Holding Them Off!

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#121

And with whose help the Chehoslovakia had fall to the Germans? :wink:
And who nothing did to help the poles in 1939?

Both Italy and the Soviet Union were allies of Germany at this time

Really?
And how on your mind the Hitler had ordered to begin the preparations of Barbarossa already in summer 1940?
Why he need to attack his soviet “alliy”?

It’s wrong to assume that the British did “nothing” against the Nazis until the United States entered the war.

Nobody told the Britain did “nothing” agains Nazy.
The my general line is that in the direct resault of British “anti-germans actions” in 1938-40 was that the Geramy only for one years captured entire continental Europe.Moreover inspite of British “resistence” Hitler was ready to begin a great offensive to the East. In fact the Germany sended to the USSR a 70% of its infantry army - he obviously didn’t saw the seriouce treat form the Britain on the continent.

#122

Japan didn’t request or expect any assistance from Germany or Italy with any of its actions. In fact, it would have resisted German involvement because it wanted the conquered territories solely for its own purposes.

Japan’s actions were purely in pursuit of Japan’s war aims, not any common Axis aims. One of the central reasons that the Axis powers were defeated was the absence of common aims which resulted in coherent use of forces, which is the exact opposite of the Allies approach.

It would have been profoundly silly for Germany to involve itself in the Pacific, beyond some merchant raiders and related activities, in exactly the same way it would have been for Japan to become involved in the North Atlantic, or anywhere in the Atlantic. The drain on fuel and shipping alone, plus naval escort, would have been out of all proportion to any benefit to the nation fighting outside its region and to the Axis as a whole.

It would have been doubly silly for Germany to divert forces to fight Australians in Papua half a planet away when it was already fighting them in Greece and Crete around the same time as MO and while it was preparing to attack the USSR.

Even if Japan had won in Papua, it wouldn’t have had much impact on isolating Australia. That was covered by Operation FS which intended to expand Japan’s reach to Fiji, the Solomons and New Caledonia region. That expansion was stopped by the USMC and US Army on Guadalcanal and the USN in the major battles around Guadalcanal, and the US air forces employed there.

As for Japan invading Australia successfully, it was beyond Japan’s ability in every respect. Which is precisely why it opted for the idea of trying to isolate it. Which also was beyond its capacity. As were so many other things that Japan attempted or thought were possible from its arrogant and misconceived inception of the war and during 1942 while infected with the victory disease.

#123

And the planes and their fuel and materiel and support crews would have been transported with what and based where? How would they have been landed from the transports?

What sort of bombers would the Luftwaffe send?

Stukas? They’re no good unless the pilot can see the target. Most of the Track wasn’t visible from the air.

Medium bombers, which were the biggest Germany had? Not all that good for area bombing on an invisible and imprecisely located target that required a not-yet-invented B52 for any useful effect, which then has the unfortunate risk in battle areas of wiping out both sides, or maybe just the bomber’s side.

Where was the ground-air co-ordination between Japanese on the ground and Germans in the air? Radio compatability? Common language? Maps? Common codes?

Where were the German technical tables for and experience with tropical operation for aircraft and ordnance?

There’s a very good reason that neither Australia nor Japan relied on aerial bombing in the Kokoda campaign (with the exception of ‘biscuit bombers’ supplying Australian troops), and that it had no impact on any battles. It couldn’t work in the conditions.

#124

And with whose help the Chehoslovakia had fall to the Germans?
And who nothing did to help the poles in 1939?

Obviously Britain and France’s cowardly policy of appeasement at the Munich Conference was a betrayal of the Czechs, but to be fair to Chamberlain, he had reason to assume Germany would stop at the Sudetenland. The British didn’t give the Germans the entire country, but Hitler threatened a bombing raid against Prague, and the Czechs were in no position to resist.

I wouldn’t say that no one helped Poland after the German invasion. The Allies weren’t ready for a war. France and the United Kingdom had both signed mutual-defense treaties with Poland, and they thought these would be enough to deter a German invasion. The French tried to aid Poland with the Saar Offensive, but the Germans defeated them and there really wasn’t much else they could do but retreat.

Really?
And how on your mind the Hitler had ordered to begin the preparations of Barbarossa already in summer 1940?
Why he need to attack his soviet “alliy”?

I didn’t say Hitler still considered the Soviet Union an ally, but the Russians considered Germany an ally, they were still supplying it with oil, and the British had no knowledge of any rifts in their partnership. Chamberlain, nor Churchill, knew anything about Hitler’s plan to invade the Soviet Union.

#125

Using the word ‘cowardly’ when speaking of these situations demonstrates a lack of insight.

The ‘cowardly’ appeasement exercised by Chamberlain gained more time for Britain to re-arm.

After the slaughter of the trenches of WW1 no one of any sane state of mind was in a hurry to resume hostilities.

#126

What supposedly gave Britain more time to re-arm also gave Germany the time to plan an offensive strategy against Poland and France. Also, for the most part, Britain didn’t start any kind of military build-up until after Hitler absorbed the rest of Czechoslovakia into the Reich.

Chamberlain’s appeasement was cowardly. They sold an ally, Czechoslovakia, down the river, because they were too war-weary to confront Germany.

Adolf Hitler violated the Versailles Treaty several times before the invasion of Poland. Britain and France had the right and the obligation to resume military hostilities against Germany after the Anschluss, after the re-militarization of the Rhine, and after his territorial claims in Czechoslovakia. And perhaps if they had, this whole ugly mess could have been averted.

#127

And ‘perhaps’ pigs might fly!

#128

It depends on which end of the telescope one chooses to look through.

The primary fault in the whole exercise was Germany’s violation of the treaty terms and its march to an expansionist war because its arrogant belief in its racial supremacy and national destiny allowed it to deny other nations their legitimate rights.

Certainly one can criticise the response of various other nations to Germany’s pre-war conduct, but in doing so it is putting the emphasis in the wrong place to treat them as being responsible for what happened afterwards. All of that lays solely at Germany’s door.

#129

I have a problem with the theory that the war should be blamed on Germany. Most certainly, it was due to a combination of Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union’s actions, and the policies of France and the United Kingdom, which encouraged them. And then you have to factor in the other pro-fascist, minor-Axis states; Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary.

#130

Hitler, was going to have his war regardless of anything. The rest is history.

I have a problem with people willing to make the ‘tough decisions’, particularly with the wisdom of hindsight, which sends ‘others’ to their destruction.

#131

So now it’s only a theory?

If Germany had stayed within its borders there would not have been a war in Europe 1939-45. That’s a fact. If Germany had not been threatening war there would have been no need for Chamberlain or anyone else to do anything to try to avoid a war with Germany. That’s a fact.

The war in Europe was exclusively Germany’s fault. That’s an unalterable and crystal clear fact.

Trying to shift responsibility from Germany to other nations fits into the same logical and moral catergory of absurdity as saying that a murderer isn’t responsible for his crime because the victim would still be alive if the victim had defended himself better.

#132

A second world war was inevitable, as stated by Hitler in Mein Kampf. Hitler only saw Germany becoming a leader of the world’s nations after fighting a war to re-establish herself. Of course perhaps the major two points was his determination to rid the world of Judaism and Communism, which could only be acheived by waging war.

Talk of cowardice on Britain or Frances part is too simplistic. Many of the men controlling those countries in the 1930’s had seen first hand the decimation of their young generation in the fields of Flanders and France 1914-1918, and like any civilized and sane people’s they sought to avoid war by peaceful means.

They failed in this endeavour, but hardly deserve the widespread condemnation they have received.

Regards digger.

#133

And if the British and French had not attempted to subjugate the German people with the Versailles Treaty after World War I, there never would have been a need for the Nazi Party, who in a way, was only trying to break Germany out of oppression from the unjust vengeance the British and French had wrought upon them.

Hitler abolished the Weimar Republic because it was weak, and because innocent Germans were starving and out of work, while fatcats in London and Paris were laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe before the Allied nations chuckle at their defeat over Deutschland, they should look at their own despicable actions and what their preventable wars cost the German people.

#134

A very appropriate name you choose - if a little understated!

Tell me, are you a fully paid up member of the British Nationalist Party … or some equivalent in whichever country you reside?

I am beginning to understand why you choose to use such words as ‘cowardly’ and ‘weak’ .

I can recommend a good doctor. Medical one, that is, not a propaganda minister.

#135

Germany could easily have avoided the consequences of WWI by following the same prescription that would have avoided WWII and its consequences: Stay within its own borders!

there never would have been a need for the Nazi Party, who in a way, was only trying to break Germany out of oppression from the unjust vengeance the British and French had wrought upon them

How? By wreaking unjust vengeance on German Jews, Jews in the occupied countries, Poles, Russians and others who had nothing to do with the Versailles Treaty or the “oppression” of the German people?

As for there being a “need” for the Nazi Party, I don’t think so. Without it, and without the lawless political thugs in it, Germany and the world would have been a better place in the long run.

Hitler abolished the Weimar Republic because it was weak,

Then why complain about the Versailles Treaty? It only happened because Germany was weak. It couldn’t even win a war it started. It’s not the way most people think, but if weakness is your standard then you have to apply it consistently.

and because innocent Germans were starving and out of work, while fatcats in London and Paris were laughing all the way to the bank.

The Weimar Republic disappeared in 1933. Check out the effects of the Great Depression 1929-33 in England and France, among other places. Germans didn’t have a monopoly on suffering.

What was Hitler’s philanthropic solution to feeding the starving masses in Germany? Guns before butter.

The relevance of ‘fatcats in London and Paris laughing all the way to the bank’ eludes me. Or maybe that’s just thrown in to distract attention from the fatcats in Berlin laughinig all the way to the bank under Hitler. After all, they were his strongest supporters and greatest beneficiaries. I suppose that German fatcats, coming from a belligerent but weak nation that managed within two generations to lose the only two world wars, which indicates stupidity exceeding its weakness, are somehow purer than their British and French counterparts.

Maybe before the Allied nations chuckle at their defeat over Deutschland, they should look at their own despicable actions and what their preventable wars cost the German people.

Maybe you should look at Germany’s despicable actions and realise that the German leadership took Germany into both wars and was the cause of all the suffering of the German people. And those in a few other nations invaded and attacked by Germany, or don’t they count because they were weak? Or maybe untermensch?

#136

I reside in Albany, New York, U.S. I have most of the years of my life.

And I have a father who died in Second World War, so it’s not really a subject to mock.

#137

Whether we agree or disagree with AlbertSpeer or anyone else he is entitled to his opinion without it getting peronal. The same rule goes for anyone.

Sorry about your dad mate.

Regards digger.

#138

Germany could easily have avoided the consequences of WWI by following the same prescription that would have avoided WWII and its consequences: Stay within its own borders!

Nonsense. Germany responded to Russian aggression in the First World War. Britain and France aided Russia’s criminal actions, and you are trying to drum up sympathy for those barbarians? The U.S. only aided Britain because it was another pro-Anglo, anti-German nation.

How? By wreaking unjust vengeance on German Jews, Jews in the occupied countries, Poles, Russians and others who had nothing to do with the Versailles Treaty or the “oppression” of the German people?

Ok, if you want to beat a dead horse than you can, but we aren’t really discussing what may or may not have happened in occupied territories. I’ll stick with the facts.

As for there being a “need” for the Nazi Party, I don’t think so. Without it, and without the lawless political thugs in it, Germany and the world would have been a better place in the long run.

Perhaps and perhaps not. Just remember that the party you hate so much was a creation of British and French imperialism.

Then why complain about the Versailles Treaty? It only happened because Germany was weak. It couldn’t even win a war it started. It’s not the way most people think, but if weakness is your standard then you have to apply it consistently.

The war it “started”? It acted in response to Russian aggression against an ally, and then France and Britain jumped in out of a lust for imperialism. And of course, the U.S. had to get involved because Wilson was a racist scheusal.

The Weimar Republic disappeared in 1933. Check out the effects of the Great Depression 1929-33 in England and France, among other places. Germans didn’t have a monopoly on suffering.

What was Hitler’s philanthropic solution to feeding the starving masses in Germany? Guns before butter.

The relevance of ‘fatcats in London and Paris laughing all the way to the bank’ eludes me. Or maybe that’s just thrown in to distract attention from the fatcats in Berlin laughinig all the way to the bank under Hitler. After all, they were his strongest supporters and greatest beneficiaries. I suppose that German fatcats, coming from a belligerent but weak nation that managed within two generations to lose the only two world wars, which indicates stupidity exceeding its weakness, are somehow purer than their British and French counterparts.

And now you expect me to care about the situation in those nations, when they didn’t care at all against the suffering of the German people? Those in Britain and France got joy out of wreaking destruction upon an innocent nation. Their aggression was checked in the Second World War, when Deutschland proved to the world that unjustified aggression will be met with force. You can sit and judge those in power at the time, but in desperate times, you need strong leadership.

Maybe you should look at Germany’s despicable actions and realise that the German leadership took Germany into both wars and was the cause of all the suffering of the German people. And those in a few other nations invaded and attacked by Germany, or don’t they count because they were weak? Or maybe untermensch?

Yes, the leadership took the German people into war, but only when necessary. You are a little blind if you can’t see the recklessness of the British and French actions, and the destruction that they led to.

#139

Thank you, Digger.

I realize there are many conflicting opinions concerning the Second World War, and it’s a touchy subject for everyone.

#140

Which side?

I’m not being smart, but you seem to have a distorted pro-German view.