robothelpermnky's Strategy Corner

[King]

If I were Germany I would ignore Britain. No battle of Britain to weaken my airforce and build just enouhg U-Boats to keep them busy. In the Med again I would give the Italians just enough to be a going concern. I would then throw everything at the USSR. If the USSR can be conquered then Britain can be taken at my liesure.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Georg I.


It´s one thing to be able as axis to win the war which imho should be possible in HOI; but if you can really win against the SU or the USA through conquest then the game is crap because thats plainly unrealistic.
IMHO the only possibility is to avoid war against the two or even get them alongside you in an alliance.

Conquering all of the USSR might be impossible. However conquering the westen part and crippling the USSR is a possiblity.

 

[King]

Originally posted by robothelpermnky

Yeah Chamberlain he's the "no war in our time" appeasement guy. Outta here!

Now I think you are being harsh on Chamberlain here. It was Chamberlian who began rearminent in 1935 (for a war in 1939 ironically enough). It was Chamberlian who buld the fleet of Spitfires and Hurricians that won the battle of Britian. It was Chamberlian who held the Empire together pre-1939. Britain could not fight in 1938, the dominions would not follow and conscription was not introduced till the summer of 1939. Chamberlian made the right decisision to hold off till 1939. Chamberlian knew that to convince Hitler he needed a stick as well as a carrot. That stick was not ready till 1939. There was no other way. Chamberlian's mistake was to believe that Hitler was rational and Germany could be easily satisifed. Now we know now that he was wrong but could you second guess him at the time.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


I have to say you are way too kind to Chamberlain. Giving him credit for the Spitfires & Hurricanes? No way. He had nothing to do with their development. I'd be shocked if he even saw either fighter until the war.

Chamberlain dropped the ball on rearmament. For example, in January 1937 the Air Ministry proposed to the Cabinet that the RAF be built up to parity with the Luftwaffe. Chamberlain rejected the plan out of hand. He argued that he did not want any rearmament to interfere with "the normal course of trade." For Chamberlain, a penny-pincher until the fall of his government, nothing was to interfere with the beloved bottom line - no matter the cost to Britain's defence. He was a very big reason, perhaps the biggest, as to why Britain was not ready for war until 1939 at the earliest (& it is debateable whether they were ready even then).

Chamberlian was correct. Britian won World War I due to the strength of British foriegn investments. Chamberlian new that a recover in Britain foriegn trade posisition was essential if Britain was to fight Germans again. This was the correct posistion to take. He did increase the ammount of money for defence dramtically. Secondly unlike Germany Britian mobilised in depth the time was taken to build shadow production facitlities build up bases and stock piles of strategic materials. Britain was better prepaired for a long war then Germany was. Chamberlian's war strategy was to go for the long war strategy and if it hadn't been those pesky Germans it would of worked.

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck

One can forgive Chamberlain's massive misinterpretation of Hitler. What I cannot forgive was that not only did he insist on sticking to his mistaken opinion until the spring of 1939, he did nothing to prepare for a circumstance in which he was proven wrong. That was his greatest error. He nearly left England in a position that he would either be right about Hitler, or England would be doomed.

Even if Chamberlian know Hitler was to notice that Hitler was not a gentleman what was he to do?

 

[King]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


Chamberlain did not want to maintain the balance of trade to preserve it for a war effort.

Chamberlian saw economic policy as the fourth arm of defence.

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck

Chamberlain wanted to avoid war altogether. He figured that if he could avoid war, there was no need to spend money on rearmament or dislocate the English economy.

Yes Chaberlian wanted to aviod war, but the National government fought and won the 1935 election on a platform of rearminent. By 1937 RAF expenditure had tripled. The navy was getting money for 5 new battlehships, 5 aircraft carriers and numerious other ships. If he saw no need to spend money on defence why did defence expenditure increase rapidly from 1935 onwards?

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck

Stockpiles of strategic materials were not kept. In 1937 the Air Ministry urged Chamberlain to halt the export of certain scarce raw materials essential to airplane construction. Chamberlain refused.

I have to say I never knew this, but the foriegn exchange would of been useful.

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck

By the time he realised his mistake about Germany (March 1939), it was far too late. Britain was hardly more prepared for war in 1939 than in 1938.

Britian was more prepaired for war in 1939. More planes were built more men mobilised etc. etc. Plus unlike in 1938 the dominions were now backing war with Germany.

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck

Even when Chamberlain came out for a hard line against Germany after Prague was occupied, I feel it was more because he realized that only a hard line would, at that moment, keep him in power (Churchill was gaining adherents, & the resignation of Eden was a blow), as opposed to believing that a war was inevitable.

Don't believe the myth, Churchill was still an outsider. The Tories still did not trust him after his defection to and from the liberial party. Churchill only had a small following, even in May 1940 Halifax was still the favourite to suceed Chamberlian. Some rembering Galipolli blamed Churhcill for Narvik. No chamberlian's hard line was based on the perception that Britain's status as a great power depended on curbing German agression.

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck

When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Chamberlain attempted to find ways out of the treaty guaranteeing Anglo-French support for Poland, including accepting the Germany story about the attack on one of its border posts. Only pressure from others in his government forced his hand to declare war.

Not true, on the 1st of Septembet 1939 Chamberlian adress parliament the speach can be found in full here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gb1.htm
he ended it with
"We have no quarrel with the German people, except that they allow themselves to be governed by a Nazi Government. As long as that Government exists and pursues the methods it has so persistently followed during the last two years, there will be no peace in Europe. We shall merely pass from one crisis to another, and see one country after another attacked by methods which have now become familiar to us in their sickening technique. We are resolved that these methods must come to an end. If out of the struggle we again re-establish in the world the rules of good faith and the renunciation of force, why, then even the sacrifices that will be entailed upon us will find their fullest justification. "

So 2 days prior to the decleration of war he told parliament explitly that he would fight over Poland. Chamberlian now has to fight or he has mislead parliament and must resign. No it was France that dragged its feet.

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck

My indictment is that Britain was still fundamentally unprepared for war in 1939. The army was pitifully small, the navy vastly short of vessels, & the RAF lacked the type of heavy bombers that were essential to carry out the roles assigned to it. RAF Fighter Command was in good shape, but that was in spite of, not because of, the Government and the bomber advocates in the RAF.

In 1939 Britain faced a balance of payment crisis. The government had 2 chpice slacken the pace of rearminent or intorduce exchange controls. Exchange controls could only really be introduced with war. The government had a stark choice back down or fight. Chamberlian would not back down unless germany did first so he fought. The situation in 1939 was that the Navy could fight the Germans and the Italians it was only when the Japanese joined the war that the British no longer had the naval resources to fight everyone. The Navy long knew as did the government, however Britain was no longer wealthy enough to build a navy big enough to do so. So that is not an issue. The RAF had dramitically expanded and yes there was still much to be done. However the RAF was not years behind the luftwaffa, the Wellington for example was a fine bomber (if just a little small) and had a damn good design. The army was not ready that I agree, however the army of 1940 was not that bad. It had some good equipment.

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck

Prepare for the worst. That is what any competent politician does, & Chamberlain did not.

I disagree Chamberlian did.