Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2013 11:48:33 GMT -5
In my opinion France an Britian jumped into WWII before they had the capability of defeating Germany and they caused more harm than good .
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Feb 13, 2013 12:28:46 GMT -5
In my opinion France an Britian jumped into WWII before they had the capability of defeating Germany and they caused more harm than good . Not sure they had any choice as to when to enter the war.... |
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Feb 13, 2013 12:29:13 GMT -5
They had many years after WWI and they all saw it coming. What they did not see was the successful implementation of the Von Schlafin (sp) plan and the new blitzkrieg concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Feb 13, 2013 14:25:18 GMT -5
The problem is much to complex to break it down into a poll like this. WW2 was in a way a continuation of problems left unresolved or even enlarged after WW1, but France and Britain fell into the "fight the next was like the last war" trap. In 1939 the dices were already cast and it no longer was a question whether to declare war to Germany or not when Germany invaded Poland. And btw Germany was not yet ready to start the war with France and England too, that is why we had many months of Sitzkrieg before the Invasion of France was started by Germany. Okay, we can discuss whether Germany was using this Sitzkrieg to lure France and the UK into continuing their mis-directed preparations, to gain an even bigger victory, but there was nothing France or the UK could have won if they had waited with the declaration of war, to which they were morally obliged to Poland.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Feb 13, 2013 14:57:18 GMT -5
They should have intervened before the Nazis went into Austria, but, once that was done, and, once Czechoslovakia was swallowed up, both countries had a lot of catching up to do. So the answer would be, before 1938, they should have intervened, but, after that, they needed a year or two to catch up in modern tactics.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Feb 13, 2013 22:29:32 GMT -5
>So the answer would be, before 1938, they should have intervened,,
Germany did not show its intent at that time. Nor were their methods reveled. Germany picked off the countries that they could dominate with least effort, at a later time, Czechoslovakia, and Austria.
Neither France nor England had treaties with Czechoslovakia or Austria at that time. They, the allies, did have a treaty with Poland and tried to honor that treaty, as time permitted.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Feb 13, 2013 22:36:23 GMT -5
>WW2 was in a way a continuation of problems left unresolved or even enlarged after WW1,<
In my opinion WWII was in retaliation of the conditions imposed on Germany at the end of WWI. The restitution demanded broke the bank of the German state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Feb 14, 2013 0:49:16 GMT -5
In the time span of about 1936 to 1938, Britain was still in mourning from 1918. She was still in the grip of the Great Depression, and had about 10 pounds to spend on defence.
Nevertheless, from about that time the Supermarine and Hawker factories were working 24/7 churning out fighters. Britain's ship yards were building ships at the same pace.
Chamberlain knew all this, and his talks with herr Hitler were a tactic in gaining precious TIME! Chamberlain was not stupid, and he knew that one by one German's neighbours would be swallowed up, but he could NOT stop Hitler before about 1942 or so, at best.
Thus Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc were doomed. Then in 1939, Chamberlain had run out of delaying tactics and Poland was the trigger.
The rest is history.
JMO
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Feb 14, 2013 11:35:41 GMT -5
>WW2 was in a way a continuation of problems left unresolved or even enlarged after WW1,< In my opinion WWII was in retaliation of the conditions imposed on Germany at the end of WWI. The restitution demanded broke the bank of the German state. No, the main problem was that there were too many European powers and no way to manage their relations and ambitions. This was solved only with the EU, this is why it got the Nobel peace award. |
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Feb 14, 2013 13:25:35 GMT -5
Just what European problems has the EU solved other than bail out Greece ever six months?
|
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Feb 14, 2013 15:40:13 GMT -5
The EU has managed to establish a way the European nations can deal with each other and their own ambitions in a peaceful way. Imagine that there would be no federal state in the USA, but only some dotzen independent states which would be in a permanent fight with each other. I'm sure you would have seen many more wars in the USA then just the ACW and you would have wasted a lot of energy in fighting against each other instead of working together with each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Feb 14, 2013 15:46:29 GMT -5
Very true, but then the socialists got to the top of the heap and started spending money, most of it borrowed.
Stuffed up a good idea.
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Feb 14, 2013 16:25:44 GMT -5
I'm not sure which side wasted more money, the left or the right. The left is investing money into the attempt of leveling the differences of a socity, but the right wasted enourmous sums into promotions of economic development which ended in 99% of the cases in the private coffers of their cronies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Feb 15, 2013 17:16:14 GMT -5
"ended in 99% of the cases in the private coffers of their cronies."
Not all that keen on these claims of "99%" of anything. They are usually an attempt to lock out argument with Mark Twains "statistics".
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Feb 17, 2013 11:09:22 GMT -5
One needs to look at all the philanthropic institutions and cultural entities that were the result of contributions from all those greedy 99%ers..... (How much was it that Bill Gates donated to what?) (How many college buildings bear the name of their rich, fat cat, benefactors?) How many parks have been donated by the homeless? How many welfare kids are supported by the taxpayer and not their own fathers?
|
|
