Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chamberlain's Secret Bid to Reach a Deal With Hitler, Revealed in Newly Released Documents
Daily Mail ^ | 4th September 2011 | ABUL TAHER

Posted on 09/03/2011 11:20:17 PM PDT by nickcarraway

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain held secret talks with Hitler's henchmen to work out ways of making the Nazis look more sympathetic to ordinary Britons, classified documents released last week reveal.

The cloak-and-dagger meetings in London came shortly after Chamberlain signed his disastrous appeasement deal with Hitler in Munich in September 1938, declaring 'peace for our time' on his return to Britain.

The meetings were held without the knowledge of the Cabinet and Foreign Office. Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax only learned of them later because of an MI5 mole in the German embassy.

Two newly-declassified documents show Chamberlain was ready to make more deals with Hitler after Munich, which would have the ‘happiest and most far-reaching effects for the relationship between the two countries’.

The papers reveal Chamberlain told Hitler that it would have ‘the greatest effect on public opinion in England’ if, in the event of war, they had a pact in place not to use poison gas, not to bomb each other’s civilians and to spare cities with cultural treasures.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: History; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: chamberlain; hitler; nevillechamberlain; peaceinourtime; wuss
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 09/03/2011 11:20:20 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Our current GOP leadership seems to come to mind when reading this story.


2 posted on 09/03/2011 11:36:13 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Our current GOP leadership seems to come to mind when reading this story.

People on this list seem to miss few opportunities to express GOP self hatred.

3 posted on 09/03/2011 11:46:11 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (O-blame-r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Our current Dems - lying to make radical Muslims look safe come to mind ...


4 posted on 09/03/2011 11:52:31 PM PDT by GOPJ (126 people were indicted for being terrorists in the last two years. Every one of them was Muslim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Explain, please - Just curious.


5 posted on 09/03/2011 11:54:31 PM PDT by GOPJ (126 people were indicted for being terrorists in the last two years. Every one of them was Muslim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...

Thanks, well said.


6 posted on 09/03/2011 11:55:06 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Thank God we fought Hitler when we were still a nation of men. Can you imagine Hitler vs. Obama? Heil no.


7 posted on 09/04/2011 12:03:17 AM PDT by Defiant (Calling all citizens from all over the world, this is Captain America calling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
In 1938, Britain did not have the capability to successfully wage war against Germany. In that situation, it's hardly surprising that Chamberlain tried everything he could to avoid war.

Over the next year, a lot of things changed.

Standard British Bomber of 1938.

Standard British Bomber of 1939.

Standard British Fighter of 1938.

Standard British Fighter of 1939.

That one year made a lot of difference. Two more battleships were commissioned in 1939 (HMS King George V, and HMS Prince of Wales) with three more nearing completion. Britain's first 'modern' Aircraft Carrier by the standards of the day, was only commissioned near the end of 1938, and the next four were still building through 1939. That one year that Chamberlain gained made a huge difference.

Yes, he hoped to avoid war. But he also helped put in place a vastly improved mechanism to fight it.

8 posted on 09/04/2011 12:05:38 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

>Can you imagine Hitler vs. Obama?<

Is there a difference?


9 posted on 09/04/2011 12:10:46 AM PDT by max americana (FUBO NATION 2012 FK BARAK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: max americana

No, but socialists can, which is why Hitler and Stalin had their fight. It’s like 2 species of snake that to us are just snakes, but who only like their own kind.


10 posted on 09/04/2011 12:26:22 AM PDT by Defiant (Calling all citizens from all over the world, this is Captain America calling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Shutleworth’s have the only flyable Gladiator (I think).

Nice video with period music track at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0f5Qxp_3tI&feature=related


11 posted on 09/04/2011 12:35:30 AM PDT by RitchieAprile (breaking wind to the East..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
I have read speculation that Chamberlain was trying to, at the least, stall as much as he could.

I've never read concrete development of that thesis though.

Know of any good info on it?

12 posted on 09/04/2011 12:49:35 AM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Very interesting comments. I always thought poorly of his actions, but appreciate your logic that he played the cards he was dealt while his nation prepared.


13 posted on 09/04/2011 12:53:31 AM PDT by catbertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

Shuttleworth’s was the only airworthy Gladiator, but Duxford’s was restored to flyable status a couple of years ago and is the one that appears in the photograph I posted.


14 posted on 09/04/2011 12:54:48 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
I like A.J.P. Taylor's The Origins of the Second World War for its discussion of Chamberlain, but Dutton's more recent Neville Chamberlain is fairly sympathetic as well.

Chamberlain was naive, I think, when it came to Hitler. He wasn't just stalling - he genuinely hoped Hitler would prove to be willing to turn away from aggression. But he wasn't so naive as to put all his hopes into that. He hoped to avoid war, but knew he might not be able to - and so he supported preparations to deal with that eventuality. To me, the most compelling evidence in his favour is that when he was forced to retire on the grounds of ill health in mid 1940 (he had cancer and he wouldn't survive the year), Winston Churchill tried to persuade him to accept Britain's highest order of Chivalry - as a Knight of the Garter. Churchill felt that Chamberlain was worthy of that. In his writings, Churchill condemned many of the choices Chamberlain made, and with justification at times - but he still saw a man who had given his best and his all for his country. And had done well enough.

15 posted on 09/04/2011 1:21:44 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

Ping for possible discussion in your WW2 threads.


16 posted on 09/04/2011 1:28:13 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

As kind of a self taught arm chair aero guy I have seen a lot of craft, but this one is hidious, oh my so many sins....

17 posted on 09/04/2011 1:29:26 AM PDT by taildragger (( Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
People on this list seem to miss few opportunities to express GOP self hatred.

Ditto. Foggy bottom was the first thing that came to mind.
18 posted on 09/04/2011 1:31:29 AM PDT by PA Engineer (SP/XX12: Time to beat the swords of government tyranny into the plowshares of freedom. Freddd is Gay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Child Molesting Party (CMP) and Mohammedans both hate America and want to destroy her.


19 posted on 09/04/2011 2:16:35 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Our current GOP leadership seems to come to mind when reading this story.

How do they measure up compared to our current Democrats?

20 posted on 09/04/2011 2:22:39 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

It came in kit form..the assembly instructions were in Korean...


21 posted on 09/04/2011 4:17:01 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
And if someone had stated that this had occurred he would be labeled a conspiracy nut.
22 posted on 09/04/2011 4:36:42 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Had the French and British stood up to Hitler at the start, war could have been avoided.

By the time Poland occured, Hitler didn't believe that the allies would declare war.

Chamberlain didn't buy time, he put Britain in a weaker position by allowing Germany to grow confident and divide up a powerful Czech nation.

23 posted on 09/04/2011 4:41:36 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Well enough for what?

Allowing millions of people to be taken over by the Nazi's?

It was Churchill that pressed for rearmament and constantly warned about the Nazi threat, while Chamberlain lived in his own fantasy world of the League of Nations.

24 posted on 09/04/2011 4:45:19 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Had the French and British stood up to Hitler at the start, war could have been avoided.

The French, perhaps - they had a large army and a lot of capability. The British did not. Hitler would not have paid any attention to a threat from the British, because they didn't have the ability to enforce a threat.

Remember the British Expeditionary Force only started building in 1938. Even when war began in September 1939, only about 200,000 men were available.

By the time Poland occured, Hitler didn't believe that the allies would declare war.

Correct. Because he was assuming they were still too weak to do so. But they were significantly stronger by then than they had been previously.

Chamberlain didn't buy time, he put Britain in a weaker position by allowing Germany to grow confident and divide up a powerful Czech nation.

Under Chamberlain, the Royal Navy built five battleships and five aircraft carriers, the size of the army was increased. The Royal Air Force was considerably modernised. If you think he left Britain in a weaker position, I think your definitions are skewed.

25 posted on 09/04/2011 4:57:51 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Well enough for what?

Well enough as a Prime Minister who presided over the latter part of the rearmament.

It was Churchill that pressed for rearmament and constantly warned about the Nazi threat, while Chamberlain lived in his own fantasy world of the League of Nations.

Actually it was Churchill and Sir Austen Chamberlain - Neville's brother who were among the most vocal members of the rearmament push - and if you want to talk about being part of a fantasy world, look at Sir Austen who won the Nobel Peace Prize because of the 1925 Pact that he claimed made war impossible - but Neville Chamberlain was the Prime Minister. If he hadn't supported rearmament, it would not have happened. Churchill was a backbench Member of Parliament with no real power. Yes, he made a lot of speeches, but he had no power to get anything done. Why did rearmament happen? Because Cabinet took the steps to make it happen. Who was in charge of the Cabinet? Why, it was the Prime Ministers - MacDonald, Baldwin, and then Neville Chamberlain.

It is fairly absurd to try and place credit for rearmament on a backbench MP who, himself, believed his political career had ended after the abdication crisis, and deny it to the Prime Minister who presided over the Cabinet meetings, and the budgets that made it possible.

26 posted on 09/04/2011 5:13:10 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Recently the Military Channel ran a series on “Hitler’s Bodyguards”. One episode dealt with Chamberlain’s dealings with Adolph Hitler prior to the outbreak of WWII. Just prior to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia a group of senior generals was about to force Hitler out of power or kill him; but the entire plot fizzled because Chamberlain contacted Mussolini to intervene and made possible a deal between them. Hitler would have been dead had it not been for Chamberlain, who may even have tipped off Hitler about the plot against him to curry favor with the dictator. Fast forward to today - read “Carter” or “Obama” rather than “Chamberlain” and you get the picture. My prediction, the entire Middle East, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya will be lost to US interests within three years or less under Obama - all Americans who bravely fought and died there will have done so in vain, winning the battle but loosing the war thanks to one man. My sources in the military inside Iraq confirm that more and more people are dying every day there now, due to a resurgent Al-Qaeda, now that Obama is Commander in Chief. Likewise with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, witness the downing of the CH-47 carrying members of Seal Team Six after Obama and Biden shot off their mouths for political gain about Seal Team Six taking out Bin Ladin, something that should never have even been whispered due to Operational Security issues associated with release of that kind of information. Taiwan will also be ‘annexed’ by China without a struggle of any kind, unless the Taiwanese go solo against them. The man is a disaster to America, a total rookie and a total incompetent on all fronts.


27 posted on 09/04/2011 5:21:02 AM PDT by Bushmaster7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
You are forgetting that in 1938 the German war machine was almost nonexistent.

In 1938 Britain and France had very antiquated forces, but they had forces. The Germans were about 90% bluff, even through the phony war they had very little.

During the assault on Poland the Germans were 100% committed, with no reserves. Had the French simply attacked at that point, they would have been unopposed.

1938-1940 saw Germany gain material advantage over the allies, not vice versa, so its hard to support the claim that the allies “had no choice” but to roll over during that period.

By 1940, Frances air force was 90% obsolete, but in 1938, it would have crushed the German Luftwaffe.

Yes, material state was weak in 1938, but it was as good as it was ever going to get for France, and Britain would never see another day (until the USA and USSR took over) that they would have as good of chances against the Germans.

What the allies lacked in 1938 was the capability to bluff the Germans into backing down and the will to carry through with a fight.

28 posted on 09/04/2011 5:36:24 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

“Remember the British Expeditionary Force only started building in 1938.”

The United States sent Britton emergency shipments of previously un-issued Civil War era Spencer rifles. The Spencer was the first military repeating rifle with a .50 cal, short range magazine in the stock which I believe held 10 rounds.


29 posted on 09/04/2011 5:52:35 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

I was thinking the same thing. Yeesh.


30 posted on 09/04/2011 5:58:06 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
Wasn't Prescott Bush--the one who funded Hitler, insuring Hitler's success--Bush Sr's grandfather?

The Marxist globalists have been playing treasonous geopolitical games for at least 60-110 years.

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

The DimRats and the GOP are merely two good-cop/bad-cop sides of, essentially, the same coin.

Distract the serfs and slaves with political theater in liu of lions and Christians in the Collisium.

I've voted GOP virtually all my adult life. However, the lesser of two treasonous weasels is getting to be such a stench, I don't know how much longer I can stomach it.

31 posted on 09/04/2011 7:04:46 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

And if someone had stated that this had occurred he would be labeled a conspiracy nut.


Tell me about it. Sigh.


32 posted on 09/04/2011 7:04:53 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Agreed.

Though, sadly, Churchill ended up marching to the orders of the globalists, and their games, too.


33 posted on 09/04/2011 7:04:58 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway


34 posted on 09/04/2011 7:08:41 AM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Horse$hit! If Hitler had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Britain and France had declared war and attacked Germany, the war would have been over in very short order. The Germans would have been bled dry trying to overcome the Czech fortifications in the Sudetenland which were very formidable. Hitler admitted as much. Chamberlain was a cowardly scoundrel.
35 posted on 09/04/2011 7:30:35 AM PDT by HenpeckedCon (What pi$$es me off the most is that POS commie will get a State Funeral!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Love the British planes of the interwar period. One of my favorites: Photobucket
36 posted on 09/04/2011 10:45:21 AM PDT by RitchieAprile (breaking wind to the East..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Interesting discussion.

By 1938 the period of being able to stop Hitler without serious warfare was past. (The Rhineland crisis was a whole other story.) While the French seriously outweighed the Germans in manpower and materiel, particularly in alliance with the Czechs, the problem was that the French had absolutely no will to attack. Without the will, the other factors were utterly meaningless.

If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

FTM, the Allies had significantly more men, planes and tanks than the Germans during the Battle of France. Did them a whole lot of good.

While the British expanded their forces from 1938 to 1940, so did the Germans. The absolute level of British military power was irrelevant, only its power relative to the enemy’s. A good chunk of the German weaponry was taken from the Czechs.

The claims that the Wehrmacht would have overthrown Hitler had war started over Czechoslovakia are interesting, but will remain forever speculative. They might have done so, they might have tried and failed, or they might have chickened out at the last moment. Many German officers plotted, with varying degrees of sincerity, at different times during the Nazis’ reign. Very few followed through.


37 posted on 09/04/2011 11:56:01 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
You are forgetting that in 1938 the German war machine was almost nonexistent.

No, I'm not. I'm just aware that the British were even less ready for war - but knew they would be much more ready in a year or two.

During the assault on Poland the Germans were 100% committed, with no reserves. Had the French simply attacked at that point, they would have been unopposed.

Yes - that's France, not Britain. I am talking about Britain. As I said in a previous message "The French, perhaps - they had a large army and a lot of capability."

France's problem was different from Britain's. The French had a large military capability but were happy to sit behind their borders, relying on things like the Maginot line, rather than attempting to project force beyond their borders. Britain did not have the capability to project force until at least late 1939.

Yes, material state was weak in 1938, but it was as good as it was ever going to get for France, and Britain would never see another day (until the USA and USSR took over) that they would have as good of chances against the Germans.

So Britain should have gone to war before it was ready to do so, because the French were ready? If France was ready, perhaps France should have gone to war. But it was in British interests to wait. To let the rearmament process begun in 1934 actually reach its first stage of readiness. At the time of Munich, that was still about a year away, and the British knew it.

Look - just consider the issue of Battleships and Aircraft Carriers alone. In 1938, the Royal Navy's most modern Battleships were HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney - laid down in 1922, and commissioned in 1927 and 1930. Every other Battleship they had was World War I era (admittedly somewhat modernised).

Five new battleships were under construction - laid down in 1937. They were due to come on line starting in 1940 (and indeed, did so).

Aircraft Carriers, the story is similar. Britain had no 'modern' Aircraft Carriers at the time of Munich. The most modern carrier they had was the 1918 design, HMS Hermes, which was commissioned in 1923.

But HMS Ark Royal was nearly complete at Munich, and the four Illustrious carriers were building as well, again to start coming online in 1940. HMS Implacable was also laid down in the year between Munich and the start of the war.

Britain was building in 1938. It wasn't ready yet. It was going to be ready by 1940 - and forestalling war until near the end of 1939 made a vast difference to its capabilities.

38 posted on 09/04/2011 2:16:22 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Britain did begin rearming, but only because Germany threw out the Treaty of Versailles and began rearming at even a greater rate.

When the war began, the Allies were in a weaker State because Germany has annexed both Austria and Czechoslovakia, which had a fine army.

Why the attempt to rescue Chamberlain from the infamy he so justly deserves?

39 posted on 09/04/2011 4:59:21 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Because as a military historian, I don’t believe he deserves it.

And, frankly, I always find it amusing that Americans are so quick to criticise him when they come from a nation that did its level best to avoid getting involved in combat in either World War despite clearly deciding near the start of both wars which side they supported.

Apparently it’s a virtue for Americans to avoid major wars until there’s no choice, but not for anyone else to do it. I think it’s a virtue for all.

I believe you fight when you have to - and I spent over twenty years in uniform and went to war myself when my country called - but you don’t fight a war you’re not ready to fight unless you have absolutely no choice.

Si vis pacem, para bellum - but give peace a chance.


40 posted on 09/04/2011 5:32:31 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Royal Army gains were left on the beaches at Dunkirk.
Royal Air Force Gains were matched by the Germans.
Royal Navy gains weren’t needed in a 1938 war, when the Germans had little to nothing to match them.

I gather that we won’t agree on what the British should have done in 1938, going to war unprepared against an unmobilized foe, or waiting. I will only ask you to take a hard look at what the Germans actually had available to fight with in September of 1938, and then in 1939 (let alone 1940).

Army divisions:
1938 - 36
1939 - 98

Navy:
1938 - 29 coastal submarines / obsolete and small surface combatants
1939 - ~40 submarines(90 by 1940), more surface units but still incapable of challenging the Royal Navy of 1935.

Luftwaffe:
1938 - The Luftwaffe had technical superiority over the RAF and Frency, but had vastly insufficient numbers to defend their ground forces from medium bomber attack. In short, I think the Germans would have had the upper hand, but insufficient number to transfer than advantage to a ground victory.
1939 - About 1500 more of the uprated ME-109E (vastly better than the 600hp earlier variants) had been delivered. These we know decimated the RAF and French airforces.

All of the new British battleships had little effect during the war, except for patrolling for German raider runs, which almost never came.


41 posted on 09/04/2011 5:47:39 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Yes, he hoped to avoid war. But he also helped put in place a vastly improved mechanism to fight it.

Did Hitler also make big improvements during that year? And how did they compare?

42 posted on 09/04/2011 6:42:34 PM PDT by Bellflower (The LORD Jesus Christ is the antidote, the one and only antidote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Royal Army gains were left on the beaches at Dunkirk.

Absolutely. But that could have happened in 1939 from a 1938 war, and Britain would have been able to recover even fewer men - assuming they'd made it back to the coast. British troops in France, even in 1939/1940 were only ten percent of the allied force which was mostly French. When the French collapsed, the British couldn't do much at all. The same would have very possibly occurred a year earlier.

(Oh, and it's the British Army, not the Royal Army, just for the record - Bill of Rights 1689 means the Army is Parliament's, not the Monarchs, although he or she is their Commander-In-Chief).

Royal Air Force Gains were matched by the Germans.

Not in terms of technology. The BF109 was in general service by late 1937, early 1938. At the time of the Munich Agreement (30th September 1938), about 100 Hurricanes had reached squadrons, and the Spitfire hadn't even reached its first operational squadron (that happened within a week of Munich, though, so it was close). By the time the war started a year later, there were 500 Hurricanes and 270 Spitfires in service. From 100 to 770 modern fighters in that year.

Royal Navy gains weren’t needed in a 1938 war, when the Germans had little to nothing to match them.

Except the Gneisenau (the Scharnhorst probably could have been commissioned within a few weeks in a crash program as well), the Deutschland, the Admiral Graf Spee, the Admiral Scheer, the Prinz Eugen, the Blucher, and the Admiral Hipper.

Navy:
1938 - 29 coastal submarines / obsolete and small surface combatants

Obsolete and small surface combatants?

One brand new battleship of 35,000 tons. Six modern heavy cruisers of 12 - 14,000 tones.

The Kriegsmarine's light cruisers were obsolescent, but once you get smaller than that, Germany had over a dozen recent (as in less than five years old) destroyers in service.

All of the new British battleships had little effect during the war, except for patrolling for German raider runs, which almost never came.

Yes, because of the existence of the battleships. If they hadn't been there, the Germans would not have been so constrained.

43 posted on 09/04/2011 6:58:08 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower
Did Hitler also make big improvements during that year? And how did they compare?

He increased the size of his army quite dramatically - but a lot of that increase occurred in August 1939 with the mobilisation of the reserves, which would have happened in September 1938 if the war had started then.

Besides that, the size of the Navy (Kriegsmarine) and the Air Force (Luftwaffe) were increased as well, as more ships and planes came online, but far less dramatically than was the case in Britain. Germany was probably 60% along the way to war readiness in 1938, Britain was about 20% along the way. By September 1939, Germany was at about 90%, Britain at about 70%. That year made a lot more difference for the UK than it did for the Germans.

44 posted on 09/04/2011 7:11:35 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

That year led to more German advancement than Brit. Germany invaded France with very few MkIV tanks and the majority of Rommel’s division was made up of Chek T-38s which they had curtesy of Chamberlin.

The Hawker Hurricane was still a mainstay of the Battle of Britain and it began RAF service in 1937.


45 posted on 09/04/2011 7:12:12 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American that a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
That year led to more German advancement than Brit. Germany invaded France with very few MkIV tanks and the majority of Rommel’s division was made up of Chek T-38s which they had curtesy of Chamberlin.

Even if Britain had gone to war over Czechoslovakia, by the time any British troops had managed to deploy (given their state of readiness in 1938), Germany would have already conquered Czechoslovakia, and Rommel would have had those tanks anyway.

The Hawker Hurricane was still a mainstay of the Battle of Britain and it began RAF service in 1937.

Yes, December 1937. By September 1938, there were about 100 in service. The standard British fighter plane was still the biplane Gloster Gladiator of which there were about 450 in service. By the time war came in September 1939, the Gladiator had been largely replaced in RAF service by the Hurricanes and Spitfires - but it took until mid 1939 for that to happen (RAF fighter strength in September 1938 - about 550 planes - 450 Gladiators, 100 Hurricanes - RAF fighter strength in September 1939 - about 810 planes. 500 Hurricanes, 270 Spitfires, 40 Gladiators). If the Battle of Britain had been fought a year earlier, it would have been Hurricanes and Gladiators in similar numbers and a handful of Spitfires, fighting that battle.

46 posted on 09/04/2011 7:30:41 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

The Battle of Britain would not have been fought at all if they had held the line in France and the Blitz would not have worked very well with even fewer MkIIIs and MkIVs against the commpetitive French tanks.

Chamberlin’s cave-in also was a terrible blow to the German opposition to Hitler. The “success” the Nazis were able to brag about undermined the aristocratic military opposition to Hitler until the tide had turned against the Germans.


47 posted on 09/04/2011 11:15:47 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American that a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
Holding the line in France would have required the French not to break. I think they'd have been just as likely to break in 1938/1939 as they were in 1939/1940. Probably even more so because I think Churchill (even though it didn't work in the end) had a much better chance of persuading the French to hold than Chamberlain would have.

If I believed war could have been totally averted by a show of strength in 1938, as some people seem to, I could understand people wanting that. But my belief is that nothing was going to stop Hitler going to war. So it made sense to actually get the preparations to deal with that as close to completed as possible, before going to war, especially as so much improvement was going to occur between September 1938 and early 1940.

48 posted on 09/04/2011 11:55:15 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Absolutely. But that could have happened in 1939 from a 1938 war, and Britain would have been able to recover even fewer men - assuming they'd made it back to the coast. British troops in France, even in 1939/1940 were only ten percent of the allied force which was mostly French. When the French collapsed, the British couldn't do much at all. The same would have very possibly occurred a year earlier.

True, but the Germans had 50% of the men and almost no real tanks (Panzer I was more like the Bren carrier) in 1938. But your point is taken, that allowing a phony war period makes any allied superiority in 1938 a mute point. But the issue of will vs. capability is heart of the point that I was making.

(Oh, and it's the British Army, not the Royal Army, just for the record - Bill of Rights 1689 means the Army is Parliament's, not the Monarchs, although he or she is their Commander-In-Chief).

Interesting, I'll remember that.

Not in terms of technology. The BF109 was in general service by late 1937, early 1938. At the time of the Munich Agreement (30th September 1938), about 100 Hurricanes had reached squadrons, and the Spitfire hadn't even reached its first operational squadron (that happened within a week of Munich, though, so it was close). By the time the war started a year later, there were 500 Hurricanes and 270 Spitfires in service. From 100 to 770 modern fighters in that year.

Careful about treating the Bf109 as a standard item. The pre-E models were not at all comparable in capability to the E model, with only 60% of the hp. Additionally, the landing gear on the Bf109 was so weak, that up to 1941, half of the force would be out for damage incurred while landing at any one time.

Except the Gneisenau (the Scharnhorst probably could have been commissioned within a few weeks in a crash program as well), the Deutschland, the Admiral Graf Spee, the Admiral Scheer, the Prinz Eugen, the Blucher, and the Admiral Hipper.

The German pocket battleships and heavy cruisers were never a threat to even the vintage British battleships, as born out during the war. Really more propaganda than reality there.

Obsolete and small surface combatants? One brand new battleship of 35,000 tons. Six modern heavy cruisers of 12 - 14,000 tones. The Kriegsmarine's light cruisers were obsolescent, but once you get smaller than that, Germany had over a dozen recent (as in less than five years old) destroyers in service.

Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were not battleships. They had 11" guns. They were heavy cruisers overlapping into the light battle-cruiser category. Impressive for what they were, but a concept that never worked out. Guns won over speed at Jutland, and this continued to be the case. We built a similar type in the Guam and Alaska, and they too failed as a concept. No doubt that these heavy cruisers gave the Royal Navy much consternation, but other than threatening the northern convoys, of what real threat were they?

Yes, because of the existence of the battleships. If they hadn't been there, the Germans would not have been so constrained.

The Germans had no problems keeping the British out of the Baltic and near North Sea, without battleships. And the new battleships were still too slow to run down the Scharnhorst, so it is hard to see their great advantage. Yes, having more battleships allowed them to hold down the German fleet in Norway, but I'm talking about having fought and ended the war before Norway was occupied.

This would be a great conversation for an evening with cigars and scotch. I'll have to see if you are close enough for an invite. Alternative history is never more than a guessing game, but it does make you think, especially of the unintended consequences of alternative paths, such as Stalin jumping unexpectedly into Poland, even without a German invasion, or a German conciliation in 1938 that would have allowed them to mature the Z-plan before going to war.

All interesting stuff.

49 posted on 09/05/2011 4:48:26 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
What does anything you wrote have to do with Chamberlain’s appeasement?

The time to stop Germany was when it stopped paying the reparations they owed for WW1 and used them instead to build a military that was in violation of the Treaty.

After every concession to Germany, the Allies closed their eyes and hoped it would be the last.

50 posted on 09/06/2011 1:15:03 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson