Timeline of Incompetent Leadership Contest in WW II - Page 2




 
--
 
November 13th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
I am getting tired of giving basic information, please check before objecting.
Baldwin was prime minister 1935-37 and also 24-29 and once before and he was always opposed to arming.
Churchill had to lead alone a constant campaign for many years arguing against Baldwin and successfully increasing the military budget, had it not been for him Britain would have been in even worse shape in 1939.
November 13th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
The Sudetendeutsche have no more the right to secede than the Volgadeutsche, Danzigdeutsche, Wisconsindeutsche or Argentiniendeutsche.
Any growth of a very aggressive nation thereatens Britain and emboldens Hitler.
The strong Czech industry was instrumental in the German invasions and allowing Hitler to take it without a fight led to WW II starting in much better conditions for Germany than if France, Britain, Poland and Czechoslovakia had fought him in 1939.
November 13th, 2011  
lljadw
 
about point one :an alliance between socialists and communists to stop Hitler :this was the last thing Stalin would do .
1)there was no reason to prevent Hitler from taking power ,because,Hitler would eliminate the socialists,Hitler would fail to resolve the economic crisis(a communist dogma),and Hitler would be replaced by the communists.
2)there was no difference (for a communist) between Hitler and the capitalists:they both were enemies,and,you can do business with your enemies,but,the socialists were much more dangerous,they were concurrents,who were fishing in the same lake:if the socialists won votes at the election,this was at the cost of the communists.
You can compare this with the attitude of the catholic church during the reformation :Rome could do (and did) business with the Islam,but not with the protestants,if these became stronger,Rome became weaker .It was the same with socialists and communists:both claimed the title of the saviour of the working class,cooperation was impossible .
Besides,if Hitler was stopped,democracy (the Weimar Republic) was saved.Was the rescue of a democratic capitalist state a good thing for communism ?
--
November 13th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Had the communists and Socialists excluded Hitler, the already strong communists would have gained considerable strength. Strengthening Hitler who had publicly stated his definite intention to eliminate communism and invade the USSR doomed the hundreds of thousands of German communists and ensured the invasion of the USSR. It's difficult to be more stupid. But if you insist on arguing nonsense, OK.
November 13th, 2011  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
The Sudetendeutsche have no more the right to secede than the Volgadeutsche, Danzigdeutsche, Wisconsindeutsche or Argentiniendeutsche.
Any growth of a very aggressive nation thereatens Britain and emboldens Hitler.
The strong Czech industry was instrumental in the German invasions and allowing Hitler to take it without a fight lead to WW II starting in much better conditions for Germany than if France, Britain, Poland and Czechoslovakia had fought him in 1939.
Well,people in the thirties differed :they were thinking that the Sudeten had a right to secede (the selfdetermination of the peoples as stated at ....Versailles),as the people of Ireland,as the Baltics,as Finland ,as the people of the Alsace,of Slowakia,Croatia,as the inhabitants of the British colonies in 1776.To deny the Sudeten the right to secede,is to deny democracy .
Besides,it was not a British problem :Britain did not care about the Sudeten .
And,about the strong Czech industry:it was not instrumental .Besides,at Munich,Germany did NOT acquire the Czech industry,this was only in 1939.
November 13th, 2011  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
I am getting tired of giving basic information, please check before objecting.
Baldwin was prime minister 1935-37 and also 24-29 and once before and he was always opposed to arming.
Churchill had to lead alone a constant campaign for many years arguing against Baldwin and successfully increasing the military budget, had it not been for him Britain would have been in even worse shape in 1939.
And,I am getting tired to answer posts with a History Channel level .Between 1935 and 1937,Baldwin was PM and Britain was rearming .Or are you disputing my figures ?
Between 1924 and 1929,Baldwin was PM and Britain was of course not rearming.Why should it ?
And,of course you are ignoring/concealing this,between 1924 and 1929,the chancellor of the exchequer,and the man who was paring down the military budget(less taxes =winning votes) was Churchill.Thus,again you are posting nonsens :Churchill did not increase the military budget.Never heard of the ten years rule ? Of course,not .
November 13th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
In 35-37 your figures are despite Baldwin, not thanks to him (thanks to Churchill). However, those figures are ridiculous when you consider the size, industry and resources of the British Empire and the fact that rearming was a good way to defeat depression, as demosntarted by Japan, Germany, Italy, etc,

For a quick but very informative view at Baldwin read the article about him in Wiki. Not only as PM, he held important positions between his PMships and always opposed arming and Churchill, the only British leader who understood Hitler and Stalin.

Nothing illustrates the British complete lack of preparation than the fact that poor, small, backward Japan had a much more modern navy than Britain (although the British had trained the Japanese navy only decades before), although Japan was not threatened by any country and Britain was. Japan had monoplanes in its carriers years before the British did. The British used the Swordfish throughout the war. Only Britain would think of building an excellent, very expensive carrier like the Illustrous that survived six 500 km bombs and still arrived in Malta to take more hits and survive and equipping it with cheap biplane torpedo bombers.
November 13th, 2011  
lljadw
 
Prove it,that it was thanks to Churchill,who had no official post .
These are the official figures of British military spending ,first column :military spending,second one:GDP(in millions of pounds)
1930 :118.6 4,6OO
1931:116,9 4,300
1932:112,9 4,200
1933:110,9 4,300
1934:116,3 4,500
1935:121,9 4,700
1936 :145,5 5,000
1937:195,2 5,300
1938:205,9 5,500
1939:266,2 5,900
November 13th, 2011  
muscogeemike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
Prove it,that it was thanks to Churchill,who had no official post .
These are the official figures of British military spending ,first column :military spending,second one:GDP(in millions of pounds)
1930 :118.6 4,6OO
1931:116,9 4,300
1932:112,9 4,200
1933:110,9 4,300
1934:116,3 4,500
1935:121,9 4,700
1936 :145,5 5,000
1937:195,2 5,300
1938:205,9 5,500
1939:266,2 5,900
I am, overall, a Churchill fan, but in this case I'll use his own quote -
I do not believe there is the slightest chance of it in our lifetime. As Chancellor of the Exchequar (1924-29), dismissing the idea of a war with Japan and cutting defense spending to pay for social programs.
November 13th, 2011  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogeemike
I am, overall, a Churchill fan, but in this case I'll use his own quote -
I do not believe there is the slightest chance of it in our lifetime. As Chancellor of the Exchequar (1924-29), dismissing the idea of a war with Japan and cutting defense spending to pay for social programs.
'24-29 was the Roaring 20s, the world was in an economic boom & there really wasn't any threat on the horizon. It was only after the economic collapse of '29-30 that totalitarian govts came into power & the threat of War emerged as a real possibility.
 


Similar Topics
Robert Gates Speaks out against top heavy Pentagon Leadership
Annual Neologism Contest
Iranian paper plans Holocaust cartoon contest
China plans to invade US!
Visitor nr 500.000 contest...