Re: US Self Defence nut (History derail)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let me say, however, that I will not accept the mood of panic or of despair. There is another side - a side which deserves our study, and can be studied without derogating in any way from the urgency which ought to animate our military preparations. The British Navy is, and will continue to be, incomparably the strongest in Europe. The French Army will certainly be, for a good many months to come, at least equal in numbers and superior in maturity to the German Army. The British and French Air Forces together are a very different proposition from either of those forces considered separately. While no one can prophesy, it seems to me that the Western democracies, provided they are knit closely together, would be tolerably safe for a considerable number of months ahead. No one can say to a month or two, or even a quarter or two, how long this period of comparative equipoise will last. But it seems certain that during the year 1937 the German Army will become more numerous than the French Army, and very much more efficient than it is now. It seems certain that the German Air Force will continue to improve upon the long lead which it already has over us, particularly in respect of long-distance bombing machines. The year 1937 will certainly be marked by a great increase in the adverse factors which only intense efforts on our part can, to effective extent, countervail.

The efforts at rearmament which France and Britain are making will not by themselves be sufficient. It will be necessary for the We~tern democracies, even at some extension of their risks, to gather round them all the elements of collective security or of combined defensive strength against aggression - if you prefer, as I do myself, to call it so - which can be assembled on the basis of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Thus I hope we may succeed in again achieving a position of superior force, and then will be the time, not to repeat the folly which we committed when we were all-powerful and supreme, but to invite Germany to make common cause with us in assuaging the griefs of Europe and opening a new door to peace and disarmament.

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Locusts.html

[Thumpalumpacus]

I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/851576/posts

It is clear from his 1938 comments on Munich that he thought an earlier war would have been better.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, yeah. If you've got something that shows Churchill to be unwilling to consider war at an earlier date, I'm all eyes.

My money is on you laying a couple of more personal attacks, though. That seems to be the only adequacy I've seen in your posting so far.

[mistermack]

You don't seem to realize that that doesn't change the fact that a Briton supported going to war instead of appeasement. The fact that you don't know this about your own country is pathetic.

His opinion of the Ten-Years' Rule was and is well-known; he clearly anticipated a war and was wise enough to see that sooner was better than later.

You bore me.

Winston Churchill called for war to start in 1936, TWELVE YEARS LATER?
And you call that wisdom? You astound me.
Although, to you, it probably is.

I wonder what country we would have attacked Germany through, and would they agree to it, or would we have to conquer that country first? Hmmm, practical problems. How inconvenient !
File them under "ignore"

[mistermack]

So, yeah. If you've got something that shows Churchill to be unwilling to consider war at an earlier date, I'm all eyes.

My money is on you laying a couple of more personal attacks, though. That seems to be the only adequacy I've seen in your posting so far.

You seem unable to grasp the fact that Churchill was just an isolated, distrusted politician at the time.
He had a tiny following. His best TACTIC was to keep on about war, because if there was no war, he was insignificant, and would never amount to anything. It was his one chance, and he knew it.

If he had been in power, you would have heard a totally different story from him.
There is no way whatsoever, if he had been Prime Minister in 1936, that he would have declared war.
He may have upped rearmament. That's about it.

And before the war, Churchill always called for greater arms spending, EXCEPT when he was in charge of it, when he actually cut it.

His "histories" were nothing but a re-writing of history, with him as the wise hero.
It's all bollocks.

ps, I just match your tone in my posts. If you prefer a friendly debate, it's not difficult to get one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I wonder what country we would have attacked Germany through, and would they agree to it, or would we have to conquer that country first?

You do know Germany has seacoast, right? And, of course, there was always the possibility of invading Germany through a country that shared your concern, like, say, France?

[mistermack]

I wonder what country we would have attacked Germany through, and would they agree to it, or would we have to conquer that country first?

You do know Germany has seacoast, right? And, of course, there was always the possibility of invading Germany through a country that shared your concern, like, say, France?

Yep, Germany has a sea coast. But, if you're familiar with any D day history, you would know how impossible it would have been for Britain to invade Germany that way.
Especially in 1936.

As far as France goes, they weren't thinking that way in 1936, and I doubt if anything could have convinced them otherwise. Nor was Britain. And if we had attacked, WE would have been the aggressors.
Stalin was very friendly with Hitler at the time. We could have ended up fighting Germany AND Russia.

Nobody knew the future. That's the trouble with debating history.
We ALL know what happened now.
Nobody in 1936 knew what would happen the next DAY, let alone three years into the future.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Normandy was a defended coast with years of preparation. (BTW, you don't know what I do on the internet?)

[mistermack]

Normandy was a defended coast with years of preparation. (BTW, you don't know what I do on the internet?)

On D day, we had air superiority. And not far to go. And a huge well-prepared fleet. And US participation.
I think an invasion of Germany by sea would have been unthinkable at the time. And what would the German war-machine have done to the the troops that did manage to land? As they ran through France in weeks, I don't think British landing forces, with hardly any hardware, would have lasted a day.

No, what do you do on the net?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Normandy was a defended coast with years of preparation. (BTW, you don't know what I do on the internet?)

On D day, we had air superiority. And not far to go. And a huge well-prepared fleet. And US participation.
I think an invasion of Germany by sea would have been unthinkable at the time. And what would the German war-machine have done to the the troops that did manage to land? As they ran through France in weeks, I don't think British landing forces, with hardly any hardware, would have lasted a day.

And how prepared was the Heer and Luftwaffe?

No, what do you do on the net?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar

[mistermack]

And how prepared was the Heer and Luftwaffe?

I don't even know what the Heer was. But to invade Germany by sea would take huge preparation.
Plenty of time for Germany to improve it's coastal defences.
And the Luftwaffe would have the distance advantage, just like the RAF had in the battle of Britain.
And we wouldn't have had radar cover.
I'd say that it would have been a slaughter. Our fleet would have been bombed out of existence, I think.
And the U Boats would have joined in.
And anything that made it onshore would have been hugely outnumbered and outclassed by the German Heavy hardware.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar
Ah well, I rely on you to correct me then. There should be plenty to do, because I know fuck-all, except what I've picked up in passing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Heer was the German Army. The Wehrmacht was the whole shebang, army, navy and air force. You might be interested to note that in 1936 the panzers had a main gun of 20mm at best. The Luftwaffe was trying to figure out how to use the Stuka. The best ships in the Kreigsmarine were the kind that would eventually be defeated by light cruisers. The number of U-boats made the German admirals ask that war be delayed a bit, say 1946.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And, of course, there didn't have to be a landing at all. The border between France and Germany was beyond the ability of the Heer to defend in 1936. When they reoccupied the Ruhr they were ordered to pull back immediately if there was any sign of resistance from France at all.

[mistermack]

And, of course, there didn't have to be a landing at all. The border between France and Germany was beyond the ability of the Heer to defend in 1936. When they reoccupied the Ruhr they were ordered to pull back immediately if there was any sign of resistance from France at all.

I'm sure a land campaign would have had the best chance. But the Germans obviously overestimated the French forces if that was the order.
Considering that Germany attacked France in Mid May, and France surrendered in Mid June.
Looking at that performance, I doubt if France and Britain together would have lasted very long, if they had invaded.

But all this is hindsight. We all know a lot more about the Nazis now, than they did then.
You can't just use hindsight, and re-run the last war.
Well, you can, but it doesn't tell you much about real life.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And, of course, there didn't have to be a landing at all. The border between France and Germany was beyond the ability of the Heer to defend in 1936. When they reoccupied the Ruhr they were ordered to pull back immediately if there was any sign of resistance from France at all.

I'm sure a land campaign would have had the best chance. But the Germans obviously overestimated the French forces if that was the order.
Considering that Germany attacked France in Mid May, and France surrendered in Mid June.
Looking at that performance, I doubt if France and Britain together would have lasted very long, if they had invaded.

But all this is hindsight. We all know a lot more about the Nazis now, than they did then.
You can't just use hindsight, and re-run the last war.
Well, you can, but it doesn't tell you much about real life.

The Germans were aware of the French capabilities. They also understood their own. At the time they weren't ready to fight 1936 France.