If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
According to the first line, we were talking about WW1 :
The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find "John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news: ... "Christophe Chazot" wrote in message ... "John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news: ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... (snip) The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find (snip) France only learned from WW1 that war was to be avoided (perfectly sensible) and that a defensive strategy would deter Germany (turned out not to be true as we know). Many in Britain made the same mistakes, but you were unlucky enough to be before us in the firing line. John Yep. "Too few, too late" was also true for the french armies... Christophe |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message . ..
On 22 Oct 2003 02:44:52 -0700, (Stuart Wilkes) wrote: "John Mullen" wrote in message ... snip We did not badly to win the air and sea battles with Nazi Germany. Neither was easy and both had costs attached. Of course we couldn't have won overall without the support of the USA and the USSR, both of which in their own ways hedged their bets until the decision to enter the war was forced upon them. Not by their choice. The Soviets had alliances with Czechoslovakia and France since 1935, and offered Great Britain and France a full-up Triple Alliance with all the trimmings on 17 April 1939. Too bad Chamberlain refused to take it seriously, preferring to pursue Anglo-German agreement. The only way that an treaty with the USSR could have been signed is to accede to Stalin's demand for a free rein in the Baltic, Yes, it is much better, from the point of view of an appeasing Western Conservative, for Nazi Germany to have free rein in the Baltic. an agreement not likely to have gone well with any of the Western powers. Indeed, the Western powers were concerned to keep the Baltic States out of Soviet hands. However, in the Anglo-German negotiations of the summer of 1939, the British offered to recognize Eastern Europe as a German sphere of influence. Last time I checked, the Baltic States are in Eastern Europe. So the Western powers were indeed resolved to keep the Baltic States out of Soviet hands, in order to preserve them for the Nazi variety. Stalin finally got it from Hitler, which is what he was after. Indeed. After all, the prospects of Operation Barbarossa are much improved if it is launched against the 1938 Soviet borders. Stuart Wilkes |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
In article , The Black
Monk writes wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Silvey" wrote: Then there was the fact that the Reds did nothing while Japan massacred hundreds of thousands of Chinese in the '30s. Stalin only declared war on Japan *after* Japan had lost, just to gain Kamchatka. 100% fact. russia fought japan until the german invasion of russia. you don't have to look in obscure sources to find out about it. readers of rec.aviation.military are undoubtably familiar with the accounts of the flying tigers in china. these books describe the russian conflict with china in this period, both as mercenaries for china and direct conflict on the soviet border. Indeed. At Khalkyn Gol between May and September 1939 the Japanese were crushed by Zhukov, sustaining over 80,000 casualties to the Russians' 11,130. Within a single week the Japanses lost 25,000 men. The entire Japanese 6th army was completely destroyed. The Battle of Khalkin Gol was Zhukov's illustration of Deep Penetration tactics. The use of deception tactics, extremely fast tanks and mechanized forces to outflank an opponent's defenses, and the combination of aerial, airborne, and ground troops lead to the complete destruction of the Japanese 6th Army and to Japan's loss of a sphere of influence in the Mongolian and Far Eastern regions. This battle also featured the first successful use of air-to-air missiles. Five Polikarpov I-16 Type 10 fighters under the command of Capt. Zvonarev claimed destruction two Mitsubishi A5M by RS-82 unguided rockets. It depends on your definitions. Aerial rockets had been used in WW I, to destroy balloons rather than enemy heavier-than-air craft. See: http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/leprieur.htm Historians describe a conflict within the Japanese military about whether to attack the USSR or the USA. The complete defeat att he hands of the Soviets made that decision: Pearl Harbor happened because the Japanese chose to attack the weaker foe. BM -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po! |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... Owe Jessen wrote: :Am 21 Oct 2003 16:09:53 -0700, schrieb (The :Black Monk) : : :Unfortunately, rather than statesmen Germany was led by madmen. :Hitler's racial theories prevented him from making Germany a leader of :Europe in the manner that America would later be. As Spengler :predicted in 1936, Hitler's sick reich didn't last 10 years. : :If Germany would have been lead by statesmen and not madmen it would :not have waged war, me thinks. And if Germany had been fairly treated by the victors of WWI, rather than robbed blind, and hadn't had such sensible options as Anshluss foreclosed, she might have been led by statesmen rather than madmen. I think the meth-amphetamines would have still done their paranoid schizoprenic work on the minds of the people. Adolph was a very charismatic man. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message om... E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message . .. On 22 Oct 2003 02:44:52 -0700, (Stuart Wilkes) wrote: Indeed, the Western powers were concerned to keep the Baltic States out of Soviet hands. However, in the Anglo-German negotiations of the summer of 1939, the British offered to recognize Eastern Europe as a German sphere of influence. Last time I checked, the Baltic States are in Eastern Europe. So the Western powers were indeed resolved to keep the Baltic States out of Soviet hands, in order to preserve them for the Nazi variety. What Anglo German negotiations ? From March onwards (when Germany seized the remains of Czechoslovakia) there was a deterioration of relations which made everbody understand the inevitability of war In April Germany denounced the Anglo German Naval Agreement The Germans alsocomplained about the negotiations Britain was pursuing with the USSR complaining that Britain and the Soviet Union were trying to encircle Germany. They need not have feared since it was the Soviets who scuppered any chance of an alliance to oppose Germany when Molotov first sharply criticized the British suggestions of a defensive alliance against Germany and Italy and then rejected a series of drafts in negotiations with the British and French governments and demanded guarantees for the Baltic states, insurance against internal revolution, and the right to send Red Army troops into Poland in the event of a German invasion. These demands were clearly impossible to accept and were almost certainly intended to end all such talks as the USSR was already secretly negotiating with Germany. It was of course Stalin who offered Germany a free hand in Western Europe while the USSR would have a free hand in the east and split Poland between them. Keith |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message om... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... snip We did not badly to win the air and sea battles with Nazi Germany. Neither was easy and both had costs attached. Of course we couldn't have won overall without the support of the USA and the USSR, both of which in their own ways hedged their bets until the decision to enter the war was forced upon them. Not by their choice. The Soviets had alliances with Czechoslovakia and France since 1935, and offered Great Britain and France a full-up Triple Alliance with all the trimmings on 17 April 1939. Too bad Chamberlain refused to take it seriously, preferring to pursue Anglo-German agreement. Given that Stalin had 1) Reneged on his agreements with Czechoslovakia when that nation asked the Soviets to intervene in 1938 False. The Czechoslovak government never made any request for Soviet aid. The Czechoslovak government decided on their own that they would accept the Munich dictate. In his memoirs, Benes maintains that the Soviets were willing to go beyond the committments they had made, should the Czechoslovak government desire. The Czechoslovak government made no such request. 2) Just finished decimating the Red Army by killing three out of five Soviet marshals, fifteen out of sixteen army commanders, sixty out of 67 corps commanders, and 136 out of 199 divisional commanders and 36,761 officers. Hm. One wonders how this purged Soviet Army managed to inflict over 3 times as many German KIA in the first seven weeks of Barbarossa as the combined Franco-Anglo-Belgian-Dutch armies managed in the six-week campaign in the West. And the purges themselves had no impact on Western estimates of the Soviet military. They derided it before the Purges, and the derided it after the Purges. Tukhachevskii was discovered in the West to have been a military genius only after he was safely dead. 3) Had just presided over the man made famine in the Ukraine Its scarcely suprising that Soviet promises were viewed with a degree of scepticism. Of the two, that of the USSR was IMO the less honourable. They had been excluded from the prewar European diplomacy, and their alliance offers to the Western Allies refused. Once that was clear, they looked after themselves. Nothing dishonorable about that. The secret codicils to the Soviet-German non-aggression pact were scarcely honorable, With Chamberlain determined on Anglo-German agreement, it would have been highly unwise for the Soviets to pass up the offer. neither was the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states and Finland, It also would have been unwise for the Soviets to have let Germany occupy the Baltic States. unless you consider that the Finnish hordes poised to sweep across the borders of the USSR were a major threat to the Rodina. Fact is Stalin was already secretly negotiating with Germany in 1938 And the British had been openly negotiating with Nazi Germany since 1935, concluding agreements that permitted German naval rearmament, as well as selling Czechoslovakia out. and thought he could cut a cosy deal with his buddy Adolf and carve up Central Europe between them. No sense letting "good old Neville" hand it all to Adolpf. Oops Got a better alternative for him? I thought not. Stuart Wilkes |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... A limited operation does not have to be minor, it just has to have well defined limits. Shucks, by that definition, the U.S. fought World War II as a limited operation. a) defeat Germany b) defeat Japan What limits could be better defined than those? Don't be such an idiot. The Allies fought to defeat Germany and Japan on a strategic level. Japan fought a limited war in the South Pacific to simply exclude the Allies from interfering with their supplies. The South Pacific was a sideshow for Japan and all operations in the South Pacific were limited and to support the main aim. China. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message m... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message om... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... snip We did not badly to win the air and sea battles with Nazi Germany. Neither was easy and both had costs attached. Of course we couldn't have won overall without the support of the USA and the USSR, both of which in their own ways hedged their bets until the decision to enter the war was forced upon them. Not by their choice. The Soviets had alliances with Czechoslovakia and France since 1935, and offered Great Britain and France a full-up Triple Alliance with all the trimmings on 17 April 1939. Too bad Chamberlain refused to take it seriously, preferring to pursue Anglo-German agreement. Given that Stalin had 1) Reneged on his agreements with Czechoslovakia when that nation asked the Soviets to intervene in 1938 False. The Czechoslovak government never made any request for Soviet aid. The Czechoslovak government decided on their own that they would accept the Munich dictate. In his memoirs, Benes maintains that the Soviets were willing to go beyond the committments they had made, should the Czechoslovak government desire. The Czechoslovak government made no such request. This is incorrect, the Soviet government did not respond to Benes when he appealed for help under the terms of the 1935 treaty. The Soviets prevaricated knowing all too well what the consequences would be. 2) Just finished decimating the Red Army by killing three out of five Soviet marshals, fifteen out of sixteen army commanders, sixty out of 67 corps commanders, and 136 out of 199 divisional commanders and 36,761 officers. Hm. One wonders how this purged Soviet Army managed to inflict over 3 times as many German KIA in the first seven weeks of Barbarossa as the combined Franco-Anglo-Belgian-Dutch armies managed in the six-week campaign in the West. While losing ten times as many men And the purges themselves had no impact on Western estimates of the Soviet military. They derided it before the Purges, and the derided it after the Purges. Tukhachevskii was discovered in the West to have been a military genius only after he was safely dead. The purges had clear and direct effects on the Soviet military which was found to be inadequate to the task of defeating mighty Finland 3) Had just presided over the man made famine in the Ukraine Its scarcely suprising that Soviet promises were viewed with a degree of scepticism. Of the two, that of the USSR was IMO the less honourable. They had been excluded from the prewar European diplomacy, and their alliance offers to the Western Allies refused. Once that was clear, they looked after themselves. Nothing dishonorable about that. The secret codicils to the Soviet-German non-aggression pact were scarcely honorable, With Chamberlain determined on Anglo-German agreement, it would have been highly unwise for the Soviets to pass up the offer. Chamberlain was determined on peace, nothing more and nothing less. neither was the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states and Finland, It also would have been unwise for the Soviets to have let Germany occupy the Baltic States. That happened anyway dies to Stalis destruction of the red army. unless you consider that the Finnish hordes poised to sweep across the borders of the USSR were a major threat to the Rodina. Fact is Stalin was already secretly negotiating with Germany in 1938 And the British had been openly negotiating with Nazi Germany since 1935, concluding agreements that permitted German naval rearmament, as well as selling Czechoslovakia out. Nations tend to negotiate openly with each other, its called diplomacy I believe. and thought he could cut a cosy deal with his buddy Adolf and carve up Central Europe between them. No sense letting "good old Neville" hand it all to Adolpf. Neville didnt had Poland to Adolf, he declared war insted, handing Poland to Adolf was Uncle Joe's doing. Oops Got a better alternative for him? Sure, stop selling the Nazis war materials would be a good start. Hell the Russians supplied Germany with the fuel for Barbarossa. Keith |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message m... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message om... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... snip We did not badly to win the air and sea battles with Nazi Germany. Neither was easy and both had costs attached. Of course we couldn't have won overall without the support of the USA and the USSR, both of which in their own ways hedged their bets until the decision to enter the war was forced upon them. Not by their choice. The Soviets had alliances with Czechoslovakia and France since 1935, and offered Great Britain and France a full-up Triple Alliance with all the trimmings on 17 April 1939. Too bad Chamberlain refused to take it seriously, preferring to pursue Anglo-German agreement. Given that Stalin had 1) Reneged on his agreements with Czechoslovakia when that nation asked the Soviets to intervene in 1938 False. The Czechoslovak government never made any request for Soviet aid. The Czechoslovak government decided on their own that they would accept the Munich dictate. In his memoirs, Benes maintains that the Soviets were willing to go beyond the committments they had made, should the Czechoslovak government desire. The Czechoslovak government made no such request. This is incorrect, the Soviet government did not respond to Benes when he appealed for help under the terms of the 1935 treaty. The Soviets prevaricated knowing all too well what the consequences would be. 2) Just finished decimating the Red Army by killing three out of five Soviet marshals, fifteen out of sixteen army commanders, sixty out of 67 corps commanders, and 136 out of 199 divisional commanders and 36,761 officers. Hm. One wonders how this purged Soviet Army managed to inflict over 3 times as many German KIA in the first seven weeks of Barbarossa as the combined Franco-Anglo-Belgian-Dutch armies managed in the six-week campaign in the West. While losing ten times as many men And the purges themselves had no impact on Western estimates of the Soviet military. They derided it before the Purges, and the derided it after the Purges. Tukhachevskii was discovered in the West to have been a military genius only after he was safely dead. The purges had clear and direct effects on the Soviet military which was found to be inadequate to the task of defeating mighty Finland 3) Had just presided over the man made famine in the Ukraine Its scarcely suprising that Soviet promises were viewed with a degree of scepticism. Of the two, that of the USSR was IMO the less honourable. They had been excluded from the prewar European diplomacy, and their alliance offers to the Western Allies refused. Once that was clear, they looked after themselves. Nothing dishonorable about that. The secret codicils to the Soviet-German non-aggression pact were scarcely honorable, With Chamberlain determined on Anglo-German agreement, it would have been highly unwise for the Soviets to pass up the offer. Chamberlain was determined on peace, nothing more and nothing less. neither was the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states and Finland, It also would have been unwise for the Soviets to have let Germany occupy the Baltic States. That happened anyway dies to Stalis destruction of the red army. unless you consider that the Finnish hordes poised to sweep across the borders of the USSR were a major threat to the Rodina. Fact is Stalin was already secretly negotiating with Germany in 1938 And the British had been openly negotiating with Nazi Germany since 1935, concluding agreements that permitted German naval rearmament, as well as selling Czechoslovakia out. Nations tend to negotiate openly with each other, its called diplomacy I believe. and thought he could cut a cosy deal with his buddy Adolf and carve up Central Europe between them. No sense letting "good old Neville" hand it all to Adolpf. Neville didnt had Poland to Adolf, he declared war insted, handing Poland to Adolf was Uncle Joe's doing. Oops Got a better alternative for him? Sure, stop selling the Nazis war materials would be a good start. Hell the Russians supplied Germany with the fuel for Barbarossa. Keith |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Andy Spark" wrote in message ... No the RAF was more than capable of holding out against the Luftwaffe. The germans had the wrong aircraft the wrong tactics and well, just about everything. -Even had they worked out what the strange looking towers round the south coast were for and demolished them, enabling them to knock out the RAF's frontline airfields, all the RAF would have had to do was to pull their fighters back to the North of London (out of the limited range of the german bombers) and continue sniping away. -The RAF ended the Battle of Britain materially stronger than when it started. -Of course they enjoyed the advantage of being able to recover their downed pilots, and a large proportion of even the most badly damaged aircraft, It is interesting to look at the number of available fighter pilots for fighter command throughout the BoB and note that it never declined below the 1259 available in the week ending July 6, it is also interesting to note that the number of 'immediately available' single engined fighters in storage units never dropped below 191. Not minimising the importance of the battle, nor the bravery of the pilots, but the BoB was not the 'near run thing' that it is frequently portrayed as. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|