30-01-2005 02:51									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned Che, I think the Germans even today have somewhat the same attitude today. Perhaps someone from Germany can correct me, but people of German descent can move to Germany and become German citizens without more. People who are not of German descent cannot become German citizens.

It's easier for people of German descent to get German citizenship, but very large numbers of people without have attained German citizenship in recent decades.

	30-01-2005 03:02									#122
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist It's easier for people of German descent to get German citizenship, but very large numbers of people without have attained German citizenship in recent decades.

Your lucky a lot of Americans of German descent don't want to move back "home." I think that about 40% of American are of German descent. I am one of them.

	30-01-2005 03:26									#123
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned It is certainly amusing to read history through a pink lens. Their worldview is almost as if Michael Moore were writing their history books: All history is a conspiracy of the wealthy and powerful to control events and to make a buck. Actually, Hitler was also one of these Michael Moore types as well, with the exception that his conspirators were Jews and Socialists.

*bzzzzzzzzzt*

For making the first blatant Godwin, you lose the debate. Rather impressive, considering that the Nazis were an important and legit part of this discussion.

Here's your medal.

	30-01-2005 03:34									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist It's easier for people of German descent to get German citizenship, but very large numbers of people without have attained German citizenship in recent decades.

Yep.
Especially large numbers of polish and turkish people.

Especially the polish people are so well integrated that you distinguish them only by their surnames from Citizens of german descent.
Turkish people on the other hand often form a subculture with their own culture clubs, shops and supermarkets (and of course with mosques [not dedicated buildings like churches, but rather normal buildings which are used as mosques] and Koran-Schools in most large cities).

	30-01-2005 03:35									#125
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither They sold the Czechs down the river in '38. At that time France, the Czechs, and the Poles could have boxed Hitlers ears royally, even without any Brits. Instead, Chamberlain and the French collapsed. For their pains, a great part of the Panzer divisions that dismembered Poland in '39, and France a year later were equipped with what were the very excellent Czech tanks of the time. Here's a clue, Czechoslovakia didn't sell them to Germany. There are very good reasons why Munich and Chamberlain will live for a very long time as synonyms for cowardice in the English language.

The majprity of equipment in the armies of France and Great Britain in 1938 was WW1 vintage. The defecits of this equipment had been seen in Spain, where even Italian equipment often bested the material sent to Republican Spain by the western allies.

	30-01-2005 03:41									#126
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned Your lucky a lot of Americans of German descent don't want to move back "home." I think that about 40% of American are of German descent. I am one of them.

I'm not sure of the exact criteria, but I've fairly sure just having a German great-great-granddad doesn't cut it. The people it's intended for are the old German "diaspora" in Eastern Europe (the Volga Germans, the Transsylvanian Saxons, and so on), groups that have retained German language and culture.

	30-01-2005 04:27									#127
	Support Apolyton

quote: The majprity of equipment in the armies of France and Great Britain in 1938 was WW1 vintage.

Absolutely untrue. France was considered by all at the time, and rightfully so, to be the greatest military power in 1939. It also had the most advanced tanks. Lets rememeber that 70% of German mobility in 1939 was based on the horse (outside railroads of course. It never got better than 40% throughout the entire war either.

It was tactics, both extrodinarily good on the Axis side and uncommonly bad on the Allies, that led to the chain of events.

	30-01-2005 04:38									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Spiffor, an interesting point. I shall have to remember it.

	30-01-2005 04:46									#129
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kamrat X WWII was a war to defend business interests. Just as every other war on this planet for as long as thereīs been people. Itīs not pretty, but itīs true

You keep making this claim but you have yet to provide any evidience. I realize you dislike capitalists but simply bashing them won't do and you will have to provide some form of evidence if you wish people to accept your claims.

	30-01-2005 05:06									#130
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

German tanks in 1940 were just tin cans. Mostly Pz1 and Pz2 with 20 mm cannons at best, and pathetic armour. They died to anything. The allies had some rolling bunkers with big, evil guns, like Matilda and Char, and other tanks like A-13 and S-35 that had speed and punch but less armour.

What made Germany win was superiour training and tactics. If they met allied tanks, they just avoided them and encircled them, then let the 88's and Stukas kill them .

	30-01-2005 05:19									#131
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove The majprity of equipment in the armies of France and Great Britain in 1938 was WW1 vintage. The defecits of this equipment had been seen in Spain, where even Italian equipment often bested the material sent to Republican Spain by the western allies.

That is not entirely true. The British Army had very little equipment of vintage by 1934 when rearmament began. By September '38 they had many of the weapons they would go to war with the following year, but of course, not in huge numbers.

The RAF likewise had received increasing numbers of newer types by Sept '38.

The situation of the French was not that different. Yes they had a large number of older weapons, but they had some of the new as well. The biggest problem was not the state of their army, it was the state of their will to use it, likewise for the British.

Also, had war broken out in Sept '38 instead of 12 months later, Hitler would have been going to war equipped largely with light tanks (Mk I's and II's) as the medium tanks were not around in high quantities for him either. Germany's laughable panzer forces (comparably) would have been facing the vehicles that would form the backbone of several of their divisions the following year (the Czech 35).

	30-01-2005 05:28									#132
	Increase Your PM Length

Most importantly, Hitler would have started that much farther from a position of dominance. He would have had to overcome not just the Poles, but the Czechs as well. Overcoming the fortified, rough frontier of Czechoslovakia would not have been the romp that his forces had over the Poles in the early days of Sept '39.

Even if the Germans could have made short work of the Czeches, which they may have, they would have suffered a bloody nose, the equipment that was given to them when the Czechs had no allies for a fight would have been laying destroyed along with much German equipment, the factories for making more of the Czech equipment would most likely have been destyroyed, and finally, the Poles would have had their army in the field and seen what tanks might do long before Hitler came knocking for Warsaw.

All in all, I doubt France would ever have fallen, but this is pure conjecture.

	30-01-2005 05:58									#133
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Jaakko *bzzzzzzzzzt* For making the first blatant Godwin, you lose the debate. Rather impressive, considering that the Nazis were an important and legit part of this discussion. Here's your medal.

Thanks, but the demonization of the Jews and socialists was a central to Nazism. It just strikes me as somewhat funny that communists use exactly the same kind of language to demonize so-called plutocrats even today.

Today, we know what Hitler was about with his demonization. He ended up exterminating as many Jews and socialists as he could lay his hands on. Communists do the same with the wealthy and professional classes when they get into power anywhere. So, although the constant conspiracies theories of the far left are quite amusing at times, we should also know what their intent is should they come to power. Conspiracies theories and propaganda are not joking matters.

I was wondering: Did any world leaders openly condemn Hitler's racist and anti-Semitic statements at any time? We know that even as the mass slaughter of Jews, Roma and socialists was under way, no one among the Allies even mentioned this in public statements, nor did anything to stop it, such as bombing rail lines to the death camps.

	30-01-2005 06:00									#134
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Chemical Ollie German tanks in 1940 were just tin cans. Mostly Pz1 and Pz2 with 20 mm cannons at best, and pathetic armour. They died to anything. The allies had some rolling bunkers with big, evil guns, like Matilda and Char, and other tanks like A-13 and S-35 that had speed and punch but less armour. What made Germany win was superiour training and tactics. If they met allied tanks, they just avoided them and encircled them, then let the 88's and Stukas kill them .

Yeah, that is my recollection of history as well. Germany excelled in one thing only, airpower, at the start of the war.

	30-01-2005 06:32									#135
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ned Thanks, but the demonization of the Jews and socialists was a central to Nazism. It just strikes me as somewhat funny that communists use exactly the same kind of language to demonize so-called plutocrats even today. Today, we know what Hitler was about with his demonization. He ended up exterminating as many Jews and socialists as he could lay his hands on. Communists do the same with the wealthy and professional classes when they get into power anywhere. So, although the constant conspiracies theories of the far left are quite amusing at times, we should also know what their intent is should they come to power. Conspiracies theories and propaganda are not joking matters. I was wondering: Did any world leaders openly condemn Hitler's racist and anti-Semitic statements at any time? We know that even as the mass slaughter of Jews, Roma and socialists was under way, no one among the Allies even mentioned this in public statements, nor did anything to stop it, such as bombing rail lines to the death camps.

Uhhh, I was referring to you equating Michael Moore with Nazis.

	30-01-2005 08:52									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Most importantly, Hitler would have started that much farther from a position of dominance. He would have had to overcome not just the Poles, but the Czechs as well. Overcoming the fortified, rough frontier of Czechoslovakia would not have been the romp that his forces had over the Poles in the early days of Sept '39.

How come no one blames the Czechs for not fighting? After all, so what if the UK and France said OK to it, the Czechs could have said "screw all of you, we will FIGHT" and war would have started, NO? Yet no one EVER blames the Czechs no only for rolling over in 1938, but perhaps even more aggregiously, in 1939. I mean, not a single shot. Its not like the Cezch army was disbanded in 1938, was it? yet the Czechs did not fire a single bullet when the Germans marched into Prague.

quote: Even if the Germans could have made short work of the Czeches, which they may have, they would have suffered a bloody nose, the equipment that was given to them when the Czechs had no allies for a fight would have been laying destroyed along with much German equipment, the factories for making more of the Czech equipment would most likely have been destyroyed, and finally, the Poles would have had their army in the field and seen what tanks might do long before Hitler came knocking for Warsaw.

So why don't you excoriate the Czechs for not stripping those factories apart, or deciding to fight the hand-over of the Sudentenland, or the whole country? And how come Poland and HUngery's nibbling at the countery in March 1939, or the perfidity of the Slovaks, is never mentioned?

I am honestly curious- I am sure someone will talk about how could the poor Czechs be expected to fight alone and whatnot, but in the end that is bull, since it was their country, NO? And if anyone should be expected to put up a fight for their country, should it not be the very people who live there, as opposed to foreigners in distant lands?

quote: All in all, I doubt France would ever have fallen, but this is pure conjecture.

France in 1940 still had a more powerful army than the Germans in 1940- more and better tanks, a defensive position, so forth and so on. That they got wipped, even AFTRE they did see the effectiveness of German tactics against the Poles, shows that that defeat had more to do with French military incompetence at the time than "appeasement".

	31-01-2005 02:23									#137
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ned It is certainly amusing to read history through a pink lens. Their worldview is almost as if Michael Moore were writing their history books: All history is a conspiracy of the wealthy and powerful to control events and to make a buck. Actually, Hitler was also one of these Michael Moore types as well, with the exception that his conspirators were Jews and Socialists.

	31-01-2005 02:27									#138
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Thanks, but the demonization of the Jews and socialists was a central to Nazism. It just strikes me as somewhat funny that communists use exactly the same kind of language to demonize so-called plutocrats even today. Today, we know what Hitler was about with his demonization. He ended up exterminating as many Jews and socialists as he could lay his hands on. Communists do the same with the wealthy and professional classes when they get into power anywhere. So, although the constant conspiracies theories of the far left are quite amusing at times, we should also know what their intent is should they come to power. Conspiracies theories and propaganda are not joking matters. I was wondering: Did any world leaders openly condemn Hitler's racist and anti-Semitic statements at any time? We know that even as the mass slaughter of Jews, Roma and socialists was under way, no one among the Allies even mentioned this in public statements, nor did anything to stop it, such as bombing rail lines to the death camps.

Even more with some thrown in...

	31-01-2005 03:31									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither That is not entirely true. The British Army had very little equipment of vintage by 1934 when rearmament began. By September '38 they had many of the weapons they would go to war with the following year, but of course, not in huge numbers. The RAF likewise had received increasing numbers of newer types by Sept '38. The situation of the French was not that different. Yes they had a large number of older weapons, but they had some of the new as well. The biggest problem was not the state of their army, it was the state of their will to use it, likewise for the British. Also, had war broken out in Sept '38 instead of 12 months later, Hitler would have been going to war equipped largely with light tanks (Mk I's and II's) as the medium tanks were not around in high quantities for him either. Germany's laughable panzer forces (comparably) would have been facing the vehicles that would form the backbone of several of their divisions the following year (the Czech 35).

Both the French and the British Air Forces were still using biplanes, though the British had begun receiving Hurricanes. The British tank force was woefully unprepared. French tanks may have been of more recent manufacture, but their design flawed because it was tainted by poor doctrine. In the 1920s and 1930s the French had thought of the tank as basically a mobile pillbox. They were heavily armored, but designed more for fighting infantry than other tanks. Newer models with better antitank guns were just beginning to be produced in 1938.

	31-01-2005 09:25									#141
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Actually, Doc, the French had 6 divisions of tanks (3 DCR and 3 DCM) as well as a few of armoured cavalry (DLM). You may not have heard much about them, but they fought several battles in Belguim. Problem is that the way they charged into Belguim while the important German thrust came through Sedan left much of the French armoured/mechanised/motorised formations with insufficient fuel for the fight(s) as German units cut behind them. In short, they had many tanks sprinkled throughout the infantry, but they also had a good number of units capable of fighting the then modern war.

Now, take away the Czech tanks from the Germans. Also eliminate a number of German tanks lost in fighting the Czechs and then in fighting a prepared Poland. This is all conjecture, but I say it would be folly to assume the same events would have played themselves out.

re British bi-planes, so what? The Swordfish was standard carrier air for the British for a long time. They proved themselves more than up to the task when they treated the Italians to their own Pearl Harbour style raid and again when they sealed the doom of the Bismark. Fact is if war had begun in Sept '38, not much of importance would have happened in the West until the following April at the earliest. By that time the Spitfires were on hand, along with AFVs equipped with the 2 pounder (which makes mincemeat of any of the German tanks of the day).

And then there remains the point that Hitler lacked any great number of 'real' tanks in late '38. The Germans gained much more of significance during the following 12 months than the French and British did (again, due to the handover of the Czech army's equipment and the facilities to produce more).

	31-01-2005 09:38									#142
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap How come no one blames the Czechs for not fighting? After all, so what if the UK and France said OK to it, the Czechs could have said "screw all of you, we will FIGHT" and war would have started, NO? Yet no one EVER blames the Czechs no only for rolling over in 1938, but perhaps even more aggregiously, in 1939. I mean, not a single shot. Its not like the Cezch army was disbanded in 1938, was it? yet the Czechs did not fire a single bullet when the Germans marched into Prague. quote: Even if the Germans could have made short work of the Czeches, which they may have, they would have suffered a bloody nose, the equipment that was given to them when the Czechs had no allies for a fight would have been laying destroyed along with much German equipment, the factories for making more of the Czech equipment would most likely have been destyroyed, and finally, the Poles would have had their army in the field and seen what tanks might do long before Hitler came knocking for Warsaw. So why don't you excoriate the Czechs for not stripping those factories apart, or deciding to fight the hand-over of the Sudentenland, or the whole country? And how come Poland and HUngery's nibbling at the countery in March 1939, or the perfidity of the Slovaks, is never mentioned? I am honestly curious- I am sure someone will talk about how could the poor Czechs be expected to fight alone and whatnot, but in the end that is bull, since it was their country, NO? And if anyone should be expected to put up a fight for their country, should it not be the very people who live there, as opposed to foreigners in distant lands?

You're trying to make an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. All the Czechs had to gain by fighting alone was the death of many of their people and the destruction of their country for nothing.

Assuming war did break out in '38 with Britain and France drawing the line before Munich, the Czechs (and Poles) were still in an unenviable position. There would have been no direct help from Britain or France available for obvious geographical reasons, but still Benes and the Czechs were willing to fight if only someone would have stood up beside them and given them the prospect for eventual victory to justify the price they would have paid for it.

At any rate, if you want to slag the Czechs, fill yer boots. I'll stick to a more conventional reckoning, like the one that the people of the time came to when they realised that Chamberlain had screwed the pooch.

quote: France in 1940 still had a more powerful army than the Germans in 1940- more and better tanks, a defensive position, so forth and so on. That they got wipped, even AFTRE they did see the effectiveness of German tactics against the Poles, shows that that defeat had more to do with French military incompetence at the time than "appeasement".

see discussion with Doc.

	31-01-2005 10:24									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The French still had the idea that armor would be used to support infantry action and so they sprinkled their armor amoung many differnet units. The Germans had come up with this model warfare doctrine which meant you mass all of your armor together and you have the infantry tag along in motorized vehicles so you can move fast and break through the enemy's line to wreck chaos in the enemy's rear.

	31-01-2005 10:50									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Face it:


Humanity. Thy name is Cowardice.

	31-01-2005 13:08									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The French still had the idea that armor would be used to support infantry action and so they sprinkled their armor amoung many differnet units. The Germans had come up with this model warfare doctrine which meant you mass all of your armor together and you have the infantry tag along in motorized vehicles so you can move fast and break through the enemy's line to wreck chaos in the enemy's rear.

That is only partially true. Yes, they had many tanks spread out among the infantry (typically older models). However, again, they had people and units equipped for 'modern', mobile warfare. 6 divisions of concentrated, modernly equipped, armoured combat potential. Incidently, de Gaulle was one of the inter-war theorists re armoured warfare along with Guderian, Fuller, Patton, et. al. He was in command of one of the DCRs. Unfortunately, a lot of things went wrong for the Anglo-French, and a great number of things went right for the Germans, starting with Munich.

	31-01-2005 13:51									#146
	Inflate your Upload Space

Re: french military incompetetence

I remember reading de Gaulle's biography some 7 years ago, and he was fighting a personal war with the army general staff, begging to incorporate his thinking (he also penned a book on armored warfare, inspired by Guderian and Liddell-Hart) into armored doctrine, but to no avail. These old farts are credited with expressing views that "machine guns are rather questionable in their usefullness", aviation should be for sports and has no military use whatsover" and "the next war will be fought mainly by cavalry".

	31-01-2005 14:06									#147
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Is that why the French were putting together armoured divisions in 1934?

	31-01-2005 14:38									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

the French actually had more Armor then the Germans on the western front though they didn't organize it as well and much of their armor had lighter main guns.

	31-01-2005 19:30									#149
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You're trying to make an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. All the Czechs had to gain by fighting alone was the death of many of their people and the destruction of their country for nothing.

The same could have been said of every country invaded by the Germans. Besides, that assumes that if the Czech decided to fight, that others could stay out anyways. Besides, let me get this straight, fighting against overwhelming odds is always just plain stupid, why do it?

quote: Assuming war did break out in '38 with Britain and France drawing the line before Munich, the Czechs (and Poles) were still in an unenviable position. There would have been no direct help from Britain or France available for obvious geographical reasons, but still Benes and the Czechs were willing to fight if only someone would have stood up beside them and given them the prospect for eventual victory to justify the price they would have paid for it.

The Czechs and Poles combined could in theory, as far as anyone knew at the time, hold back the Germans for a significant time, enough to force the hand of the UK and France, or enough to look for furhter help form the "small entente".

quote: At any rate, if you want to slag the Czechs, fill yer boots. I'll stick to a more conventional reckoning, like the one that the people of the time came to when they realised that Chamberlain had screwed the pooch.

Conventional thinking is of little use- certainly there were critics of Chamberlain- and never have I said that what was done in Munich was right- my point is that the notion that it is Munich that is to blame for everything that happened. There were many points after that could have changed things. Munich is a simple excuse for all the other mistakes that occured after and a convnient cachall for those that dislike the notion of appeasement, or hold the wrong assumption that all you need to do is "stand up to bullies" to avoid war.

quote: see discussion with Doc.

I have, the fact is that all that you have mentioned about the French military just shows that even a superiority in equipment does not mean it will be used with any effectiveness.

	31-01-2005 19:31									#150
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin the French actually had more Armor then the Germans on the western front though they didn't organize it as well and much of their armor had lighter main guns.

BUt German tanks had lighter armor, so it worked out.