Haig; Murderer or Judged too harshly? (2 Viewers)

[OzDigger]

OZDigger....

True the seigfried line was very elaborate in some areas but, german mentality was still very much attack and, thats where the two countries differ. The French were defence minded to the extreme and, thats why the maginot line was built but, as much as this was pertinent they were to slow and politically sensitive and polite to follow it up along the belgium border. Had they done so, we may not have had the debacle in the early war. This is what I meant when I said the allies did not learn the lessons from WWI until it was too late.
Mitch

Hitler started that myth and many still believe it. The fact is that Germany had significant static defences but relied more on mine fields and bunkers rather than artillery forts.

 

[lancer]

I'm sure authors differ on this subject but from what I have read the French did not continue the Maginot Line along the Belgium border for political reasons rather than financial problems.

Agreed, Oz. Belgium had to be included, not excluded by the ML (post 157). -- Al

 

[UKReb]

Hitler started that myth and many still believe it. The fact is that Germany had significant static defences but relied more on mine fields and bunkers rather than artillery forts.

Oz

That's what I have read in any number of war tomes-Hitler was more of a myth maker in the 1930's than Hollywood

Reb

 

[Mitch]

OzDigger....

What myth? It was not Hitler who started the myth that France was defence fact minded, he totally exploited this fact unless you mean something else?
Mitch


;314789]Hitler started that myth and many still believe it. The fact is that Germany had significant static defences but relied more on mine fields and bunkers rather than artillery forts.[/QUOTE]

 

[OzDigger]

OzDigger....

What myth? It was not Hitler who started the myth that France was defence fact minded, he totally exploited this fact unless you mean something else?
Mitch

France, Belgium, Germany, Britain, USA were all defence minded following their losses in WWI. Britain and the US were more isolated and had less need of built defences, but they were still very reluctant to enter into another conflict. It is easy to blame France and/or Belgium for their perceived weakness and defence mentality. If Britain was situated on the continent do you think they would have done any different? Personally I doubt it considering how Chamberlain handled the situation.

 

[Mitch]

The US did not have any need to be defensive in relation to the western front from the sheer geographical situation. I would say non interventionist was something that could be said of the US in relation to another conflict should it occur in the west. However, the US was not the crux of the statement I don't think weakness was mentioned by me or another poster so, my aim, was to state that after WW1 the french doctrine during the 30's for sure, was one of containment of the supposed threat of Germany. My point was that the ML was a clear statement of intent and, also was a failure to act when Poland was attacked and germany was at their most vulnerable in the west. It certainly was a case that everyone was affected in a manner after the great War but, french military mentality was still more close to that conflict than the coming and, thats what I meant by defence mentality.

I cannot comment on what we (England) would have done if we had been on mainland Europe as we are not so, its all speculation which, is not a good ground to base a debate. I think Chamberlin was a man who tried his hardest to stop war and was as many were completely fooled by Hitler who took full advantage of his position. His handling of the 'situation' is open for debate but, again, we have hindsight of what was to come and evaluation on our side to say he should have done this or, should not have done that.
Mitch

France, Belgium, Germany, Britain, USA were all defence minded following their losses in WWI. Britain and the US were more isolated and had less need of built defences, but they were still very reluctant to enter into another conflict. It is easy to blame France and/or Belgium for their perceived weakness and defence mentality. If Britain was situated on the continent do you think they would have done any different? Personally I doubt it considering how Chamberlain handled the situation.

 

[lancer]

Mitch, you are right about the US isolationist policy prior to Pearl Harbor. FDR was all for getting into the European conflict but couldn't make it fly politically. The US citizens wanted nothing to do with another European war. FDR did provide what aid he could by whatever means he could. The US was far more concerned with Japan, although many realized that a German dominated Europe was bad news. FDR was so pro-British that conspiracy theories have FDR maneuvering the US into a position where Japan would have to strike us, thus allowing us to enter the war on a politically correct foot. I am no real fan of FDR but the conspiracy theories are hogwash. There is even a theory that FDR knew of the Pearl Harbor strike in advance and deliberately did nothing. All this has been pretty well debunked. It is interesting to speculate how long the US could have stayed out of the war if Pearl Harbor had not occurred. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

lancer...

I have heard lots of CT about pearl harbour but, they resonate today about the twin towers etc so, it seems everyone loves a CT. I think these may not have become so entrenched had the US carriers been in dock (thankfully, they were not) I think it would have been extremely difficult to bring the US into the European conflict had Japan not attacked. From what I have read, the public seemed quite against it and I cannot see how politicians would have been able to do so.

Another point I have always found interesting but, hypothetical is what would have been the situation had Hitler either not declared War on the US and, what would have been the implications had he declared war on Japan for the attack on the US?

Japan could not have done much against germany and how could you politically have declared war on a country that you are being supported by? This for me, was the point Hitler began to make all the wrong decisions tactically and politically.



;315013]Mitch, you are right about the US isolationist policy prior to Pearl Harbor. FDR was all for getting into the European conflict but couldn't make it fly politically. The US citizens wanted nothing to do with another European war. FDR did provide what aid he could by whatever means he could. The US was far more concerned with Japan, although many realized that a German dominated Europe was bad news. FDR was so pro-British that conspiracy theories have FDR maneuvering the US into a position where Japan would have to strike us, thus allowing us to enter the war on a politically correct foot. I am no real fan of FDR but the conspiracy theories are hogwash. There is even a theory that FDR knew of the Pearl Harbor strike in advance and deliberately did nothing. All this has been pretty well debunked. It is interesting to speculate how long the US could have stayed out of the war if Pearl Harbor had not occurred. -- Al[/QUOTE]