|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 1, 2023 8:58:57 GMT
Chamberlain bought us time and saved us from defeat. some have argued chamberlins appeasement gave britian time to arm , and ready itself , but the opposite argument is that it also did the same for the germans as steve hints at above.
Great leaders lead the public opinion , bad leaders hide behind it.
I think in tim bouveries book appeasing hitler , its quite clear chamberlin was an appalling prime minister.
The author considers the “breathing space” defence of appeasement and rightly dismisses it. Delaying the reckoning gave Britain more time to rearm, but it did the same favour for the Germans. As late as the Czech crisis, Hitler might have been stopped. By autumn 1939, his forces were much more formidable and the strategic position of Britain and France was much worse because they had sacrificed the Czechs and the Germans now had a non-aggression pact with Stalin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2023 12:56:26 GMT
In 1938 they had the BF109 with fuel injected engine and cannons, we had the Gloster Gladiator biplane. They had the Panzer II which had a 20mm cannon, we had the Matilda I with .303 machine gun. They had the Henkel He 111, we had the Bristol Blenheim. We had HMS Hood, they had Gneisenau. Chamberlain bought us time and saved us from defeat. In 1938 we already had hurricanes and spitfires. Yes we had Gladiators, but they were already being largely phased out. The Germans had far fewer BF 109s in 1938 than they did in 1939. As for tanks, the German Mark II was not an overly impressive model, and they had far fewer of their better models in 1938. And the French in particular had a number of tanks that were far better than most of the German ones in 1938. It was not tank quality that let us down but the way we used them. And we learned nothing new about that between 1938 and 1939 whilst the Germans continued to refine their blitzkrieg tactics. Our Navy of course dwarfed theirs, a few modern German battleships notwithstanding, and bombers were never the game changers they were thought to be. Air superiority won by fighters were what counted. Chamberlain bought the Germans as much time as he bought us and they made better use of it. Thus Chamberlain brought us closer to defeat, rather than saving us. We saved ourselves under Churchill in spite of Chamberlain rather than because of him. And Chamberlain's war leadership when it came was absolutely piss poor. The stated purpose of appeasement in any case was to prevent war altogether, not buy time. And in that it signally failed. And largely because no one bothered to pay much attention to what Hitler had plainly laid out as his goals in Mein Kampf, nor paid enough heed to his earlier rabble rousing speeches. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2023 13:07:08 GMT
Up until 1938 the Labour Party (and the LibDems) were opposed to rearmament so the country was split on whether we should get involved at all - this limited Chamberlains options. Those saying that we should have gone to war in 1938 are not recognising the logistic or political realities of the time. A fair point but true leaders lead rather than follow public opinion, and seek to win public support for doing the right thing, especially when both national honour and our own future security are involved. If we had not so abjectly debased ourselves, Hitlers Germany would have invaded a well armed nation on October 1st 1938, a time of year when his armies were soon likely to start getting bogged down in autumn weather, as well as being embroiled in the extensive Czech defences in the Sudetenland mountains.. As a nation we and the French had guaranteed against attack, we would have been obligated to go to war and the majority of the public with however much reluctance would have been likely to have accepted that. A German act of military aggression in Europe would have changed the political scene. As it did in 1939. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 1, 2023 13:39:09 GMT
In 1938 they had the BF109 with fuel injected engine and cannons, we had the Gloster Gladiator biplane. They had the Panzer II which had a 20mm cannon, we had the Matilda I with .303 machine gun. They had the Henkel He 111, we had the Bristol Blenheim. We had HMS Hood, they had Gneisenau. Chamberlain bought us time and saved us from defeat. In 1938 we already had hurricanes and spitfires. Yes we had Gladiators, but they were already being largely phased out. The Germans had far fewer BF 109s in 1938 than they did in 1939. As for tanks, the German Mark II was not an overly impressive model, and they had far fewer of their better models in 1938. And the French in particular had a number of tanks that were far better than most of the German ones in 1938. It was not tank quality that let us down but the way we used them. And we learned nothing new about that between 1938 and 1939 whilst the Germans continued to refine their blitzkrieg tactics. Our Navy of course dwarfed theirs, a few modern German battleships notwithstanding, and bombers were never the game changers they were thought to be. Air superiority won by fighters were what counted. Chamberlain bought the Germans as much time as he bought us and they made better use of it. Thus Chamberlain brought us closer to defeat, rather than saving us. We saved ourselves under Churchill in spite of Chamberlain rather than because of him. And Chamberlain's war leadership when it came was absolutely piss poor. The stated purpose of appeasement in any case was to prevent war altogether, not buy time. And in that it signally failed. And largely because no one bothered to pay much attention to what Hitler had plainly laid out as his goals in Mein Kampf, nor paid enough heed to his earlier rabble rousing speeches. In the middle of 1938 the first 50 Hurricanes had reached squadrons. 50. The first operation Spitfire squadron formed at Duxford in early August 1938. One squadron of Spitfires would not have been enough. They already had 1,191 Heinkel and Dornier medium bombers, 361 JU87 Stuka dive bombers, 788 BF109s high speed interceptor fighters, 431 BF110 heavy fighters, and 488 transports. The fighters we had in large numbers (though not nearly enough) were the Hawker Hart, and the Gloster Gladiator.   And our only tanks were these (and neither had cannons):  These tanks proved how crap they were at Arras. We lost 74 tanks. And these:  In one battle featuring the Light Tank Mk VI, 13 of those tanks were destroyed in 10 minutes. Our bombers in the summer of 1938:
Handley Page Heyford:
 Bristol Blenheim:  Fairey Battle:  Armstrong Whitworth Whitley:  Vickers Wellesley:  Hawker Hind:  What we had was crap. We would have lost. Chamberlain bought us time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2023 14:31:23 GMT
The time Chamberlain bought us was better used by the Germans to increase their advantage. Under the stress of war we would have greatly stepped up spitfire and hurricane production, whilst most of the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht were engaging the Czechs in autumn conditions against strong mountain fortifications. And the Wehrmact and Luftwaffe had far less available in 1938 than they had in 1939. The Czechs were thus highly unlikely to have been overwhelmed as quickly as the Poles. And the USSR at the time was still committed to collective security in support of the Czechs and would likely have lent at least material assistance. Hitler would never have been able to turn effectively against us until at least the spring of 1939, assuming he was able to defeat the Czechs in good time which was far from certain. And on a war footing we would have had rather more spitfires and hurricanes available than the figures you quoted. Chamberlain did not save us. He made our position worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 1, 2023 18:21:57 GMT
The time Chamberlain bought us was better used by the Germans to increase their advantage. Under the stress of war we would have greatly stepped up spitfire and hurricane production, whilst most of the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht were engaging the Czechs in autumn conditions against strong mountain fortifications. And the Wehrmact and Luftwaffe had far less available in 1938 than they had in 1939. The Czechs were thus highly unlikely to have been overwhelmed as quickly as the Poles. And the USSR at the time was still committed to collective security in support of the Czechs and would likely have lent at least material assistance. Hitler would never have been able to turn effectively against us until at least the spring of 1939, assuming he was able to defeat the Czechs in good time which was far from certain. And on a war footing we would have had rather more spitfires and hurricanes available than the figures you quoted. Chamberlain did not save us. He made our position worse. The big problem with 1938 is if we had not been able to hold the Germans in battle in France and Belgium the chain of Radar stations was not complete and so if the Battle of Britain had been in 1939 we would surely have lost. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2023 19:12:03 GMT
The time Chamberlain bought us was better used by the Germans to increase their advantage. Under the stress of war we would have greatly stepped up spitfire and hurricane production, whilst most of the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht were engaging the Czechs in autumn conditions against strong mountain fortifications. And the Wehrmact and Luftwaffe had far less available in 1938 than they had in 1939. The Czechs were thus highly unlikely to have been overwhelmed as quickly as the Poles. And the USSR at the time was still committed to collective security in support of the Czechs and would likely have lent at least material assistance. Hitler would never have been able to turn effectively against us until at least the spring of 1939, assuming he was able to defeat the Czechs in good time which was far from certain. And on a war footing we would have had rather more spitfires and hurricanes available than the figures you quoted. Chamberlain did not save us. He made our position worse. The big problem with 1938 is if we had not been able to hold the Germans in battle in France and Belgium the chain of Radar stations was not complete and so if the Battle of Britain had been in 1939 we would surely have lost. We would not surely have lost. Nothing can ever be certain in counterfactual arguments. The likelihood is that we would have accelerated the putting into place of our radar system when at war so it would have been ready sooner. Besides which, even if we had temporarily lost control of the air in Southeast England, the Germans still had the problem of crossing the channel in the face of a vastly superior navy which air attack alone could never have finished off quickly enough. And they had little with which to ferry their troops across than very unseaworthy barges, effective only in the calmest of seas and then very easily sunk. Had the Germans attempted such a thing they'd have likely faced a disaster. And any loss of air effectiveness on our part would have been very temporary, because most of our baled out pilots would be back in action soon enough whilst theirs would be POWs. And by the first summer of the war our aircraft production was more than keeping pace with losses and outstripping theirs. Similar is likely even if the war started a year earlier. And yes they had airborne forces available in 1940 but only about two divisions worth. They would likely have had even less in 1939. But in any case this would have been a wholly inadequate force to overcome the British, who even at their worst ebb had 4 fully equipped divisions available in 1940 and about 8 more in a reasonable state of some combat readiness. Unless they had succeeded in doing in 1939 what they failed to do in 1940 and destroyed the BEF they would have likely had the same problems a year earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 1, 2023 22:27:57 GMT
The big problem with 1938 is if we had not been able to hold the Germans in battle in France and Belgium the chain of Radar stations was not complete and so if the Battle of Britain had been in 1939 we would surely have lost. We would not surely have lost. Nothing can ever be certain in counterfactual arguments. The likelihood is that we would have accelerated the putting into place of our radar system when at war so it would have been ready sooner. we were pushing the limits of scientific knowledge as it was - not sure that you could have speeded that up by Government diktat. They did destroy the BEF - yes some of the men got away but they left all their equipment on the beach in France. You cant fight with broomsticks. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 1, 2023 22:53:24 GMT
Where Churchill really exceeded the ability of Chamberlain was his rapport with FDR. He understood that to ultimately defeat the Nazis the USA had to be brought into the war. Firstly with lend lease and eventually with direct involvement.
Chamberlain couldn't have pulled that off with his desire for appeasement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2023 11:01:57 GMT
We would not surely have lost. Nothing can ever be certain in counterfactual arguments. The likelihood is that we would have accelerated the putting into place of our radar system when at war so it would have been ready sooner. we were pushing the limits of scientific knowledge as it was - not sure that you could have speeded that up by Government diktat. They did destroy the BEF - yes some of the men got away but they left all their equipment on the beach in France. You cant fight with broomsticks. Destroying the BEF would have involved the killing or capturing of most of it. The core of it though, the actual trained manpower, got away. New equipment can be built a lot more quickly than new soldiers can be bred, let alone trained. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 2, 2023 11:38:18 GMT
They had a full air force, we had a joke of an air force which was in the process of being modernised.
Until mid 1938 we did not have any operation Hurricane or Spitfire squadrons and even towards the end, we didn't have that many.
And, they were only armed with the Browning .303 at that time.
The fighters of the Fleet Air Arm were a joke, and it stayed that way until the introduction of the Grumman Martlet in 1940.
It took until after the experience of the Battle of Britain before the fighters of the RAF were given Hispano 20mm cannons.
Chamberlain did the best he could.
He prepared for war, whilst doing everything he could to try to avoid it.
He bought us time, but we were still ill equipped.
My grandfather was amongst those sent to France in 1939.
He served in the Battle of France, did not make it out at Dunkerque, but did make it out via another port.
Many of his friends were killed in action.
We were very VERY lucky.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 4, 2023 22:41:41 GMT
I’m going to focus entirely on one point in the battle for air supremacy.
Hitler BlitzKrieged his way through western europe and took it by storm. Great Britain stood alone and Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to throw everything it had against us. The invasion of Great Britain required the Royal Air Force be flattened.
This they tried to do
What is not generally understood is the degree to which we had finalised our power to see them coming
The Chain series of radar stations saw the massed ranks of fighters and bombers not as long before they arrived as some would have liked, but soon enough. We had fighters up way above them ready to strike.
If the engagement had been significantly earlier we would have been caught napping and our entire fleet would have been pancakes
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 5, 2023 9:04:35 GMT
Exactly, and even in September 1940 we were having to throw everything we had at them with no reserves.
We wouldn't have stood a chance in 1938, we would have been invaded.
Even in 1940, with the Hurricane and the Spitfire, our fighters had some deficiencies compared to the BF109 and the BF110.
Firstly, the Rolls Royce Merlin, it had carburetors.
In negative G situations the carburettor floats would shoot upwards flooding the engine and causing a significant drop in power.
Even without this problem, the Hurricane was slower than the BF109 although it could out turn it.
The BF109 and 110 had 20mm cannons as well as machine guns. The Hurricane and the Spitfire only had .303 Browning machine guns.
They had to be converged at very close range to be effective. Cannons were effective from further away.
The biplanes of 1938 which formed the bulk of Fighter Command at that time would not have stood in the way of the Luftwaffe. Even the Heinkels and Dorniers would have stood a chance of destroying those RAF fighters.
The man bought us time.
|
|
