1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Neville Chamberlain Re-examined

Discussion in 'World History' started by wildWolverine, Jun 27, 2005.

  1. rilnator

    rilnator Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,177
    Location:
    Queensland
    I don't have any 'job' to refute anything. I stated my points yesterday. Full of historical evidence. As I said, because we are talking about a 'what if' - something that never happened it is impossible to prove anything.

    I never said Wikipedia was bias. But when someone tries to school me by rewording facts they've just learnt from wikipedia minutes before I find it hard to take them seriously. Have you got your hands on a copy of 'rise and fall of the third reich' yet?
     
  2. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    You've just proven that you're not worth arguing with anymore. As of last June, I'm a professional historian, you fool. I'm currently working on my thesis and writing a short book about the Suez Crisis. I use Wikipedia as a source because it's online. It wouldn't be fair to quote journals and books that are only available in university libraries, so I don't quote them, even if it means I forgo actually backing up statements. Also, I didn't "reword" anything, I quoted and sourced in the correct manner for these boards.

    If you make claims, you must back up those claims. Therefore, if you are continuing to claim that Germany would miraculously last 6 years despite being totally outclassed and with none of the advantages it possessed in 1939, then you have an obligation to back up those claims with some form of evidence. Refusal to do so is merely a sign that you are petulantly refusing to concede an argument which you know you have lost, or are so biased and closed-minded that you would swear up and down that yellow is green. Back up your claims.
     
  3. Masada

    Masada Koi-san!

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,534
    Location:
    Osaka
    I don't need to. Sharwood and Winner have provided ample evidence to show what C would different. You've provided nothing to the contrary effectively yielding the floor. I'm merely pointing out that your blithe assumption that B1 --> C is a logical fallacy all of its own making.

    "I don't think it would" is so very authoritative. I'm going to bow to your personal beliefs now!

    [Citation required]
     
  4. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    Your position has NOTHING to do with historical evidence. What you believe in is historical determinism, or "fate" - which is pretty ahistorical if you ask me.

    In short, with your logic, if I said "If Hitler had been killed in WW1, there would have been no WW2 as we know it", you'd say something like "No, another guy would have taken Hitler's place and everything would be the same."

    That's clearly wrong.

    I explained HOW would an early start of WW2 seriously undermine the German position. You refuted NONE of my points (no M-R pact -> hostile Russia, no resources; destroyed Czechoslovakia -> no Czech equipment and industrial production, not to mention the heavy losses Germany would suffer there; no early success -> no allies and no fanatical support for Hitler; no polish campaign experience -> no blitzkrieg; no blitzkrieg -> no easy victory over France; and so on and so forth, butterfly effect all over). You just went on giving me a lecture about how the HISTORICAL WW2 looked like.

    Get a grip, jeez.

    It's not an excuse for a lack of argument and proper reasoning. The folly of abandoning Czechoslovakia was pretty clearly denounced by Liddel Hart in his history of the 2nd world war. In one stroke, the Allies lost dozens of fully armed, well-trained and well-prepared divisions covered by extensive system of fortifications. Had they decided to go to war then, Germany would have faced even worse odds than it faced historically - and this is a fact backed by tons of evidence: the strength of the Czechoslovak military, the industrial production and amount of armaments the Germans got for "free", the diplomatic standing of Germany in September 1938 etc.

    There is NO WAY the war could have been the same if it started a year earlier. If you want to make such an extraordinary claim, you have to provide extraordinary evidence.
     
  5. Lord Baal

    Lord Baal Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    7,291
    Location:
    Canaan
    I'm with Winner and Sharwood on this, but I'm open to be proven wrong. If rilnator can offer some compelling reasons, back by sources, as to why his view is correct. As it is, he might as well say that if reptilian aliens invaded Earth in 1942, the world would still turn out pretty much the same in every way.
     
  6. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    I want to add a little bit extra here where I may be useful. I'm no expert on the Red Army, but the IJA is an area I like to read up on.

    At this point, the Russian army was using what is usually translated as "Deep Battle" and according to some historians/military theorists, it is in fact better then Blitzkrieg. The focus on Russian strategy was on penetrating the front lines, and then plunging after and disrupting enemy reserves unorganized for combat, rather then simply enveloping his frontline troops. The First Gulf war is sometimes cited as an example of it, and the Manchurian Offensive was clearly the doctrine at it's finest.

    As for the Japanese, they of course thought the Tank was an unreasonable weapon for them, for the obvious reasons of Japan's industrial capacity and where they were fighting. This said, Japan is still the first nation IIRC to employ an Armored Division in combat.
    As for their infantry tactics, they were notably leagues ahead of Trench warfare, and in fact very much were influenced by concepts of Stormtrooper tactics. Japanese Soldiers were trained to be able to carry loads and travel quickly, even across broken terrain. In combat, they were told to move and fire, and use grenades and above all momentum and maneuverability to avoid points of conflict, and have rear echelon troops deal with them later. The result was that in Japanese Army maneuvers, an advance of twenty miles a day was to be expected of non-motorized units.

    Quite a bit indeed ahead of "Trench Warfare."
     
  7. JBGUSA

    JBGUSA Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    56
    Location:
    NYC Area
    I still think an appeaser. If the Germans were truly ready for war do you think Hitler was about to ask Chamberlain's permission to annex Sudenland? What was lost was continuing German escalation of preparedness, and time for Germany to negotiate the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty with Russia.

    I'm not sure Britain would have done all that worse, given that the U.S. would have intervened if Britain were in true peril. Blood is, after all, thicker than water.
     

Share This Page