Thread: Chamberlain a new look.

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

You were given your primary sources? You did not search and select them yourself?? (Chosing the right sources would be considered almost more important then what you actually write with them here)

Correct, not a big fan of that style of teaching. its easier on the professor, but robs me the student.

BTW I went back and checked, and I was wrong the class is a 4300 (senior level), the junior level class this year Ancient Civilizations, where my paper was 14 pages with 7 primary and 20-30 secondary sources.
The only real redeeming feature of the class is the amount of reading. 14-18: Understanding the Great War- Annette Becker, Stephane Audoin-Rouzeau, Catherine Temerson. Darkness at Noon- Arthur Koestler. Bread and Wine- Ignazio Silone. Germans in Nazi's- Peter Fritsche Then the heavy amount of essay test he wants. first test, mid term final for the lectures and then 1 for each book.

Definitely a professor of the old school.

I much prefer my Anc Civ prof, he assigns the paper length and amount of sources he wants and then sits backs and waits for us to bring him product so that he can learn along side us.

Originally Posted by redco

You are aware the fortifications only faced the German border, the border with Austria which was now a part of the Greater German Reich was far less well protected.

And that negates Czech armour and infantry how? Even if we assume the Czechs take on BEF tactics and the Germans mastered their blitzkreig already, there isn't enough room for grandsweeps. There would be very few chances for breakthroughs and most times it would come down to force on force engagements with Czech and German tankers killing the very tanks that Hitler needed for WWII.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And that negates Czech armour and infantry how? Even if we assume the Czechs take on BEF tactics and the Germans mastered their blitzkreig already, there isn't enough room for grandsweeps. There would be very few chances for breakthroughs and most times it would come down to force on force engagements with Czech and German tankers killing the very tanks that Hitler needed for WWII.

Sir, in Chamberlain's defense- I am not aware if the British knew of the systemic weakness of the Germans in terms of actual tanks possessed, quality of tanks possessed or the rapidly dwindling gold and for-ex reserves of the Reichsbank. Certainly, if it can be showed that the British had these three facts then Chamberlain looks bad indeed.

I think a case can be made for knowing the quality of German tanks in at least some regards. The Pz. I and II did very poorly in Spain vs the Soviet T-26. Franco's troops actually took Italian Breda guns and re-armed PZ. II's with them to be able to engage the T-26. However the existence of the Pz. III was known and in this tank the German's had a match for the LT vz.35.

But I digress, had the Czech's said no and decided to fight how bad would it have been? They had good defensive terrain, that can't be denied. But they were vastly out numbered and had almost no air force to speak of.

I think this air power is important because it means that no matter how good the Czech army turned out to be nothing it could do would be more than a local and temporary success. Every time they tried something the Stukas would be overhead in minutes sirens wailing and bombs falling.

Every army in WWII subjected to air attack broke and fear spread during the initial encounters and it took time to adjust to the new reality. Poland, France and the UK couldn't do it instantly there is no reason to assume the Czechs could either. This then is a possible source of shock be transmitted into the Czech mindset and decision cycle.

Next, also on the air power theme is the Luftwaffe's medium bombers. How would the Czech president have reacted to the Rotterdamming of Prague? The Poles and the Dutch didn't stand up well at all, why would the Czech's perform better without a figure like Stalin or Churchill to stiffen them up, and without any safe areas that the UK and USSR enjoyed.

It is entirely possible that the Czechs would have folded quickly as their army came unglued in fear and their civilian population was subjected to strategic bombing.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

KB, that's not the point. The point is about Z's paper. It would have been much more solid if he had some quotes proving, instead of suggesting, that Chamberlain lied. Alas, his primary source is extremely weak in that end.

Ah, understood sir.

Originally Posted by zraver

Sir, in Chamberlain's defense- I am not aware if the British knew of the systemic weakness of the Germans in terms of actual tanks possessed, quality of tanks possessed or the rapidly dwindling gold and for-ex reserves of the Reichsbank. Certainly, if it can be showed that the British had these three facts then Chamberlain looks bad indeed.

I hope you know that this comment sent me to do a couple hours of googling. I will post what I find out here. There are hints that Chamberlain knew but nothing definete.

Originally Posted by zraver

I think this air power is important because it means that no matter how good the Czech army turned out to be nothing it could do would be more than a local and temporary success. Every time they tried something the Stukas would be overhead in minutes sirens wailing and bombs falling.

That still translate to half of Hitler's France invasion tanks burning on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by zraver

Every army in WWII subjected to air attack broke and fear spread during the initial encounters and it took time to adjust to the new reality. Poland, France and the UK couldn't do it instantly there is no reason to assume the Czechs could either. This then is a possible source of shock be transmitted into the Czech mindset and decision cycle.

If we use the Maginot Line as the example then, the German forces hitting that line did not crack it enforce and the STUKAs barely made a dent in that line. What the Germans needed ... and got ... was open space to expose the enemy in order to kill the enemy. Extending that thought here, if the Czechs did not come out to play, then the Luftwaffe would have had the same effect as NATO did on the 3rd Yugoslav Army.

Originally Posted by zraver

Next, also on the air power theme is the Luftwaffe's medium bombers. How would the Czech president have reacted to the Rotterdamming of Prague? The Poles and the Dutch didn't stand up well at all, why would the Czech's perform better without a figure like Stalin or Churchill to stiffen them up, and without any safe areas that the UK and USSR enjoyed.

But you noticed that the Germans had to march to their capitals before they capitulated.

We do not disagree that the Germans would win. Our difference is how fast.

In either case, Czech tanks would burning and German soldiers would be shooting Czech horses.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I

That still translate to half of Hitler's France invasion tanks burning on the battlefield.

If we use the Maginot Line as the example then, the German forces hitting that line did not crack it enforce and the STUKAs barely made a dent in that line. What the Germans needed ... and got ... was open space to expose the enemy in order to kill the enemy. Extending that thought here, if the Czechs did not come out to play, then the Luftwaffe would have had the same effect as NATO did on the 3rd Yugoslav Army.

.

France is a long way to go.At 20% loss of combat power even Poland becomes problematic.
One more factor favoring the Czechs.If they hold the Germans for 4-5 weeks is a chance weather turns in the defenders favor.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I hope you know that this comment sent me to do a couple hours of googling. I will post what I find out here. There are hints that Chamberlain knew but nothing definete.

OK

That still translate to half of Hitler's France invasion tanks burning on the battlefield.

Only if the Czechs fight to the last man. If they break quickly and fold then losses might be very light. German losses in Poland amount to just 226 tanks as complete write offs, 172 of them Pz. I and II. This is about 10% of the invasion force's AFV complament.

Achtung Panzer ! - Invasion of Poland (Fall Weiss)

If we use the Maginot Line as the example then, the German forces hitting that line did not crack it enforce and the STUKAs barely made a dent in that line. What the Germans needed ... and got ... was open space to expose the enemy in order to kill the enemy. Extending that thought here, if the Czechs did not come out to play, then the Luftwaffe would have had the same effect as NATO did on the 3rd Yugoslav Army.

The Little Maginot did not cover the Austrian border areas. This is the eastern Belgium. Not good tank country, but the Czechs have to fight or the Germans enter Prague.

But you noticed that the Germans had to march to their capitals before they capitulated.

Warsaw yes, but in Holland the government capitulated before subjecting the Hauge and other cities to the bombardment.

We do not disagree that the Germans would win. Our difference is how fast.

In either case, Czech tanks would burning and German soldiers would be shooting Czech horses.

True, but a quick enough victory and it won't matter much.

More importantly, a quick enough victory and Britain is left at war with no continental ally unless they can persuade France to to jump in.

Originally Posted by zraver

Only if the Czechs fight to the last man. If they break quickly and fold then losses might be very light. German losses in Poland amount to just 226 tanks as complete write offs, 172 of them Pz. I and II. This is about 10% of the invasion force's AFV complament.

Which would mean again STUKAs killing Czech tanks - same effect.

Originally Posted by zraver

The Little Maginot did not cover the Austrian border areas. This is the eastern Belgium. Not good tank country, but the Czechs have to fight or the Germans enter Prague.

And again Czech tanks burning on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by zraver

Warsaw yes, but in Holland the government capitulated before subjecting the Hauge and other cities to the bombardment.

I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by zraver

True, but a quick enough victory and it won't matter much.

I can't see a quick victory, at least not one without heavy losses on the Czech side which means again that Hitler lost his invasion of France.