Enola Gay

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by zakoff

by supporting the Munich agreement and allowing Germany to peacefully take the 'Sudatenlands' they helped Germany gain all of Czechoslovakia's defensive positions. If they hadn't done this it is possible Czechoslovakia could have defeated the German Army. Even if it did, they basically stopped Czechslovakia from making a stand against Germany.

there is no concievable way in which the munich agreement stopped czechoslavakia (an independent sovereign nation) from resisting germany IF IT SO WANTED.

There is no evidence to suggest that the czechoslavakian armed forces could have defeated the german army.

[JonnyBGood]

It's about as possible that Czechoslovakia would have defeated the wehrmacht as it is possible that I, armed solely with a wooden spoon and a copy of the St. James bible, would have defeated the german army.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's about as possible that Czechoslovakia would have defeated the wehrmacht as it is possible that I, armed solely with a wooden spoon and a copy of the St. James bible, would have defeated the german army.

Exactly, most of Europe at the outbreak of war were using biplanes, cavalary charges and other outdated WWI equipment...

[zakoff]

The Czechslovak army was one of the most advanced in the world before the Germans invaded. Most of the Tanks that Germany used were from Czechoslovakia as were many of the small arms.

There is lots of evidence Yahwe. How can a country that has half of its land taken off it defend itself. It recently built, on the border with German a new border defense system. It was also the most advanced at that time.

Hitler's army in 1938 was pretty small, it wasn't experienced and wasn't fully ready for war.

I said it was possible. The luftwaffe would have probably have been decising, Czech's were still using bi planes.

[zakoff]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

to quote your opwn source:

"Churchill, who approved of the targeting of Dresden and supported the bombing prior to the event"

now

A WARNING

you are posting a lot of ill thought out nonsense about a topic that many people here know more than you.
it is also a very emotive topic and one people feel pasionately about.

posting falsehoods and wrong factual information is very likely to get your head bitten off

If i were you i would stop now.

consider yourself warned.

apologies, he changed his mind after the bombing. That would be why he stopped area bombing.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

there is no concievable way in which the munich agreement stopped czechoslavakia (an independent sovereign nation) from resisting germany IF IT SO WANTED.

Well, except by making it clear that their allies* would do absolutely nothing to help them.

There is no evidence to suggest that the czechoslavakian armed forces could have defeated the german army.

Probably not by themselves, no; but you could have gone to war against Germany with 40 fairly modern Czech divisions on your side. That's a fairly significant asset to throw away for a piece of paper. :/




*With friends like these, etc.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by zakoff

Dresden was a low risk, low advantage target. There simply wasn't anything worthwhile there to bomb. From what i remember it was said that Dresden only had rail and road links. It doesn't have significant industry and is low on the list because its a historic city. There weren't any big military factories there on anything worthy, most of those were in the Ruhr or outside Germany. If it was so important, why was it not bombed once before 1945, just as the Red army were getting there.

Here's a basic piece of thinking for you:

1. When you're being attacked, destroy their means of production so to limit the forces you'll be facing.

This is a long term strategy, because defensive thinking necessitates long term thought. It's no good using your resources to delay an enemy for a day, if that means he'll kill you next week.

2. When you're attacking, destroying the enemy's mobility is as important, if not more important, than destroying his means of production, so to limit the forces you'll be facing.

It's fairly obvious that destroying transport systems is fairly useless when defending, because it only gives you a short term advantage. However, when attacking, a short term advantage may be all you need.

Understand now?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by big_horn

if i read all of this thread will i get better at command and conquer ?

Who cares about C&C?

Originally Posted by big_horn

also.... does anyone really think they know the whole story behind the reason for certain targets in WW2 ?

Of course not, but some things are just factually inaccurate.

[ceres]

Do you think its possible that on a country with a more rational ruler the Dresden bombing would have had the same effect as Hiroshima? That is to say that country would feel the need surrender?

At the time perhaps the War Cabinet believed Hitler would feel the same abhorrence for the event as they would and this in the end would lead to an early break in the conflict?
________
Nexium lawsuit information

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by ceres

Do you think its possible that on a country with a more rational ruler the Dresden bombing would have had the same effect as Hiroshima? That is to say that country would feel the need surrender?

At the time perhaps the War Cabinet believed Hitler would feel the same abhorrence for the event as they would and this in the end would lead to an early break in the conflict?

Almost certainly not. At that point, invading Germany had none of the problems that invading Japan would have had.

Hitler was dead in 2 months anyway.

[ceres]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Almost certainly not. At that point, invading Germany had none of the problems that invading Japan would have had.

Hitler was dead in 2 months anyway.

Invasion isnt being discussed at the moment, Hitler at this stage was obviously a desperate man, surely a normal leader i.e. non fanatical would have to seriously consider surrender in the face of such an onslaught.
________
Glass weed pipe

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by ceres

Invasion isnt being discussed at the moment, Hitler at this stage was obviously a desperate man, surely a normal leader i.e. non fanatical would have to seriously consider surrender in the face of such an onslaught.

At the time perhaps the War Cabinet believed Hitler would feel the same abhorrence for the event as they would and this in the end would lead to an early break in the conflict?

With the alternative being invasion, methinks?

[ceres]

It's just like you are answering my post, except you are not.

I'm simply not interested in discussing the alternatives, i merely speculated as to what reaction the German leader would have had to the Dresden bombings if he wasnt a fanatic.

I have no idea why you suddenly started talking about invasions.
________
Pornstar Webcams

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by ceres

I'm simply not interested in discussing the alternatives, i merely speculated as to what reaction the German leader would have had to the Dresden bombings if he wasnt a fanatic.

A non-fanatic probably wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. I suppose we could imagine Hitler having been overthrown and replaced by someone (more) rational, but a (more) rational leader would have surrendered/sued for peace long before Dresden.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by zakoff

The Czechslovak army was one of the most advanced in the world before the Germans invaded. Most of the Tanks that Germany used were from Czechoslovakia as were many of the small arms.

There is lots of evidence Yahwe. How can a country that has half of its land taken off it defend itself. It recently built, on the border with German a new border defense system. It was also the most advanced at that time.

Hitler's army in 1938 was pretty small, it wasn't experienced and wasn't fully ready for war.

I said it was possible. The luftwaffe would have probably have been decising, Czech's were still using bi planes.

Nobody's denying that the czechoslovakian army was highly modernised or that they were deprived of their frontier defences by the Munich agreement. However the likelihood of them defeating the german army was extremely low. It might have been a very different situation overall if the munich agreement hadn't occurred. Maybe the Soviet Union would have followed up on it's promise and become involved? Historical speculation is a difficult area to be wholly accurate in.

[Yahwe]

I heard an awful lot said about munich in England.

in 1940.

it was vicious.

It was cruel.

but at least then the criticism was factually accurate.

what the czechs did or rather did not do was up to them.