• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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

Kal'Stang

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,747
Reaction score
22,572
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As the title says. Who do you see as one of the most intelligent and able and gifted politicians/diplomat in history? Why do you feel that way?

Personally for me it is Otto Von Bismarck. Without him, a unified Germany would not have happened. Granted...maybe no world wars...but had he remained in power there also would have been no wars. His political and diplomatic maneuvering essentially set Germany up as a powerful empire. His alliances essentially kept Germany on the receiving end of good fortune.

He even understood that Russia was the key to keeping a war out of Germany. The guy was a genius. Too bad the Kaiser was a damned fool
I'd have to say Thomas Jefferson. Minister to France, helped draft/give ideas for two of the most important documents in US history (DoI and BoR respectively), doubled the size of the US with the Louisiana Purchase, convinced Congress to fund the Lewis and Clark expedition, was an advocate for assimilating Indian Tribes and encouraged treaties with them, signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves in 1807, and many many more things.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
17,482
Reaction score
10,307
Location
C17
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
When I posted the links to military strategists who disagreed with you I was both adressign and refuting your points.


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.

You made vague references to German officers who's understanding of the situation was limited by lack of intelligence assets and reports. My sources come from basic understanding of the situation at the time.

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.
The ****

are you just not reading what I'm writing? I literally just explained why.

in 1938 the Czech arms, armarments and army would have been counted as part of the forces arrayed against Germany.
The Czechs wouldn't have lasted long enough to begin with, I believe I've already pointed that out numerous times.

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.
The Germans acquired 244 Pz 35 light tanks from Czechoslovakia, and had captured or built a further 237 Pz 38 tanks by the time of the Battle of France. While the additional tanks were certainly appreciated by the Wehrmacht, it's clear that the Czech additions still didn't match the massive increase in French tank production between 1939 and 1940, which was well over 1,000 vehicles. Again, German production actually slowed down in 1939 due to a shortage of resources.

As to the German military itself it had much better equipment in 1940 than it did in 1938. Tanks/aircraft/artillery.
No, not really. The British fielded better aircraft than the Luftwaffe 1940, as were French tanks compared to German counterparts (being typically better armed or armored). While Germany refreshed it's stocks and gained some new equipment with the conquest of Czechoslovakia, it didn't offset the quantities of war materiel the West was producing with their better economies, nor the equipment the French were purchasing from the USA. Where Germany had clear materiel superiority in several areas in 1938 (aircraft, tanks),it had parity at best in 1940, and outnumbered overall.



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
No, for ****s sake, for the millionth time. In 1939 the British alone matched Germany's aircraft production, and even though the French were late to the party for production they were also buying from the US. Germany was not stronger by any means in material or numbers.

He made the best decision he could at the time, and should not be faulted for that. It must also not be forgotten, that ultimately, he was the one who ultimately chose to declare War on Germany when the time came. He was a man who held to the course of peace for as long as reasonably possible, and only turned to war when he had no other choice. In 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland, the French and the British were at least on the track to fight, where as they weren't in 19398.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
26,967
Reaction score
11,640
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You made vague references to German officers who's understanding of the situation was limited by lack of intelligence assets and reports. My sources come from basic understanding of the situation at the time.
You have provided no sources, my references were based on what the Gerrman military said. Please feel free to support your claims but so far all you have done is provide your personal opinion.

The ****

are you just not reading what I'm writing? I literally just explained why.
I asked how was France better in 1940 than they were in 1938 relative to Germany?
France was having a very tough time modernizing their aircraft. Labour disputes and a less than succesfull nationalization of the industry slowed production. They also had compelted but unusable aircraft due to lack equipment such a propellers, thus their paper strength and actual strength were very different
For example, the Germans built only one, single-engine fighter in quantity before World War II: the Me 109. The French, however, distributed aircraft production among the various aircraft companies, and ordered small quantities of many different aircraft models. The French were unable to achieve anything resembling economies of scale in the 1930s, so that by the war's outbreak, the French were flying a half dozen different single-engine fighters to Germany's one. The same situation existed for bombers and reconnaissance aircraft
Inter-War French Aviation Industry


The Czechs wouldn't have lasted long enough to begin with, I believe I've already pointed that out numerous times.
Yes that is your opinion, one that I disagree with.

The Germans acquired 244 Pz 35 light tanks from Czechoslovakia, and had captured or built a further 237 Pz 38 tanks by the time of the Battle of France. While the additional tanks were certainly appreciated by the Wehrmacht, it's clear that the Czech additions still didn't match the massive increase in French tank production between 1939 and 1940, which was well over 1,000 vehicles. Again, German production actually slowed down in 1939 due to a shortage of resources.
500 added to Germany and removed from the allies makes 1000 difference in tanks right there.

No, not really. The British fielded better aircraft than the Luftwaffe 1940, as were French tanks compared to German counterparts (being typically better armed or armored). While Germany refreshed it's stocks and gained some new equipment with the conquest of Czechoslovakia, it didn't offset the quantities of war materiel the West was producing with their better economies, nor the equipment the French were purchasing from the USA. Where Germany had clear materiel superiority in several areas in 1938 (aircraft, tanks),it had parity at best in 1940, and outnumbered overall.
In 1938 the Hurricane was much closer to the early models of bf109 but not really a match for the bf109E as to armarment the .303 machine guns were found to be lacking in punch, the Germans, though they had fewer had heavier weapons in their Bf109s. As to bombers the early war year bombers such as the hamilton/Wessley/Blenheim were obsolescent and werent replaced until later in the war.


No, for ****s sake, for the millionth time. In 1939 the British alone matched Germany's aircraft production, and even though the French were late to the party for production they were also buying from the US. Germany was not stronger by any means in material or numbers.
France was buying from the US but didnt recieve most of the orders do to the fall fo France, If they had started the war earlier they probably would have started purchasing from the Americans earlier as well.

He made the best decision he could at the time, and should not be faulted for that. It must also not be forgotten, that ultimately, he was the one who ultimately chose to declare War on Germany when the time came. He was a man who held to the course of peace for as long as reasonably possible, and only turned to war when he had no other choice. In 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland, the French and the British were at least on the track to fight, where as they weren't in 19398.
Ok lets look at this another way then.
Lets say you are 100% correct and they go to war in 1938. Germany quickly overuns the Czechs and then takes out an unprepared France. They would still be stopped at the channel, The Brits would still have lost most of their equipment at Dunkirque and the war would have played out as it did with Germany`s defeat.
So if you are right in your assesment the only thing his betrayal of the Czechs did was bring shame on himself and Britain. If I am correct then there would have been no war as the Generals would have removed Hitler OR the war may have been much shorter with a German defeat.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
17,482
Reaction score
10,307
Location
C17
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You have provided no sources, my references were based on what the Gerrman military said. Please feel free to support your claims but so far all you have done is provide your personal opinion.
My sources can be found on pretty much any site that deals with military dispositions and doctrine; I however don't draw the same conclusions as other's based on what is written. If you want books, I recommend "To Lose a Battle", "Wages of Destruction", "The Munich Crisis, 1938: Prelude to World War II", and the "Decisive Duel", all of which contain the information I've made mention of.



I asked how was France better in 1940 than they were in 1938 relative to Germany?
Am I going to have to spell this out to you?

In 1938, the French had lass modern aircraft and fewer organized tanks than the Germans (500 BFs vs just a handful of modern French fighters), and four panzer divisions vs what was essentially two light brigades. Does that clear it up?




Yes that is your opinion, one that I disagree with.
And you have not countered any of the points I have made regarding it.


500 added to Germany and removed from the allies makes 1000 difference in tanks right there.
No, because Czech inventories did not match French production. That wasn't part of the equation at any point.


In 1938 the Hurricane was much closer to the early models of bf109 but not really a match for the bf109E as to armarment the .303 machine guns were found to be lacking in punch, the Germans, though they had fewer had heavier weapons in their Bf109s. As to bombers the early war year bombers such as the hamilton/Wessley/Blenheim were obsolescent and werent replaced until later in the war.
That doesn't really have anything to do with my point.



France was buying from the US but didnt recieve most of the orders do to the fall fo France, If they had started the war earlier they probably would have started purchasing from the Americans earlier as well.

Unlikely, since the Fourth Neutrality Act didn't come into effect until November of 1939.


Ok lets look at this another way then.
Lets say you are 100% correct and they go to war in 1938. Germany quickly overuns the Czechs and then takes out an unprepared France. They would still be stopped at the channel, The Brits would still have lost most of their equipment at Dunkirque and the war would have played out as it did with Germany`s defeat.

So if you are right in your assesment the only thing his betrayal of the Czechs did was bring shame on himself and Britain.
Far more shameful actually would be if Chamberlain had guaranteed Czechoslovakia, and then when war would break out Britain would be powerless to stop the German invasion, which it was.

Whether 1938 Germany could've pulled off the Sickle Cut is debatable, but in 1938, with anti-war sentiment in Britain extremely high, I'd be more concerned about the possibility that, after months of indecisive conflict, possibly with the defeat of the Allies in France or the Low Countries, Britain might've sued for an armistice, giving Germany free reign in Eastern Europe. It's more likely under Chamberlain than Churchill, since Chamberlain understood the effects war would've have on the British Empire better than Churchill, but not surpising given how strong anti-war feelings were at the time.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
26,967
Reaction score
11,640
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My sources can be found on pretty much any site that deals with military dispositions and doctrine; I however don't draw the same conclusions as other's based on what is written. If you want books, I recommend "To Lose a Battle", "Wages of Destruction", "The Munich Crisis, 1938: Prelude to World War II", and the "Decisive Duel", all of which contain the information I've made mention of.
My sources can be found pretty much anywhere as well. Thanx for the list I have read Munich Crisis, will look up the others.

Am I going to have to spell this out to you?

In 1938, the French had lass modern aircraft and fewer organized tanks than the Germans (500 BFs vs just a handful of modern French fighters), and four panzer divisions vs what was essentially two light brigades. Does that clear it up?
Yes spell it out.
Most French military aircraft production was liason or other light aircraft, many were built but not servicable and were generally still inferior, The germans were upgrading to the Bf109E by the time the war broke out.
As to tanks I already showed you that the addition of the Czech tanks negated any over prodution by French.
Now if you want to show me that the effective forces increased dramatically compard to those of Germany at this time that woudl have some bearing. But you would have to be more than the Czech army which was neutralized by Munich to make them better.
Not that it would make any difference

And you have not countered any of the points I have made regarding it.
Sure I have you have just disregarded them.

No, because Czech inventories did not match French production. That wasn't part of the equation at any point.
Yes it was part of the equation a very important part and simple math says if you take 500 from one side and move it to the other that makes a difference of 1000.


That doesn't really have anything to do with my point.
Then I misunderstood your point, please clarify.

Unlikely, since the Fourth Neutrality Act didn't come into effect until November of 1939.
Perhaps, doesnt change the fact France didnt recieve much from the USA before they fell.


Far more shameful actually would be if Chamberlain had guaranteed Czechoslovakia, and then when war would break out Britain would be powerless to stop the German invasion, which it was.
Standing up and honouring your treaty commitments would be more shamefull then selling out your ally???

Whether 1938 Germany could've pulled off the Sickle Cut is debatable, but in 1938, with anti-war sentiment in Britain extremely high, I'd be more concerned about the possibility that, after months of indecisive conflict, possibly with the defeat of the Allies in France or the Low Countries, Britain might've sued for an armistice, giving Germany free reign in Eastern Europe. It's more likely under Chamberlain than Churchill, since Chamberlain understood the effects war would've have on the British Empire better than Churchill, but not surpising given how strong anti-war feelings were at the time.
Increadily unlikely as the anti-war feeling faded much faster in Britain than it did with Chamberlain himself. He was forced by public opinion and his own party to start re-armarment rather than because he thought Munich was just a means of buying time to re-arm.
Germany was even less prepared to invade england in 1938-39 than they were in 1940.
There is no reason to believe any selling out of the Czechs had any positive outcome for the allies in ww2.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
17,482
Reaction score
10,307
Location
C17
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
My sources can be found pretty much anywhere as well. Thanx for the list I have read Munich Crisis, will look up the others.
No problem.


As to tanks I already showed you that the addition of the Czech tanks negated any over prodution by French.

Now if you want to show me that the effective forces increased dramatically compard to those of Germany at this time that woudl have some bearing. But you would have to be more than the Czech army which was neutralized by Munich to make them better.
No, it didn't, because French production was ready to double in 1940, producing another 850 tanks in the first six months of fighting before defeat halted production. Even with Czech additions, the inefficient Germany economy couldn't match either Britain or France.


Not that it would make any difference
That's actually something we'll agree on. No matter how many tanks or aircraft the Allies built between 1938-1940 it didn't change the fundamentally flawed approach the French and British had to modern warfare, leaving them open to the brilliant maneuver warfare of the Sickle Cut. It's shameful, really; the countries that introduced the tank into war were beaten by the nation that had struggled to field them.

Sure I have you have just disregarded them.
You haven't besides saying "Czech tanks were better." and arguing the allies would've done what they failed to do in 1939 despite being better prepared for



Then I misunderstood your point, please clarify.


Perhaps, doesnt change the fact France didnt recieve much from the USA before they fell.
My point was that the British were able to match Germany aircraft production despite being late to the party, and the fact that the French had the money in the first place to buy from the Americans speaks to their superior treasury.



Standing up and honouring your treaty commitments would be more shamefull then selling out your ally???
Promising to defend Czechoslovakia then utterly failing to do so isn't very honorable.

To be fair though, the British aren't really fully to blame for inaction against Nazi Germany when fighting broke out. Command of the forces in the field fell to the French, namely Gamelin, who despite his comments otherwise, did jack **** to threaten Germany. His entire plan to was to wait until the French had built up a ridiculous material advantage (even though it might've taken until 1942) before launching any major offensives.


Increadily unlikely as the anti-war feeling faded much faster in Britain than it did with Chamberlain himself. He was forced by public opinion and his own party to start re-armarment rather than because he thought Munich was just a means of buying time to re-arm.
No, not really. There was actually a fair amount of support for giving Sudetenland to Germany among the West, it was a largely German ethnic area, and like most Eastern European states, Czechoslovakia didn't have a great reputation when it came to ethnic and territorial disputes. Anti-war sentiment in the West largely gave way only after Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland; at the time of Munich, there was actually a general sentiment that Hitler was a decent leader and ya know, not a mass murdering megalomaniac.

Germany was even less prepared to invade england in 1938-39 than they were in 1940.
A German invasion of England was never going to succeed at any point in time.

There is no reason to believe any selling out of the Czechs had any positive outcome for the allies in ww2.
Starting the war in 1939 instead of 1938 gave the British time to develop their RADAR and mechanize their army. No small feats that shouldn't be ignored.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
26,967
Reaction score
11,640
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No problem.
No, it didn't, because French production was ready to double in 1940, producing another 850 tanks in the first six months of fighting before defeat halted production. Even with Czech additions, the inefficient Germany economy couldn't match either Britain or France.
Please post German production figures then add Czech tanks. Not sure about tanks but their plane production was misleading. Of 121 Bloch 131 built none could be used for anything but recon due to poor performance, on 3 sept 1939 none of the 120 Bloch 151 were useable, some had no propellers others no gunsights. By end of November they had 358 but 157 still had no propellers. Bloch 175 21 built, none used operationally. Breguet 693/694 274 build but only 139 used due to lack of operational equipment. Leo 451, not all build could be used due to lack of propellers, MS 406 France tried to exchange airframes for engines, because they lacked the engines to fly them, at start of the war Potez 630 all grounded due to serious engine defects. At the time of the German attack on France of 290 Potez 630/631`s 60 were unserviceable due to lack of propellers. Not that any of it is relevant because they failed to accomplish anything. It wasn’t French/British preparedness that was relevant it was German. And they were more prepared in 1939 than 1938.

That's actually something we'll agree on. No matter how many tanks or aircraft the Allies built between 1938-1940 it didn't change the fundamentally flawed approach the French and British had to modern warfare, leaving them open to the brilliant maneuver warfare of the Sickle Cut. It's shameful, really; the countries that introduced the tank into war were beaten by the nation that had struggled to field them.
Agreed and hence even if Chamberlain was selling out the Czech to buy time it was a shameful act.
You haven't besides saying "Czech tanks were better." and arguing the allies would've done what they failed to do in 1939 despite being better prepared for
Because the Germans weren’t prepared and since it was the Germans who held the initiativce it was their level of preparations that count.
My point was that the British were able to match Germany aircraft production despite being late to the party, and the fact that the French had the money in the first place to buy from the Americans speaks to their superior treasury.
If they declared war in 1938 they would have matched German production even sooner.





Promising to defend Czechoslovakia then utterly failing to do so isn't very honorable.
I disagree fighting for Greece and Crete was honorable, failing to fight for Czechoslovakia and Poland was dishonorable.

To be fair though, the British aren't really fully to blame for inaction against Nazi Germany when fighting broke out. Command of the forces in the field fell to the French, namely Gamelin, who despite his comments otherwise, did jack **** to threaten Germany. His entire plan to was to wait until the French had built up a ridiculous material advantage (even though it might've taken until 1942) before launching any major offensives.
Agreed

No, not really. There was actually a fair amount of support for giving Sudetenland to Germany among the West, it was a largely German ethnic area, and like most Eastern European states, Czechoslovakia didn't have a great reputation when it came to ethnic and territorial disputes. Anti-war sentiment in the West largely gave way only after Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland; at the time of Munich, there was actually a general sentiment that Hitler was a decent leader and ya know, not a mass murdering megalomaniac.
Some saw it that way but others felt that if the Czechs ignored the Munich agreement and fought then the Brits and French would have come in on their side anyway.

A German invasion of England was never going to succeed at any point in time.
Agreed.
Starting the war in 1939 instead of 1938 gave the British time to develop their RADAR and mechanize their army. No small feats that shouldn't be ignored.
No small feats but irrelevant to the course of the war. They lost most of their equipment at Dunkirk and RADAR was only useful for defence for Britain, as you said at no time was a German invasion of England ever going to succeed.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Wow, no votes yet for Churchill? Gifted speaker and all-around intelligent leader. Oh, and he was a fellow geoist. :mrgreen:

He had several flaws, especially when it came to race. But he was the man Britain most needed during the war years.
Even on a purely military level Churchill is very overated, Gallipoli is a great example, as is the fact that he delayed the invasion of Normandy by several years by insisting on focusing on the Axis´ ´soft underbelly´ and attacking via the mediterianian (which was really more about protecting Britians colonies therein) D-Day only happend when Rosevelt smelt bull****. Not to mention the mess he left of the Middle East.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
17,482
Reaction score
10,307
Location
C17
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Please post German production figures then add Czech tanks.
The Germans were not producing a great deal of tanks between the Munich Crisis and the outbreak of war, due to the aforementioned resource shortages. By some indications it was as few as 50 tanks per month. Even with the Czech additions they're still short.

It wasn’t French/British preparedness that was relevant it was German. And they were more prepared in 1939 than 1938.
And the Allies were more prepared in 1939 than they were in 1938. German advantages in 1939 were due to theoretical concepts like maneuver warfare, not numerical superiority. There's a marked difference, being that one is hard to quantify while the other is easy to visualize and use for justification. The Allies believed they could blockade Germany and wear them down through attrition with their superior numbers and economies. It's not a bad strategy, and had the Germans not learned how to conduct mobile warfare, it might've succeeded.


Agreed and hence even if Chamberlain was selling out the Czech to buy time it was a shameful act.
It's not Chamberlain's fault the British Defense Ministry had completely failed to realize the times were changing. And the British were not alone in this.

Because the Germans weren’t prepared and since it was the Germans who held the initiativce it was their level of preparations that count.
The Germans were prepared. The German Wehrmacht was mobilized, unlike the French and British. Mobilization is not any easy undertaking, and I think you're underestimating how important that fact it.

If they declared war in 1938 they would have matched German production even sooner.
Debatable.


I disagree fighting for Greece and Crete was honorable, failing to fight for Czechoslovakia and Poland was dishonorable.
The British failed to defend all four. It's not a question of honor, it's the reality of being outmatched on the battlefield.


Some saw it that way but others felt that if the Czechs ignored the Munich agreement and fought then the Brits and French would have come in on their side anyway.
I fail to see how. The British and French both knew that the Germans would overrun the Czechs.




No small feats but irrelevant to the course of the war. They lost most of their equipment at Dunkirk and RADAR was only useful for defence for Britain, as you said at no time was a German invasion of England ever going to succeed.
Untrue. A German invasion was not necessary to bring Britain out of the war. While Churchill may have presented an image of infallible British resistance, Britain was still just the nation that was coming out of the Great Depression and once more forced into a very large scale war. A string of British defeats, including the Battle of Britain, even if it didn't result in an invasion, could've resulted in a peace settlement with Germany.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
26,967
Reaction score
11,640
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Germans were not producing a great deal of tanks between the Munich Crisis and the outbreak of war, due to the aforementioned resource shortages. By some indications it was as few as 50 tanks per month. Even with the Czech additions they're still short.
The Czech tanks negate the french production and you compeltely ignored the failed french aircraft production.


And the Allies were more prepared in 1939 than they were in 1938. German advantages in 1939 were due to theoretical concepts like maneuver warfare, not numerical superiority. There's a marked difference, being that one is hard to quantify while the other is easy to visualize and use for justification. The Allies believed they could blockade Germany and wear them down through attrition with their superior numbers and economies. It's not a bad strategy, and had the Germans not learned how to conduct mobile warfare, it might've succeeded.
Yes tactic were the German strong point but they needed the arms to implement those tactics. Militarily they were better off in 1938 to fight the Germans, when the Germans werent ready/able to implement their tactics.


It's not Chamberlain's fault the British Defense Ministry had completely failed to realize the times were changing. And the British were not alone in this.
Chamberlain was PM and he was the one who refused to re-arm that is on HIM not the defence minsitry

The Germans were prepared. The German Wehrmacht was mobilized, unlike the French and British. Mobilization is not any easy undertaking, and I think you're underestimating how important that fact it.
They were mobilized for a war with the Czechs. They were not prepared for a war with France and Britain in 1938. Transferring troops and armaments from one side to the other is not a quick or easy task.


Debatable.
What ifs always are. But if Britain went to war sooner there is little doubt that they would have started re-arming sooner.

The British failed to defend all four. It's not a question of honor, it's the reality of being outmatched on the battlefield.
By that logic they should have let Hitler conquer the rest of Europe and just sat back and never gone to war. In other historical events the Spartans should not have fought the Persians; The Alamo should have just surrendered without firing a shot. The British should have surrendered to the Spanish Armada because they should not have won either. Fact is until the battle is fought you may lay odds but you cannot know who will win.

I fail to see how. The British and French both knew that the Germans would overrun the Czechs.
No they didn’t most thought that the Czechs would lose on their own but many felt that if they were helped and Britain/France attacked Germany they would win. What changed 1 year later? Was Poland saved? The only thing that changed was that Chamberlain finally realized he had been duped and that Hitler could not be appeased.



Untrue. A German invasion was not necessary to bring Britain out of the war. While Churchill may have presented an image of infallible British resistance, Britain was still just the nation that was coming out of the Great Depression and once more forced into a very large scale war. A string of British defeats, including the Battle of Britain, even if it didn't result in an invasion, could've resulted in a peace settlement with Germany.
Britain could not have lost the battle of Britain under any scenario imaginable. Germany didn’t have the aircraft with the range to win it. Even if Germany continued to concentrate on the airfields the best Germany could do would be to win temporary local air superiority over southern England. They were never in any position to defeat the RAF.

So we are back to your claim that Chamberlain did the right thing selling out the Czechs to gain a bit of time to prepare for war. I disagree because he refused to start re-armament until it was obvious that Munich had failed. Even if he did sell his honour for time it made no difference as it didn’t help the Brits in any case.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
17,482
Reaction score
10,307
Location
C17
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Czech tanks negate the french production and you compeltely ignored the failed french aircraft production.



Yes tactic were the German strong point but they needed the arms to implement those tactics. Militarily they were better off in 1938 to fight the Germans, when the Germans werent ready/able to implement their tactics.

No, they didn't. They won in 1940 using the tanks you've dismissed as too light and weak, where as they lost in 1943-45 despite fielding the Tiger and the Panther.

And that's actually incorrect. The tactics the Germans would use in WWII were first laid down in 1922, when Hans von Seeckt ordered an internal review of the events of the first World War to determine how Germany would fight it's future wars. The result were an army wide adoption of the infiltration tactics the Germans had used to great tactical effect in the Spring Offensives in 1918. By 1921 the Germans had already laid out their doctrine of combined arms mobile warfare that would be the bread and butter of the Wehrmacht's operations in WWII. This was all done despite the fact that the Reichswehr was forbidden from owning aircraft or tanks.

So the Germans already had their plans and doctrine laid out. They accomplished their greatest successes with those tactics, making use of their Mark I and Mark II tanks along the way. You're argument that they couldn't win with those tanks is flat out wrong in every sense of the word.




Chamberlain was PM and he was the one who refused to re-arm that is on HIM not the defence minsitry
Weaponry and doctrine are two very separate things. The actual amount of influence a civilian commander in chief has of the armed forces is very limited with regards to operational and tactical capabilities.


They were mobilized for a war with the Czechs. They were not prepared for a war with France and Britain in 1938. Transferring troops and armaments from one side to the other is not a quick or easy task.
Germany demonstrated on several occasions it was capable of moving men and material faster than either Britain or France, given French reluctance and doctrine.



What ifs always are. But if Britain went to war sooner there is little doubt that they would have started re-arming sooner.
Transitioning from a peace time to war time economy is not an easy task.


By that logic they should have let Hitler conquer the rest of Europe and just sat back and never gone to war. In other historical events the Spartans should not have fought the Persians; The Alamo should have just surrendered without firing a shot. The British should have surrendered to the Spanish Armada because they should not have won either. Fact is until the battle is fought you may lay odds but you cannot know who will win.
No, that's not going by that logic. Chamberalin believed, correctly, that Britain was powerless to stop Hitler from seizing Czechosloavkia. He had a better chance with Poland.


No they didn’t most thought that the Czechs would lose on their own but many felt that if they were helped and Britain/France attacked Germany they would win. What changed 1 year later? Was Poland saved? The only thing that changed was that Chamberlain finally realized he had been duped and that Hitler could not be appeased.
What people think doesn't mean it's true. Many thought the French had the best army going into WWII, but the Battle of France ended with German occupation.




Britain could not have lost the battle of Britain under any scenario imaginable. Germany didn’t have the aircraft with the range to win it. Even if Germany continued to concentrate on the airfields the best Germany could do would be to win temporary local air superiority over southern England. They were never in any position to defeat the RAF.
You can win battles and still lose wars.

So we are back to your claim that Chamberlain did the right thing selling out the Czechs to gain a bit of time to prepare for war. I disagree because he refused to start re-armament until it was obvious that Munich had failed. Even if he did sell his honour for time it made no difference as it didn’t help the Brits in any case.
Of course he's going to wait until Munich had failed. He hoped it would work, and when it didn't, he set Britain on the path to war with Germany.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
26,967
Reaction score
11,640
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, they didn't. They won in 1940 using the tanks you've dismissed as too light and weak, where as they lost in 1943-45 despite fielding the Tiger and the Panther.
And PzIII`s and Pz38s as well, not to mention the aircraft, artillery etc… that they didn’t have in 1938.

And that's actually incorrect. The tactics the Germans would use in WWII were first laid down in 1922, when Hans von Seeckt ordered an internal review of the events of the first World War to determine how Germany would fight it's future wars. The result were an army wide adoption of the infiltration tactics the Germans had used to great tactical effect in the Spring Offensives in 1918. By 1921 the Germans had already laid out their doctrine of combined arms mobile warfare that would be the bread and butter of the Wehrmacht's operations in WWII. This was all done despite the fact that the Reichswehr was forbidden from owning aircraft or tanks.
I said they had the tactics they didn’t have the arms. They learned those tactics using cardboard “tanks” to simulate the arms they didn’t have (fake planes too)

So the Germans already had their plans and doctrine laid out. They accomplished their greatest successes with those tactics, making use of their Mark I and Mark II tanks along the way. You're argument that they couldn't win with those tanks is flat out wrong in every sense of the word.
1. I didn’t say they couldn’t win I said they couldn’t just roll over the Czechs like you claim. I have provided sources that have agreed with me you have provided none that have agreed with you. If you do so then we can at best agree to a stalemate on the issue.
2. They also used PzIIIs and Pz38s as well as having more and better other equipment. It isn’t just about tanks, I used them to try and keep the conversation simple.


Weaponry and doctrine are two very separate things.
Most definitely and a point I have been trying to make.

The actual amount of influence a civilian commander in chief has of the armed forces is very limited with regards to operational and tactical capabilities.
Agreed however I never said Chamberlain was trying to control the tactics I said he refused to allow re-armament until it became obvious that Munich had failed. Re-armament is controlled by politicians, sure military has a say in what they want but Chamberlain held the purse strings and he kept them closed.


Germany demonstrated on several occasions it was capable of moving men and material faster than either Britain or France, given French reluctance and doctrine.
Not while their forces are fully engaged in the east they can’t.

Transitioning from a peace time to war time economy is not an easy task.
Agreed and it took longer because Chamberlain delayed in starting the process.


No, that's not going by that logic. Chamberalin believed, correctly, that Britain was powerless to stop Hitler from seizing Czechosloavkia. He had a better chance with Poland.
Disagree, but please feel free to back up the claims that this was Chamberlains thinking.


What people think doesn't mean it's true. Many thought the French had the best army going into WWII, but the Battle of France ended with German occupation
Yup that is true and what would have been different if the war had started earlier?

You can win battles and still lose wars.
Agreed

Of course he's going to wait until Munich had failed. He hoped it would work, and when it didn't, he set Britain on the path to war with Germany.
Please provide sources to back up this claim. However unless I am mistaken your initial claim was he sold out the Czechs to buy time to re-arm not to see if it would work then re-arm if it didnt.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
17,482
Reaction score
10,307
Location
C17
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
And PzIII`s and Pz38s as well, not to mention the aircraft, artillery etc… that they didn’t have in 1938.
And the British and French didn't have the arms in 1938 that they had in 1940. Your point?


I said they had the tactics they didn’t have the arms. They learned those tactics using cardboard “tanks” to simulate the arms they didn’t have (fake planes too)
The fact that the Germans were already committed to those tactics and doctrine despite not having the armaments says a lot about the Wehrmachts capability to undergo those operations despite not having the equipment. The fact that they pulled it off in 1938 using the same equipment they had in 1940 (since PZIIIs and IVs were the minority in tank numbers during the battle of France) is not an unreasonable conclusion.


1. I didn’t say they couldn’t win I said they couldn’t just roll over the Czechs like you claim.

I have provided sources that have agreed with me you have provided none that have agreed with you.
Please stop pretending that you did. You posted a couple of quotes while I explained why the immobile Czech divisions would be unable to hold their own lacking-in-depth defensive lines and would be outflanked through Austria on top of that. You haven't countered any of that.



Agreed however I never said Chamberlain was trying to control the tactics I said he refused to allow re-armament until it became obvious that Munich had failed. Re-armament is controlled by politicians, sure military has a say in what they want but Chamberlain held the purse strings and he kept them closed.
Tactics and doctrine have little to do with funding.



Not while their forces are fully engaged in the east they can’t.
"fully engaged"

Poland fell in a month. The Czechs would've been lucky to last three weeks. Fully engaged my ass.


Agreed and it took longer because Chamberlain delayed in starting the process.

Disagree, but please feel free to back up the claims that this was Chamberlains thinking.

Please provide sources to back up this claim. However unless I am mistaken your initial claim was he sold out the Czechs to buy time to re-arm not to see if it would work then re-arm if it didnt.
My initial claim is that Chamberlain recognized the situation for what it was; there was nothing he could really do to stop the Germans from seizing Czechoslovakia if Hitler resorted to force of arms. Rather than embark on a war he knew neither Britain nor France were prepared for, he hoped to buy time for the Western Allies to re-arm. As it turns out, Hitler accepted the terms (Although Hitler actually did want war with France, he most likely felt not accepting the terms that effectively gave him what he wanted would damage his public image). So of course Chamberlain was initially hopeful; he most certainly would've felt that he had managed to avoid war and established "peace in our time."

Once it was clear however, that Hitler wasn't going to be stopped (seizing the rest of Czechoslovakia and making trouble with Poland), Chamberlain was forced to acknowledge that his attempts failed and he set Britain on the path of war, by starting re-armament and signing an alliance with Poland.

Chamberlain certainly guessed Hitler wrong, but to blame him for that and for failing to stand up to Hitler at the time doesn't take into account all the circumstances of the time and situation.


Yup that is true and what would have been different if the war had started earlier?
Well for starters, the French would've been forced to hastily mobilize their forces, and would've been severely outclassed in terms of armor and aircraft. The British as well.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
26,967
Reaction score
11,640
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And the British and French didn't have the arms in 1938 that they had in 1940. Your point?




The fact that the Germans were already committed to those tactics and doctrine despite not having the armaments says a lot about the Wehrmachts capability to undergo those operations despite not having the equipment. The fact that they pulled it off in 1938 using the same equipment they had in 1940 (since PZIIIs and IVs were the minority in tank numbers during the battle of France) is not an unreasonable conclusion.




Please stop pretending that you did. You posted a couple of quotes while I explained why the immobile Czech divisions would be unable to hold their own lacking-in-depth defensive lines and would be outflanked through Austria on top of that. You haven't countered any of that.





Tactics and doctrine have little to do with funding.





"fully engaged"

Poland fell in a month. The Czechs would've been lucky to last three weeks. Fully engaged my ass.




My initial claim is that Chamberlain recognized the situation for what it was; there was nothing he could really do to stop the Germans from seizing Czechoslovakia if Hitler resorted to force of arms. Rather than embark on a war he knew neither Britain nor France were prepared for, he hoped to buy time for the Western Allies to re-arm. As it turns out, Hitler accepted the terms (Although Hitler actually did want war with France, he most likely felt not accepting the terms that effectively gave him what he wanted would damage his public image). So of course Chamberlain was initially hopeful; he most certainly would've felt that he had managed to avoid war and established "peace in our time."

Once it was clear however, that Hitler wasn't going to be stopped (seizing the rest of Czechoslovakia and making trouble with Poland), Chamberlain was forced to acknowledge that his attempts failed and he set Britain on the path of war, by starting re-armament and signing an alliance with Poland.

Chamberlain certainly guessed Hitler wrong, but to blame him for that and for failing to stand up to Hitler at the time doesn't take into account all the circumstances of the time and situation.




Well for starters, the French would've been forced to hastily mobilize their forces, and would've been severely outclassed in terms of armor and aircraft. The British as well.
As we are going in circles perhaps we can agree to disagree.
 
Top Bottom