Why do people downplay other countries contributions to WW2

[Scott Fraser]

Originally Posted by lcm1

In actual fact during the Spanish civil war the Nazi's were busy practicing their war strategies on the Spanish people irrespective of their political leanings,they were,as was proved in the 2nd WW,not to fussy who they killed. In 1938 in Britain, their was the theory that a war with Germany was very much on the cards and enrollment into the territorial army by young men was encouraged,plus the possibility of conscription in the event of war. lcm1

I was addressing the statement that Tukhachevsky was arrested while the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact "was being developed". Tukhachevsky was arrested in June 1937 and killed shortly afterwards. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact resulted from Soviet overtures in June 1939, a response to the shifting diplomatic situation after the invasion of Prague that spring. The dates are a matter of record, hence my comment about better sources.

Regards
Scott Fraser

[leandros]

Originally Posted by lcm1

In actual fact during the Spanish civil war the Nazi's were busy practicing their war strategies on the Spanish people irrespective of their political leanings,they were,as was proved in the 2nd WW,not to fussy who they killed.

You write as if the Spanish Civil War was a war between Germany and the Spanish people. Were not the Germans mainly a tool for General Franco - another Spaniard? A part of Franco's overall strategy?

Actually, the British government was very much part of the powers that refused assistance to the Spanish people which were killed by Germans and the Spaniards the Germans worked for and can as such be seen as accomplices to this act.

Originally Posted by lcm1

In 1938 in Britain, their was the theory that a war with Germany was very much on the cards and enrollment into the territorial army by young men was encouraged,plus the possibility of conscription in the event of war. lcm1

There were many theories during that period - one was "peace for our time" after Chechoslovakia was sacrificed by the Allies - the British and the French. Mainly by the British. Despite the gloomy outlook for the future the UK defense budgets did not vary much between the years 1937-1939 (Churchill).

Fred

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by leandros

You write as if the Spanish Civil War was a war between Germany and the Spanish people. Were not the Germans mainly a tool for General Franco - another Spaniard? A part of Franco's overall strategy?

Actually, the British government was very much part of the powers that refused assistance to the Spanish people which were killed by Germans and the Spaniards the Germans worked for and can as such be seen as accomplices to this act.

There were many theories during that period - one was "peace for our time" after Chechoslovakia was sacrificed by the Allies - the British and the French. Mainly by the British. Despite the gloomy outlook for the future the UK defense budgets did not vary much between the years 1937-1939 (Churchill).

Fred

Leo,you are distorting my comments to suit yourself.Either that or you were unable to understand a perfectly simple remark! I did not even insinuate that it was a war between Germany and Spain ,I said that the Germans were using the Spanish civil war to practice their war strategies.Do you seriously believe that they gave a monkeys about the Spanish civil war and Franko? It was just a glorious opportunity to try their air attack tactics in preparation for the near future. Regarding your second remark whatever book you read your comments in regarding Britain and their preparations for war I can assure you that from the Spanish civil war onwards until the actual commencement of WW2, war and the distinct possibility of it was heavy in the air and my comments about the territorials and conscription was high on the list, plus factories were getting contracts for the army navy and airforce. Now don't try telling me differant because this is something that I know!! lcm1

[jpg]

About the scandalous and stupid things which we can read, regrettably, on numerous Anglo-Saxon or, sometimes, German forums, I would like to quote the BBC.
According to the magazine BBC History, " there were 53 major conflicts in Europe. France will have been a belligerent party in 49 of them, and the United Kingdom in 43. Among 185 battles that France delivered during the last 800 years, its armies will have won 132 of them, and will have lost 43, leaving only 10 undecided battles. So giving to the French soldiers the record of victories in Europe. "

[leandros]

Originally Posted by lcm1

Leo,you are distorting my comments to suit yourself.

In what way would that suit myself, please....?

Originally Posted by lcm1

Either that or you were unable to understand a perfectly simple remark! I did not even insinuate that it was a war between Germany and Spain ,I said that the Germans were using the Spanish civil war to practice their war strategies.

No, you didn't. You wrote: In actual fact during the Spanish civil war the Nazi's were busy practicing their war strategies on the Spanish people irrespective of their political leanings.....Would you really say that the different political leanings of the two Spanish parties had no influence on Hitler's (and Mussolini's) decision to back Franco.

Originally Posted by lcm1

Regarding your second remark whatever book you read your comments in regarding Britain and their preparations for war I can assure you that from the Spanish civil war onwards until the actual commencement of WW2, war and the distinct possibility of it was heavy in the air and my comments about the territorials and conscription was high on the list....

Conscription was reintroduced when...?

Originally Posted by lcm1

...plus factories were getting contracts for the army navy and airforce. Now don't try telling me differant because this is something that I know!! lcm1

I am sure, I was posting the defense budget figures to show that there was very little increase in the period 1937-1939 (Churchill).

Fred

[smallvillekalel]

Smallville's joke of the day...Germany and Japan contributed more than the rest of the countries combined. End joke.

[Desiree Clary]

Was there really an event where the Condor Legion consciously targeted known Nationalist areas or troops? Not by mistake, of course.

[ShAA]

Of course, both Hitler and Mussolini did care about the victory of the extreme right in Spain and the "containment" of Communism/left wing movement in Europe. This was the initial impetus of their decision of sending troops to Franco, along with bolstering their prestige and, this only comes third, the testing of their armed forces in real fighting.

Interestingly enough, the Soviet side also learned a lot, like the necessity of making tanks with thicker armour which could withstand hits from 37mm anti-tank artillery - hence the development and production of T-34s and KVs. Another lesson was to develop proper cooperation between infantry and tanks, and this was what the Red Army figured out only later in the war. The most curious conclusion made was that airplane radios were useless and only added extra weight to the planes - unfortunately, this led to tragic conseqeunces later in the war. The reason was that Soviet radios were way too low-tech, often broke down and had a very short range to be used effectively.

[smallvillekalel]

And Russia failed to make the proper conclusions concerning tanks and infantry. Unfortunately they concluded that tanks could not operate independently from their foot marching counterparts.

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by smallvillekalel

And Russia failed to make the proper conclusions concerning tanks and infantry. Unfortunately they concluded that tanks could not operate independently from their foot marching counterparts.

Well, in fact this is the right conclusion - without infantry cover, tanks could become easy prey for handgrenades and Molotov cocktails. Check the tank-only attack on hill Bain-Tsagan on July 3, 1939. The problem was proper mechanisation of the infantry to allow it to keep pace with the tanks.

[smallvillekalel]

Well, air cover maybe. But infantry cover is just a bonus. I'm not saying independent tank attacks is the best or only way for offensive action as an absolute, but a change in offensive doctrine which allowed for such successes as poland, france, minsk, smolensk, kiev, etc...

[smallvillekalel]

Originally Posted by ShAA

Well, in fact this is the right conclusion - without infantry cover, tanks could become easy prey for handgrenades and Molotov cocktails. Check the tank-only attack on hill Bain-Tsagan on July 3, 1939. The problem was proper mechanisation of the infantry to allow it to keep pace with the tanks.

I see your point now. I was thinking at the division level. We're both right.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by leandros

In what way would that suit myself, please....?

No, you didn't. You wrote: In actual fact during the Spanish civil war the Nazi's were busy practicing their war strategies on the Spanish people irrespective of their political leanings.....Would you really say that the different political leanings of the two Spanish parties had no influence on Hitler's (and Mussolini's) decision to back Franco.

Conscription was reintroduced when...?

I am sure, I was posting the defense budget figures to show that there was very little increase in the period 1937-1939 (Churchill).

Fred

You are a nitpicker leo with a large smattering of spite in your style of correspondance with me,I have no books to support me on the date of the commencement of conscription but was possibly the latter part of 1940 post Dunkirk BUT prior to the commencement of WW2 the possibility of conscription was being bandied about. Also in 1938 factories in the area of my hometown were receiving contracts for goods relating to war from the British Government,now if that was the only spot in the UK that such a thing was happening I would be very suprised! Now be a good boy and stop the picking!! lcm1