(Untitled)
Do you want to know what REALLY pisses me off?
The Czech army was willing to fight and was about the same size in 1938 as the German Army. It had excellent border defences. Czechoslovakia was the sixth largest industrial power in Europe and had an extensive armaments industry. At Munich, therefore, Chamberlain not only encouraged Hitler, but also ( Read more... )
The Czech army was willing to fight and was about the same size in 1938 as the German Army. It had excellent border defences. Czechoslovakia was the sixth largest industrial power in Europe and had an extensive armaments industry. At Munich, therefore, Chamberlain not only encouraged Hitler, but also ( Read more... )
The Czechs never experienced the horrors of WW1 so they could be willing to fight, Britain and France on the other hand had and their leaders thought it nescessary to try and avoid the same happening at all costs... Chamberlain was just stupid as to how to go about doing that!
If the Soviets were so willing to stand up, why did they sign the non-agression pact when Britain and France finally did step up?
As for George W. I have always maintained the world is a better place without Sadaam, but the major mistake there was not taking him out during the earlier 92 conflict, that was the real mistake... as such i blame the UN for confining Desert Storm to simply removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
The major problem is where to go now with Iraq, thats why we can thank our lucky stars America is at least going to have a change of leader next year, Georgie boy may be good at goin in all guns blazing but after that he has no clue, at least with Hitler we all know he was hell bent on world domination from the start...
what do you think?
Reply
And the textbook I'm using suggests that Britain was more concerned with appeasement because of the growing Japanese threat. If they could have taken Germany out early, imagine how vastly different the war in the Pacific could have been.
Also, a Russian historian believes that the Soviets were planning their own invasion of Germany. Apparently the high casualties suffered early in Barbarossa were due to the Soviet forces being prepped for an offensive, not ready to defend against a German onslaught. If that's the case, then the Soviets only used the pact to the same extent the Germans did, and the Germans just happened to get in earlier.
Regarding Iraq, all I have to say is this: For a bunch of democratic countries, supposedly based on this "government for the people and by the people", we never actually asked the Iraqis what they wanted. I mean, these people are ancient. They've been around a long time. If they want democracy, let them tell us. If they want Saddam gone, let them tell us. Instead, Bushy goes off making assumptions, deceptions and invasions.
Reply
They would have put up more of a fight than Poland, yet there's another interesting issue to be seen there. The Russians split Poland with Germany too... no doubt there was mutual distrust between the two but it seems that Germany was in no doubt the more aggressive, i dont understand why Russia wasnt held accountable for its part in taking over Poland too...
The key thing to remember is that of any continental army in the months leading up to WW2 the French were by far the strongest, they had the most advanced and numerically superior army of the day. Goes to show however that conventional strength isnt everything, the Germans smashed the French and no doubt they saw it coming...
The Point about the Pacific is a good one, the British had moved several key naval divisions to Singapore in the months leading to WW2. They were thus strategically weaker for any defence in Europe.
WW2 always seemed to me to be about German mistakes as the ability of their enemies.
As for Iraq, i agree with the sentiment, yet it certainly seems Iraqis wanted Sadaam gone, the problem is after doing that the US wants to make the new country its friend when clearly the majority still like the US, the whole problem was the US was a necessary friend as it was realisitically the only one who could deal with the problem.
Its well and good to help them but as you say, too many assumptions were made.
Reply
The Russian invasion of Poland, I believe, was a forward defence. If the Germans wanted to invade the Soviet Union (as it turns out, they did), they would have to get through Poland, giving the Ruskies some warning. As it turns out, that didn't work very well.
The Czechs could have won, I think. And considering that would allow France, Britain and Belgium to invade the exposed German flank (the Belgians should get their revenge for WWI! Up with Belgium!).
Yes, that's one of the main arguments taken. The Allies didn't win, the Germans lost. Either way, go Aussies, the rats of Tobruk! =D
Reply
Forward defence makes sense, as per the Cold War's Iron Curtain of the Warsaw Pact countries to defend Russia itself.
As for the Czechs... in a one on one fight im still think Germany would have hammered them, the German army despite all its technological and numerical setbacks was out killing its opponents of better ability 3 to 1 till 1943, except for the Aussies!
I love it how Aussie units in both World Wars were considered elite troops because they fared so much better than others even in the toughest spots, Gallipoli, Tobruk, Kokoda etc...
Lets go us!
Reply
Of course, hindsight is 20:20 vision.
The Aussies spanked 'em all =D Rommel said that if he had a battalion of Aussies, he would have won the war. We basically stuffed their blitzkrieg right up the bollocks by the most basic strategy of all - digging a hole.
Rats of Tobruk rock on. Shame we had to take time out of our busy schedules to go whoop some Oriental toosh, but such is the burden of responsibility.
Reply
Its funny in the sense that only a small percentage of the German Army was even mechanicised with alot of their troops forced to foot slog it, or even use horses to pull artillery and the such! Far from the legion after legion of panzers backed up by enough planes to block out the sun that most people attribute them. Blitzkrieg as a tactic was only favoured by select few generals even during the invasion of France, even to the extent that the leading forces were commanded to halt so that the rest of the army could catch up!
That and the fact that the French were totally unrealistic about the strength of the Maginot line... stupidly forgetting to defend the Belgian border (no way the Germans would attack through there twice... right?) and the Black Forest, not to mention even if it did cover such areas the Germans could have parachuted several divisions behind it anyway negating its fixed emplacements all pointing at Germany!
Point being had there been the hypothetical German- Czech War you have highlighted, blitzkrieg most likely would have played little role if at all, im surpised such things have failed to be examined before...sounds like a great premise for a book, things that could have prevented a second world war!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment