About At the beginnig of WWII. Page 2
|May 15th, 2011||#11|
| || |
Re: At the beginnig of WWII info
France were prepared to fight a WW-1 style war which is why they build the Maginot Line. Great Britain was also only prepared to fight a WW-1 style combat. No one ever expected the German Army would go around the Maginot Line.
The French had good tanks but, they were designed for and used for infantry support only. When French armor met German armor, the Germans were prepared for tank versus tank combat, the French were not. The French Air Force's best fighter was decent but, the Me-109 was a little faster than the French VG-33 but, the VG-33 was far fewer in numbers. The Luftwaffe launched a first strike which destroy a good number of the VG-33's on the ground. That made air superiority for the Luftwaffe much easier. The RAF Spitfires were a help, not a cure-all.
Summing it up, Germany was prepare for war and none of its enemies were... just that simple.
|May 16th, 2011||#12|
| || |
|May 16th, 2011||#13|
| || |
The French had at some stage tried to send some troops accross the border and into Saarland in Germany, occupied some of the territory, but got entangled in minefields and withdrew.
That action alone would achieve nothing but convinsing the Germans that the French either didn't have the capability, or the interest, to put armed action behind their words.
Unlike the German invasion in 1940, the French couldn't simply roll in through the Belgian and Dutch territories.
As for the British, England is an island, it was back then too, and except for the might of the Roal Navy, there was little England had to put up against German aggression towards Poland.
Oh, and the Spitfires were in short numbers back then, one og two fully fitted squadrons I believe, the rest of the British fighter force being equipped with Hurricanes or older planes of lesser value in combat.
Poland was in effect too far away, and that may have been one of the few things that Chamberlain knew for a fact.
Was Poland sacrified, I don't know, but Polish war effort later on was impressive and valuable for the outcome of the war.
|May 16th, 2011||#15|
| || |
And their losses was in no manner connected to incompetence, rather the Polish fighting spirit I'd say.
In Narvik a wreath of remembrance and gratitude is placed at the monument over the ORP Grom each year, in respect for the Polish crew who fought and died there.
By the way, ORP Grom is one of the few navy vessels in the world who have a monument outside it's homeland.
|May 16th, 2011||#16|
| || |
Poland was not sacrified or abandoned:Britain never never had the intention to put the guarantee in action :the meaning of the guarantee was not that Britain (in fact France;Britain had no army) would fight for Poland,but that it would prevent the war .
|May 17th, 2011||#17|
| || |
I may be entering this late but want to add my 1/2 cent.
Great Britian's royal family had long and lengthy ties with Germany through blood. A lot of her intellectuals were progressives who strongly believed in socialism. Hitler, while insane, was quite smart in cloaking his nationalistic dreams in socialism, thus gaining the sympathy of some upper-class Brits.
The American intelligencia were also strongly progressive and socialistic after WWI. But, they bent to demands of France and certain other Allies in forcing the repatriation that bankrupted the attempt at a German republic.
So, while outwardly, the winners of WWI tried to carry on the facade of empire builders with mighty navies, their land forces were inadequate to do much of anything. And, the battleship admirals did not/would not accept the idea that naval aviation would someday make the big, armored hulks ineffective.
On the other hand, some of those who followed Hitler had a far different and more progressive vision of warfare. For all his horrible and disgusting tendencies, Ghoering [sp?] was a visionary on the use of aircraft. And, other German generals took lessons from WWI in forming and arming the military forces. The tank was just one example, the .88 mm was another.
So, when Germany first took over the Sudentenland, western forces knew they simply were not armed and ready to take Germany of. They bowed to the rhetoric that Hitler used claiming that all he was doing was protecting Germans who were being treated badly. The same held true of the Austrian Anschluss.
And, let's be honest - FDR did not create the Lend Lease Program to help Britain to defend itself but to improve and increase jobs in the American economy. And, we would not have become involved in Europe [due to a very large segment of Amerian society that was pro-Germany] if it had not been for the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor. FDRs involvement in that is something for another thread.
|May 17th, 2011||#18|
| || |
As the British royal family had no power,its blood ties with Germany were irrelevant .
The fact also is that the Austrians and the Sudeten wanted to return to Germany,and that Britain and France had,morally,no argument,unless the argument was that the right of self-determination (which was the key-stone of Versailles) had to bow for strategical interests,but that argument was rejected by public opinion,and the partisans of that argument (Churchill) were considered as crypto-fascists .
|May 18th, 2011||#19|
| || |