only had around two light brigades of tanks operational, and their production of modern aircraft was only 65 per year. In 1939 alone France produced 1,000 modern tanks. By 1940 the French were armed with many more modern tanks and aircraft, an undeniable improvement over 1938. By may of 1940, France fielded 3,200 tanks, more than the Germans attacked them with. The French were also purchasing equipment wholesale from the United States.
How was France better in 1940 than they were in 1938 relative to Germany?
I asked this because your post didnt address the issue and neither did this one.
in 1938 the Czech arms, armarments and army would have been counted as part of the forces arrayed against Germany. in 1940 the Czech army was gone and the arms/armarments were now added to German forces. Something that doesnt show up in production figures.
As to the German military itself it had much better equipment in 1940 than it did in 1938. Tanks/aircraft/artillery

I am not saying that. I said part of the reason Chamberlain didn't want to go to war in 1938 was because Britain was unprepared and wouldn't be able to save Czechoslovakia. He did know however that British and French economic output outpaced that of Germany, so he attempted to placate Hitler by offering the Sudenteland, knowing that if Hitler really wanted it there was nothing really stopping him from taking it. France wasn't about to go to war and the Czechs themselves were telling the Western Allies that they couldn't hold out. So he pushed for a peace that he hoped would avoid war. Once it became clear that Hitler wasn't going to stop and seized the rest of Czechoslovakia, he set Britain on the path to war with Germany, allying with Poland and modernizing the British Military.
Britain was unprepared and could not save Poland, yet they went to war for them. History is pretty clear that it was only because Chamberlain finally became convinced that Hitler could not be appeased that he finally stood up to him. Now if you want to show that Chamberlain was just buying time with Munich and not trying to buy peace, then present some evidence of this.
What he did by selling out Czechoslovakia was award Hitler time to increase his military assimilate the arms/armarments of the Czechs as well as their military industrial potential. Making Germany stronger vis à vis France/Britain when war actually broke out
 
Back
Top Bottom