Thread: Chamberlain a new look.

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

There were different groups, often unaware of each others (a big factor in their lack of succes).

But could any of them actually managed to pull one off. Hitler's bloodless coup had forced the war minister and head of the army into retirement along with 16 other senior generals and the shifting around of around 40 others to break up power groups. On top of that were the personal oaths to Hilter as the head of the German Armed Forces. During the Nuremberg trials one theme that kept repeating was the amount of general officers who could not think of disobeying Hitler because of the dishonor that would attach to the and the officer corps. Its the same oath and often the same officers in 38/39 who would have to give the putsch the nod for it to succeed.

Also the army and putsch don't mix well in Germany. You could not change the government by force/threat of force in Germany without the support of the army. Except for the November Revolution, the Army did not support overthrowing a government.

Originally Posted by zraver

That document doesn't really show Romania being a friend of the Czech's, the desire to preserve Czech territory seems to be based on Romanian self interests.

Which is what matters in affairs of states.Common interests.If based on common values even better.Sounds cynical on my part but we've been to much f....d up by sweet words followed by knives in the back or our soldiers dying for nothing.That being said the inter-war relations were indeed particularly good.Long history that started with the Czech Legion in Siberia and continued with us beating the Red Hungarians in 1919(saving the Czechs bacon in the process)

p.s What's ironic is that the fruits of our actions in 1938(staying away),were collected by the commie regime.What's even funnier is that in 68 communist Romania again condemned an agression on Czechoslovakia.

Originally Posted by zraver

But could any of them actually managed to pull one off. Hitler's bloodless coup had forced the war minister and head of the army into retirement along with 16 other senior generals and the shifting around of around 40 others to break up power groups. On top of that were the personal oaths to Hilter as the head of the German Armed Forces. During the Nuremberg trials one theme that kept repeating was the amount of general officers who could not think of disobeying Hitler because of the dishonor that would attach to the and the officer corps. Its the same oath and often the same officers in 38/39 who would have to give the putsch the nod for it to succeed.

The Oath was indeed giving many a big trouble but there were still enough who were willing to try and with Erwin von Witzleben, the Military commander for the region of Berlin they also had the people in position to give them a chance. I am not saying that a more firm position from Chaimberlain would have automaticly overthrown Hitler, but I give the Septemberverschwörung (September Plot) a much better chance at succeding then the 20 July plot ever had.

Originally Posted by zraver

Also the army and putsch don't mix well in Germany. You could not change the government by force/threat of force in Germany without the support of the army. Except for the November Revolution, the Army did not support overthrowing a government.

Did you ever look into the Kapp Putsch?

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

Did you ever look into the Kapp Putsch?

Yes, but not much.

Originally Posted by zraver

Yes, but not much.

it was pretty much an attemp by parts of the old military and freikorps to overthrow the still young democrazy. And while named after Kapp one should rather look into Lüttwitz, commander of the Reichwehr in the Berlin Area, who was the main force behind it.

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

it was pretty much an attemp by parts of the old military and freikorps to overthrow the still young democrazy. And while named after Kapp one should rather look into Lüttwitz, commander of the Reichwehr in the Berlin Area, who was the main force behind it.

It failed via a general strike and the army stayed out of it for the most part, correct? had the army jumped in, who ever they backed would have won.

Originally Posted by zraver

Then can you provide the evidence showing he had another course of action open to him?

Chamberlain committed a positive act by signing the dam' paper. If, as you claim but I dispute, not one single thing could've been done to prevent an act of agression, how 'bout not being complicit in giving an entire country away? How 'bout, YOU know, NOT signing the dam' paper that gives a country away that isn't yours to give?

That's just a start of the 'options' that any honorable man would've seen. Put another way, it should be compulsory to the retention of one's honor to NOT sign the dam' paper, and I think it says something very uncomplimentary of Chamberlain that this was somehow impossible.

Leave aside any other options that MAY (and the issue is very much in doubt) have led to the war that started anyway. And the chessboard is not as you've described it, anyway. POLAND was going to stab the Czechs?

He was not politically weak 1938 saw him at the height of his popularity after calling Hitler's bluff spur of the moment during the May Crisis, and then in securing peace.

No, I meant MORALLY weak, and there really can be no dispute about that. Churchill represented a strong-willed and honor-bound alternative to Chamberlain. THAT is what I meant.

And the point you thought I was making actually buttresses MY point that it was Chamberlain that played it the way he did for political advantage. If your theory holds, then Churchill, knowing that his country was too weak to stop the aggression, nevertheless argued FOR stopping it, against the wise course steered by the clear-eyed Chamberlain, all in an attempt to score political points.

Well, the reverse is the truth: Churchill, even knowing that his stance was unpopular, STILL urged a manly fortitude and fidelity to the nation's honor and interests, which he clearly saw, and Chamberlain didn't.

No it wouldn't, Churchill saw where the events were leading, but there is little evidence that if the roles were reversed and had Churchill chose war that anything of substance would have changed.

See above. Point to me.

English military power was at a low ebb, there was no public support to force 3 million Germans to live under Czech dominance.

BRITISH military power was formidable. Not all of it was IN England, and that was a factor in the calculus of what could be done by force of arms. It does NOT follow, however, that unless you could firebomb the Reichstag and gut Berlin the day after Germans entered Prague, you had to draw them a map to the city and point out the good hotels.

But you are correct about this: the Brits were just as decadent and weak-willed as the French had become, and without a strong leader, they simply would not do what their interests clearly pointed out. It is the everlasting shame of 1939 Britain that the appeasers were down to their last slogan AFTER Hitler invaded Poland: 'Why die for Danzig?'

Chamberlain led them to that moral low-ground. Churchill took them out of it, and he was literally the only man alive that could have.

Plus to suddenly do an about face from established British and Conservative party policy would be strange. Britain had been appeasing long before Chamberlain came to power. Baldwin and McDonald both allowed Hitler's re-armament while not re-arming Britain.

It wasn't an about-face for CHURCHILL, though. He ALWAYS opposed appeasement. Before Chamberlain left for Munich, he said, 'The partition of Czechoslovakia under pressure from England and France amounts to the complete surrender of the Western Democracies to the Nazi threat of force. Such a collapse will bring peace or security neither England nor to France.'

And that's my point: HE had it right, even if nobody else did, or would even listen. You simply can't argue with that, given the actual facts of what actually happened.

poppycock and hubris, I dare you to support that claim with any evidence at all.

See the post above, and don't be such a dam' lawyer about what is not a matter to be proven by evidence. I think I can back up my opinion with the historical record, and I think your opinion is historical revisionism. There; that's how I support my claim, and you're welcome to make your counter-claim. We all get to decide what's right, and it's not a matter of fact.

BTW, you are aware the Churchill supported Japanese action in China an was a supporter of Mussolini?

He most certainly was NOT a supporter of Mussolini. He knew that fascism was but a shadow of the danger represented by communism, and THAT led to his comments re: Mussolini. He ALSO said that if he had to choose between Naziism and communism, he'd be a Nazi. You can't use that to prove that he was pro-Hitler.

Ditto his 'support' for the Japanese; it was explicitly anti-communist in intent.

The Brute had already been empowered by previous British governments and Hitler had been allowed to re-arm.

No dispute. Also irrelevant to the point of the discussion. Remember the main thrust of your argument: Chamberlain had no choice but to knuckle under to Hitler; anything else meant war with a potent enemy.

I call shenanigans. As it turns out, Churchill, history and I were correct that it would be war anyway, and even if it started earlier (and that is not a foregone conclusion, as Churchill argued at the time, and which can now be shown as more than likely he was correct, AGAIN), it meant success sooner and cheaper.

what other choice existed?

Are you REALLY saying that Chamberlain was CORRECT? I mean, even given the realities he faced, you can argue that he had no cards to play but to feed an ally into an enemy's jaws, or he risked blowing up the world, which happened anyway?

No I don't, Churchill saw where it was going, but his vision does not instantly give Britain the means to do a damn thing about it.

And here we circle back to the point that I don't believe you're acknowledging that you're making with your argument: Churchill was either unwise for mis-understanding Britain's weakness and impotence and therefore advocated risking a war that would inevitably be lost OR he was extremely short-sighted and self-serving for trying to make political points with a populace that opposed what he advocated, knowing that if he were heeded, he'd be advocating risking a war that would inevitably be lost.

Neither proposition holds up to the facts. The Brits DID fight and win. Churchill was correct: they should have and eventually DID fight and win. And if your point is that it all hinged on the intervening 11 months that Chamberlain bought with Czechoslovakia's nationhood, well, it's no sale here, and even if it WAS, I will tell you it's STILL dishonorable and extremely unmanly.

Source it please

Nah; everybody knows that the state of British willingness to live up to their obligations wasn't there if it meant something dangerous or expensive. BUT...with a leader taking them in the RIGHT direction, they could summon up enough spine to act like the men that built their dam' Empire.

Chamberlain showed 'em a completely different path.

BS, there is no evidence to support what your claiming. At the very least had France chosen war, Chamberlain would have gone along with for no other reason than to preserve the alliance. That something is far from your anything.

Of course there dam' well IS evidence that Chamberlain believed in appeasement. He was its champion. He all but outlawed any consideration of diplomatic effort that had any teeth at all, and when that is your position, your main ally, just as weak as you, will read that and put the brakes on their hawks, too.

IF Britain HAD been led by Churchill and not Chamberlain, France would have been a dam' sight more butch than she was when she sensed that the narrow-chested asthmatic shivering at her shoulder wasn't really all that interested in getting muddy.

Assuming Chamberlain had chosen war, how exactly was Britain to prosecute it?

And that, as you see it, was the binary choice, right? It was give the store away or it's straight back to the Somme for a re-match?

Churchill, had he been heeded, made it plain that there were steps that could be taken that MIGHT lead to war, but that to take the step that Chamberlain chose at Munich WOULD lead to war, and a more difficult one, due to the strategic gift that he'd be handing to a guy simply because he insisted on it. (As has already been pointed out, it ain't like Hitler had the Federation Star Fleet, himself; HE had some strategic worries of his own).

Remember, there were plenty of Germans that would've rolled over before fighting THEIR Great War all over again, too. But not after Hitler could say, 'SEE? I have been telling you guys they're weak and decadent; push 'em hard and they fold up.' After that, he could promise the volk that he would lead 'em to easy victory.

Chamberlain enabled that.

Z,

As I understand it the RAF was telling Chamberlain that it wasn't in a fit stste to defend London in particular from the Luftwaffe. While we now know that the sort of damage capable of being inflicted on the other nation by either airforce would have been limited, Britons from the RAF staff down to the man in the street were convinced that air power could cause enormous damage & loss of life & deliver a 'knockout blow'. With that belief firmly entrenched a decision to go to war would have looked to the government of the day like an act of suicide. That we now know they were wrong lends an air of tragedy to proceedings.

I can't help wondering if a more realistic understanding of the issue might & a belief that Britain was effectively safe might have prompted a different response from Chamberlain.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Chamberlain committed a positive act by signing the dam' paper. If, as you claim but I dispute, not one single thing could've been done to prevent an act of agression, how 'bout not being complicit in giving an entire country away? How 'bout, YOU know, NOT signing the dam' paper that gives a country away that isn't yours to give?

it's called a fait accompli, your missing that.

That's just a start of the 'options' that any honorable man would've seen. Put another way, it should be compulsory to the retention of one's honor to NOT sign the dam' paper, and I think it says something very uncomplimentary of Chamberlain that this was somehow impossible.

Personal honor vs possibly hundreds of thousands or millions of dead? At what point must a politician eskew morality and do what the facts say is best for his country. In 1938 Britain would have been forced to go it alone.

Leave aside any other options that MAY (and the issue is very much in doubt) have led to the war that started anyway. And the chessboard is not as you've described it, anyway. POLAND was going to stab the Czechs?

Poland did stab the Czech's in the back. before German troops were even done moving in the Poles had seized the Tenschen District. The Poles also informed UK/USSR that they would not permit, would fight the transit of Soviet forces through Polish territory to aid the Czechs.

No, I meant MORALLY weak, and there really can be no dispute about that. Churchill represented a strong-willed and honor-bound alternative to Chamberlain. THAT is what I meant.

Strong willed no doubt, honorable.... perhaps. The hundred million+ He wanted to keep as second class colonial citizens might disagree.

And the point you thought I was making actually buttresses MY point that it was Chamberlain that played it the way he did for political advantage. If your theory holds, then Churchill, knowing that his country was too weak to stop the aggression, nevertheless argued FOR stopping it, against the wise course steered by the clear-eyed Chamberlain, all in an attempt to score political points.

saying something needs to be done, and being able to actually do anything are two different things. Churchill didn't have the weight of office on him with all that entails.

Well, the reverse is the truth: Churchill, even knowing that his stance was unpopular, STILL urged a manly fortitude and fidelity to the nation's honor and interests, which he clearly saw, and Chamberlain didn't.

Do you really think EC gave a rats ass about national honor? he invaded neutrals, abandoned allies, firebombed cities etc. Don't make the mistake of his being a realist about the eventual danger the UK faced vis a vis nazi Germany for honor.

See above. Point to me.

negative Ghostrider

BRITISH military power was formidable. Not all of it was IN England, and that was a factor in the calculus of what could be done by force of arms. It does NOT follow, however, that unless you could firebomb the Reichstag and gut Berlin the day after Germans entered Prague, you had to draw them a map to the city and point out the good hotels.

British military power where it mattered- continental Europe was zero.

Chamberlain led them to that moral low-ground. Churchill took them out of it, and he was literally the only man alive that could have.

hubris

It wasn't an about-face for CHURCHILL, though. He ALWAYS opposed appeasement. Before Chamberlain left for Munich, he said, 'The partition of Czechoslovakia under pressure from England and France amounts to the complete surrender of the Western Democracies to the Nazi threat of force. Such a collapse will bring peace or security neither England nor to France.'

And that's my point: HE had it right, even if nobody else did, or would even listen. You simply can't argue with that, given the actual facts of what actually happened.

he also did not have the weight of office. When he did assume that weight, he was just as prone to expedient as any other leader.

See the post above, and don't be such a dam' lawyer about what is not a matter to be proven by evidence. I think I can back up my opinion with the historical record, and I think your opinion is historical revisionism. There; that's how I support my claim, and you're welcome to make your counter-claim. We all get to decide what's right, and it's not a matter of fact.

It is a matter of fact in so far that certain situations existed outside of the control of the actors.

He most certainly was NOT a supporter of Mussolini.

Oh yes he was

Speaking in Rome on 20 January, 1927, Churchill found only praise for the fascists:

"I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini's gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. Secondly, anyone could see that he thought of nothing but the lasting good, as he understood it, of the Italian people, and that no lesser interest was of the slightest consequence to him. If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. The great fear which has always beset every democratic leader or a working class leader has been that of being undermined by someone more extreme than he. Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honour and stability of civilised society. She has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism."

He knew that fascism was but a shadow of the danger represented by communism, and THAT led to his comments re: Mussolini. He ALSO said that if he had to choose between Naziism and communism, he'd be a Nazi. You can't use that to prove that he was pro-Hitler.

Pro-Hitler no, at least nuetral to totalitarianism before WWII- yes.

Churchill looked upon the nazis with unbounded approval. In the 1939 edition of Great Contemporaries, Winston Churchill wrote about Hitler's rise to power:

"The Story of that Struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all authorities or resistance which barred his path…I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war, I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations."

Ditto his 'support' for the Japanese; it was explicitly anti-communist in intent.

Intent does not matter, he was prepared to allow Japanese aggression- no great moral stand there.

No dispute. Also irrelevant to the point of the discussion. Remember the main thrust of your argument: Chamberlain had no choice but to knuckle under to Hitler; anything else meant war with a potent enemy.

I call shenanigans. As it turns out, Churchill, history and I were correct that it would be war anyway,

That is called hindsight

and even if it started earlier (and that is not a foregone conclusion, as Churchill argued at the time, and which can now be shown as more than likely he was correct, AGAIN), it meant success sooner and cheaper.

How, how does it mean success sooner and cheaper? While fewer lives might have been lost before the UK pulled out, in economic terms it would have been a disaster to the UK. Until Hitler unleashed his Blitzkrieg there was zero chance of loans from America because the US banned the loaning of money to any nation that defaulted on WWI and also banned the sake of arms to any belligerent. France was not going to invade Germany, and without France the BEF is just a couple of corps to be overrun.

Are you REALLY saying that Chamberlain was CORRECT? I mean, even given the realities he faced, you can argue that he had no cards to play but to feed an ally into an enemy's jaws, or he risked blowing up the world, which happened anyway?

I say he was neither incorrect nor correct, being handed a fait accompli means you have no choice- accept or reject the reality you can't change it. Czechlovakia was doomed: the British public did not want war to force 3 million Germans to live under a foreign government, France had no intention of actually fighting, there existed no avenues to provide direct support to the Czechs.

Neither proposition holds up to the facts. The Brits DID fight and win.

No the Brits (BEF) fought and lost.

Churchill was correct: they should have and eventually DID fight and win.

As the junior partner to the US and USSR.

And if your point is that it all hinged on the intervening 11 months that Chamberlain bought with Czechoslovakia's nationhood, well, it's no sale here, and even if it WAS, I will tell you it's STILL dishonorable and extremely unmanly.

Actually I could make an argument that it took the fall of Poland to save Europe. Without American intervention the UK saves itself but nothing else and the survival of the Soviet Union is very much in doubt.

IF Britain HAD been led by Churchill and not Chamberlain, France would have been a dam' sight more butch than she was when she sensed that the narrow-chested asthmatic shivering at her shoulder wasn't really all that interested in getting muddy.

Ya one man is going to undo decades of building a defensive mindset.

And that, as you see it, was the binary choice, right? It was give the store away or it's straight back to the Somme for a re-match?

sigh... Acting implies the power to act, the UK had none, not in any meaningful way.

Churchill, had he been heeded, made it plain that there were steps that could be taken that MIGHT lead to war, but that to take the step that Chamberlain chose at Munich WOULD lead to war, and a more difficult one, due to the strategic gift that he'd be handing to a guy simply because he insisted on it. (As has already been pointed out, it ain't like Hitler had the Federation Star Fleet, himself; HE had some strategic worries of his own).

what steps

Remember, there were plenty of Germans that would've rolled over before fighting THEIR Great War all over again, too. But not after Hitler could say, 'SEE? I have been telling you guys they're weak and decadent; push 'em hard and they fold up.' After that, he could promise the volk that he would lead 'em to easy victory.

Where were they, they didn't fold when things got rough, they didn't fold until the allies were across both the Rhine and the Oder.

Originally Posted by zraver

Strong willed no doubt, honorable.... perhaps. The hundred million+ He wanted to keep as second class colonial citizens might disagree.

Only 100 mill+? The Empire had 531 million in 1938. Even when you take out the dominions you come in closer to 500 million than 450. Winston was happy for them to fight for him in their millions, but he wasn't interested in granting them their freedom.

Churchill's treatment of some of his closest & most loyal allies wasn't that flash either. He was quite prepared to lie to Australia about the state of defences in the Far East, send our troops off on fool's errands (Greece) & then, when we were under direct threat from Japan, send out troops off to defend Burma despite explicit instructions that they be sent to Australia.

A deeply flawed leader whose boosters seem prepared to ignore practically anything he did wrong in order not to sully his genuine achievements. I can see why some Americans worship him - they didn't actually have to put up with him.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Only 100 mill+? The Empire had 531 million in 1938. Even when you take out the dominions you come in closer to 500 million than 450. Winston was happy for them to fight for him in their millions, but he wasn't interested in granting them their freedom.

Churchill's treatment of some of his closest & most loyal allies wasn't that flash either. He was quite prepared to lie to Australia about the state of defences in the Far East, send our troops off on fool's errands (Greece) & then, when we were under direct threat from Japan, send out troops off to defend Burma despite explicit instructions that they be sent to Australia.

A deeply flawed leader whose boosters seem prepared to ignore practically anything he did wrong in order not to sully his genuine achievements. I can see why some Americans worship him - they didn't actually have to put up with him.

That is exactly what I was getting at. Churchill was a great man, but he was also deeply flawed because at the end of the day he was human.yes he stood up to Nazism, but he also stood for white rule over indigenous peoples. yes he faced down the commies, except when he needed them. He fought hard to stop wars of aggression and illegal invasions- except when he invaded Iceland and Iran.

Z,

As I understand it the RAF was telling Chamberlain that it wasn't in a fit stste to defend London in particular from the Luftwaffe. While we now know that the sort of damage capable of being inflicted on the other nation by either airforce would have been limited, Britons from the RAF staff down to the man in the street were convinced that air power could cause enormous damage & loss of life & deliver a 'knockout blow'. With that belief firmly entrenched a decision to go to war would have looked to the government of the day like an act of suicide. That we now know they were wrong lends an air of tragedy to proceedings.

I can't help wondering if a more realistic understanding of the issue might & a belief that Britain was effectively safe might have prompted a different response from Chamberlain.

That is a very good question because it would have given Chamberlain at least one position of strength to operate from besides implied naval threat.

now hindsight is 20/20 but...

Ultimately, the allies drew the wrong lessons from WWI and took their research in the interwar years in the wrong direction. Its almost as if the Hundred Days Offensive never occurred and WWI was decided at Verdun and the Somme. France's obsession with forts stems from Verdun where I think they learned the wrong lessons. This was reinforced by the desire to not suffer the carnage of WWI again. Had France had a policy that required engaging Germans in Germany instead of trying to save lives by bottling them up at the frontier or meeting them in Belgium stopping Hitler would have been a much easier task.

A policy of fighting the next war in Germany would require a more aggressive mindset on the part of France. This might well have emboldened the allies to act to prevent German rearmament and re-occupation of the Rhur.

For its part the British adopted the attitude that Germany had a right to a central place in Europe and thus agreed in principle with German rearmament and so doing lost the moral high ground. Chamberlain might have been a coward, but if he was the threat he buckled to was the doing of his two immediate predecessors.

Gentlemen,

Please understand where Z is coming from. He was given an assignment to either defend or refute a position - no middle ground. This paper is not about how well he can do research but how well he can defend a position given limited resources.

There are a lot of flaws with Z's position, I have serious doubts that the Wehrmacht could overrun the Sudetenland before the British could mount a military response. When Germany needs to commit 88 divisions out of 100, a fight and a half is going to ensue, especially given the fact that the Sudetenland lacks the maneuver room necessary for blitzkreig.

But that's not the point, the point is is Z's paper solid enough with limited resources stand up to challenge.

I personally am uncomfortable with it but I see how Z is formulating his arguements. I, for one, thinks the paper needs to be tighter. It goes against conventional thinking, ie the Sudetenland would have been the phyric death knell for Germany. Z, you would have to argue why this conventional thinking is wrong ... or why no one thought it.

He asked help for his paper, not to state whether his history is correct or not. That's not the assignment. The assignment is to defend a position whether you agree with it or not.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Gentlemen,

Please understand where Z is coming from. He was given an assignment to either defend or refute a position - no middle ground. This paper is not about how well he can do research but how well he can defend a position given limited resources.

I was given the quote from one author and told to defend or refute it using the single source provided.

There are a lot of flaws with Z's position, I have serious doubts that the Wehrmacht could overrun the Sudetenland before the British could mount a military response. When Germany needs to commit 88 divisions out of 100, a fight and a half is going to ensue, especially given the fact that the Sudetenland lacks the maneuver room necessary for blitzkreig.

Sir I am not familiar with "fall grun" enough to say for sure. However the czechs have two major problems. 1st following the anchluss the Little Maginot and Prague was out flanked to the south by the Austrian border. 2nd is Poland, as events show, Poland was more than willing to jump in to grab her own piece. Hungary might also have jumped in. its one thing to have to defend in 1 or 2 directions, but the Czechs had to defend in 4.

Also I don't have any sources as for why Germany wanted 88 divisions against the Czechs. It could be they needed this many just to bust the border, or 88 could be the 3:1 or better ratio in order to allow a quick victory and redeployment west.

Map: Europe, 1919 to 1939

While the country is not good tank country, an attack north out of Austria has a lot easier going with more border crossing and generally running with the lay of the land. Also all of Czechoslovakia is under the guns of the Luftwaffe. This is important because of the nature of the land. It prevents wide movements and would appear to dictate an attritional battle of road blocks

But that's not the point, the point is is Z's paper solid enough with limited resources stand up to challenge.

thank you

I personally am uncomfortable with it but I see how Z is formulating his arguements. I, for one, thinks the paper needs to be tighter. It goes against conventional thinking, ie the Sudetenland would have been the phyric death knell for Germany. Z, you would have to argue why this conventional thinking is wrong ... or why no one thought it.

Not the assignment, but it would be an interesting exercise.

What is the level and name of the class, Zraver?