Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Most importantly, Hitler would have started that much farther from a position of dominance. He would have had to overcome not just the Poles, but the Czechs as well. Overcoming the fortified, rough frontier of Czechoslovakia would not have been the romp that his forces had over the Poles in the early days of Sept '39.

How come no one blames the Czechs for not fighting? After all, so what if the UK and France said OK to it, the Czechs could have said "screw all of you, we will FIGHT" and war would have started, NO? Yet no one EVER blames the Czechs no only for rolling over in 1938, but perhaps even more aggregiously, in 1939. I mean, not a single shot. Its not like the Cezch army was disbanded in 1938, was it? yet the Czechs did not fire a single bullet when the Germans marched into Prague.

Even if the Germans could have made short work of the Czeches, which they may have, they would have suffered a bloody nose, the equipment that was given to them when the Czechs had no allies for a fight would have been laying destroyed along with much German equipment, the factories for making more of the Czech equipment would most likely have been destyroyed, and finally, the Poles would have had their army in the field and seen what tanks might do long before Hitler came knocking for Warsaw.

So why don't you excoriate the Czechs for not stripping those factories apart, or deciding to fight the hand-over of the Sudentenland, or the whole country? And how come Poland and HUngery's nibbling at the countery in March 1939, or the perfidity of the Slovaks, is never mentioned?

I am honestly curious- I am sure someone will talk about how could the poor Czechs be expected to fight alone and whatnot, but in the end that is bull, since it was their country, NO? And if anyone should be expected to put up a fight for their country, should it not be the very people who live there, as opposed to foreigners in distant lands?

All in all, I doubt France would ever have fallen, but this is pure conjecture.

France in 1940 still had a more powerful army than the Germans in 1940- more and better tanks, a defensive position, so forth and so on. That they got wipped, even AFTRE they did see the effectiveness of German tactics against the Poles, shows that that defeat had more to do with French military incompetence at the time than "appeasement".

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Ned


It is certainly amusing to read history through a pink lens. Their worldview is almost as if Michael Moore were writing their history books: All history is a conspiracy of the wealthy and powerful to control events and to make a buck. Actually, Hitler was also one of these Michael Moore types as well, with the exception that his conspirators were Jews and Socialists.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Ned


Thanks, but the demonization of the Jews and socialists was a central to Nazism. It just strikes me as somewhat funny that communists use exactly the same kind of language to demonize so-called plutocrats even today.

Today, we know what Hitler was about with his demonization. He ended up exterminating as many Jews and socialists as he could lay his hands on. Communists do the same with the wealthy and professional classes when they get into power anywhere. So, although the constant conspiracies theories of the far left are quite amusing at times, we should also know what their intent is should they come to power. Conspiracies theories and propaganda are not joking matters.

I was wondering: Did any world leaders openly condemn Hitler's racist and anti-Semitic statements at any time? We know that even as the mass slaughter of Jews, Roma and socialists was under way, no one among the Allies even mentioned this in public statements, nor did anything to stop it, such as bombing rail lines to the death camps.

Even more with some thrown in...

[Ted Striker]

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That is not entirely true. The British Army had very little equipment of vintage by 1934 when rearmament began. By September '38 they had many of the weapons they would go to war with the following year, but of course, not in huge numbers.

The RAF likewise had received increasing numbers of newer types by Sept '38.

The situation of the French was not that different. Yes they had a large number of older weapons, but they had some of the new as well. The biggest problem was not the state of their army, it was the state of their will to use it, likewise for the British.

Also, had war broken out in Sept '38 instead of 12 months later, Hitler would have been going to war equipped largely with light tanks (Mk I's and II's) as the medium tanks were not around in high quantities for him either. Germany's laughable panzer forces (comparably) would have been facing the vehicles that would form the backbone of several of their divisions the following year (the Czech 35).

Both the French and the British Air Forces were still using biplanes, though the British had begun receiving Hurricanes. The British tank force was woefully unprepared. French tanks may have been of more recent manufacture, but their design flawed because it was tainted by poor doctrine. In the 1920s and 1930s the French had thought of the tank as basically a mobile pillbox. They were heavily armored, but designed more for fighting infantry than other tanks. Newer models with better antitank guns were just beginning to be produced in 1938.

[notyoueither]

Actually, Doc, the French had 6 divisions of tanks (3 DCR and 3 DCM) as well as a few of armoured cavalry (DLM). You may not have heard much about them, but they fought several battles in Belguim. Problem is that the way they charged into Belguim while the important German thrust came through Sedan left much of the French armoured/mechanised/motorised formations with insufficient fuel for the fight(s) as German units cut behind them. In short, they had many tanks sprinkled throughout the infantry, but they also had a good number of units capable of fighting the then modern war.

Now, take away the Czech tanks from the Germans. Also eliminate a number of German tanks lost in fighting the Czechs and then in fighting a prepared Poland. This is all conjecture, but I say it would be folly to assume the same events would have played themselves out.

re British bi-planes, so what? The Swordfish was standard carrier air for the British for a long time. They proved themselves more than up to the task when they treated the Italians to their own Pearl Harbour style raid and again when they sealed the doom of the Bismark. Fact is if war had begun in Sept '38, not much of importance would have happened in the West until the following April at the earliest. By that time the Spitfires were on hand, along with AFVs equipped with the 2 pounder (which makes mincemeat of any of the German tanks of the day).

And then there remains the point that Hitler lacked any great number of 'real' tanks in late '38. The Germans gained much more of significance during the following 12 months than the French and British did (again, due to the handover of the Czech army's equipment and the facilities to produce more).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


How come no one blames the Czechs for not fighting? After all, so what if the UK and France said OK to it, the Czechs could have said "screw all of you, we will FIGHT" and war would have started, NO? Yet no one EVER blames the Czechs no only for rolling over in 1938, but perhaps even more aggregiously, in 1939. I mean, not a single shot. Its not like the Cezch army was disbanded in 1938, was it? yet the Czechs did not fire a single bullet when the Germans marched into Prague.

Even if the Germans could have made short work of the Czeches, which they may have, they would have suffered a bloody nose, the equipment that was given to them when the Czechs had no allies for a fight would have been laying destroyed along with much German equipment, the factories for making more of the Czech equipment would most likely have been destyroyed, and finally, the Poles would have had their army in the field and seen what tanks might do long before Hitler came knocking for Warsaw.

So why don't you excoriate the Czechs for not stripping those factories apart, or deciding to fight the hand-over of the Sudentenland, or the whole country? And how come Poland and HUngery's nibbling at the countery in March 1939, or the perfidity of the Slovaks, is never mentioned?

I am honestly curious- I am sure someone will talk about how could the poor Czechs be expected to fight alone and whatnot, but in the end that is bull, since it was their country, NO? And if anyone should be expected to put up a fight for their country, should it not be the very people who live there, as opposed to foreigners in distant lands?

You're trying to make an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. All the Czechs had to gain by fighting alone was the death of many of their people and the destruction of their country for nothing.

Assuming war did break out in '38 with Britain and France drawing the line before Munich, the Czechs (and Poles) were still in an unenviable position. There would have been no direct help from Britain or France available for obvious geographical reasons, but still Benes and the Czechs were willing to fight if only someone would have stood up beside them and given them the prospect for eventual victory to justify the price they would have paid for it.

At any rate, if you want to slag the Czechs, fill yer boots. I'll stick to a more conventional reckoning, like the one that the people of the time came to when they realised that Chamberlain had screwed the pooch.

France in 1940 still had a more powerful army than the Germans in 1940- more and better tanks, a defensive position, so forth and so on. That they got wipped, even AFTRE they did see the effectiveness of German tactics against the Poles, shows that that defeat had more to do with French military incompetence at the time than "appeasement".

see discussion with Doc.

[Dinner]

The French still had the idea that armor would be used to support infantry action and so they sprinkled their armor amoung many differnet units. The Germans had come up with this model warfare doctrine which meant you mass all of your armor together and you have the infantry tag along in motorized vehicles so you can move fast and break through the enemy's line to wreck chaos in the enemy's rear.

[Tassadar500]

Face it:


Humanity. Thy name is Cowardice.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The French still had the idea that armor would be used to support infantry action and so they sprinkled their armor amoung many differnet units. The Germans had come up with this model warfare doctrine which meant you mass all of your armor together and you have the infantry tag along in motorized vehicles so you can move fast and break through the enemy's line to wreck chaos in the enemy's rear.

That is only partially true. Yes, they had many tanks spread out among the infantry (typically older models). However, again, they had people and units equipped for 'modern', mobile warfare. 6 divisions of concentrated, modernly equipped, armoured combat potential. Incidently, de Gaulle was one of the inter-war theorists re armoured warfare along with Guderian, Fuller, Patton, et. al. He was in command of one of the DCRs. Unfortunately, a lot of things went wrong for the Anglo-French, and a great number of things went right for the Germans, starting with Munich.

[Saras]

Re: french military incompetetence

I remember reading de Gaulle's biography some 7 years ago, and he was fighting a personal war with the army general staff, begging to incorporate his thinking (he also penned a book on armored warfare, inspired by Guderian and Liddell-Hart) into armored doctrine, but to no avail. These old farts are credited with expressing views that "machine guns are rather questionable in their usefullness", aviation should be for sports and has no military use whatsover" and "the next war will be fought mainly by cavalry".

[notyoueither]

Is that why the French were putting together armoured divisions in 1934?

[Dinner]

the French actually had more Armor then the Germans on the western front though they didn't organize it as well and much of their armor had lighter main guns.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You're trying to make an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. All the Czechs had to gain by fighting alone was the death of many of their people and the destruction of their country for nothing.

The same could have been said of every country invaded by the Germans. Besides, that assumes that if the Czech decided to fight, that others could stay out anyways. Besides, let me get this straight, fighting against overwhelming odds is always just plain stupid, why do it?

Assuming war did break out in '38 with Britain and France drawing the line before Munich, the Czechs (and Poles) were still in an unenviable position. There would have been no direct help from Britain or France available for obvious geographical reasons, but still Benes and the Czechs were willing to fight if only someone would have stood up beside them and given them the prospect for eventual victory to justify the price they would have paid for it.

The Czechs and Poles combined could in theory, as far as anyone knew at the time, hold back the Germans for a significant time, enough to force the hand of the UK and France, or enough to look for furhter help form the "small entente".

At any rate, if you want to slag the Czechs, fill yer boots. I'll stick to a more conventional reckoning, like the one that the people of the time came to when they realised that Chamberlain had screwed the pooch.

Conventional thinking is of little use- certainly there were critics of Chamberlain- and never have I said that what was done in Munich was right- my point is that the notion that it is Munich that is to blame for everything that happened. There were many points after that could have changed things. Munich is a simple excuse for all the other mistakes that occured after and a convnient cachall for those that dislike the notion of appeasement, or hold the wrong assumption that all you need to do is "stand up to bullies" to avoid war.

see discussion with Doc.

I have, the fact is that all that you have mentioned about the French military just shows that even a superiority in equipment does not mean it will be used with any effectiveness.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
the French actually had more Armor then the Germans on the western front though they didn't organize it as well and much of their armor had lighter main guns.

BUt German tanks had lighter armor, so it worked out.