Kiev Is Burning

[ink]

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, not always. We had a chance to stop Russian aggression here, stone dead. And we utterly fumbled it, just as we did in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

What I meant that wars always lead into one another. Simplistically: WWI ➡️ WWII ➡️ Cold War ➡️ Ukraine War.

[urbanoid]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, not always. We had a chance to stop Russian aggression here, stone dead. And we utterly fumbled it, just as we did in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

How did you 'fail' in Poland? The only thing that comes to mind is that deterrence didn't work, but then again it wasn't really up to you. Everything else that could be done, like declaring war, was indeed done.

Edited November 6, 2024 by urbanoid

[Stuart Galbraith]

39 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

How did you 'fail' in Poland? The only thing that comes to mind is that deterrence didn't work, but then again it wasn't really up to you. Everything else that could be done, like declaring war, was indeed done.

When Hitler invaded we sat on our hands. France invaded Germany what, 20 miles? Britain didn't do anything, other than leaflet bombing Germany.

 

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

When Hitler invaded we sat on our hands. France invaded Germany what, 20 miles? Britain didn't do anything, other than leaflet bombing Germany.

You had literally zero chance of successful invasion.

And no, it wasn't just leaflets, it was also bombs + Royal Navy. And the French were doing what they were preparing for during previous 20 years.

Maybe it would all even work if it wasn't for Mechelen incident.

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

You had literally zero chance of successful invasion.

And no, it wasn't just leaflets, it was also bombs + Royal Navy. And the French were doing what they were preparing for during previous 20 years.

Maybe it would all even work if it wasn't for Mechelen incident.

With a thin screen covering the French border, and all their airpower pounding the crap out of you? Not sure. Not good odds perhaps, not like it would have been the previous year when we sat by and watched Czechoslovakia be dismembered. But a lot better than waiting for France to be invaded. Of course, we didnt quite appreciate that the offence overmatched the defence at that point.

The RAF was not strategic bombing Germany at all until 1940. We were allowed I think to bomb docks and warships at sea, that was about it. Not that we would have done bugger all considering how bad our targeting was, but still..

I look on wiki and note the very first target we bombed in Germany was the seaplane base at Hörnum on the night of 19–20 March 1940. I dont believe we started city bombing till after London got Bombed, that was sometime in September 1940.

[seahawk]

15th May 1940 - after the Rotterdam attack - the RAF was authorized to bomb German cities. On the night of the 15/16th May the first city attacked was Gelsenkirchen.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ah, but wasnt that the oil plant, not the city? I seem to remember there might have been something about that raid in Guy Gibsons book, enemy coast ahead.

I can own up to perhaps my memory is faulty, but I dont believe we directly bombed cities till the end of September/October.

The point remains, we didnt bomb Germany a damn till long after Poland had been occupied.

[seahawk]

The RAF attacked German cities as much as the Luftwaffe attacked British cities at the time. Both planed on hitting industrial or military targets, but the real accuracy meant both were hitting cities. And so it escalated.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The RAF attacked German cities as much as the Luftwaffe attacked British cities at the time. Both planed on hitting industrial or military targets, but the real accuracy meant both were hitting cities. And so it escalated.

And thats my point, the Luftwaffe DID NOT attack British population targets still it bombed London on August 24st. We reciprocated on Berlin on the 25th.

In fact, looking at the Goebbels diary, its fairly clear as early as July they were planning on hitting civilian targets.

https://www.historynet.com/no-the-london-blitz-wasnt-started-by-accident/

[seahawk]

The bombers that hit London were of course. The bombers that attacked Berlin aimed for the Siemens factory and the airfield of Tempelhof and hit the city. But even before that both hit the cities, no matter what they intended to hit, because technology was simply not there to hit a target at night.

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, ink said:

EDIT: and if Trump ends or helps end the war, he should immediately be handed a Nobel Peace Prize. Much as I hate most of what he stands for.

The deal is seems feasible is that Trump signs a US treaty with Russia that NATO will never expand one more inch eastwards, and Putin coughs up some (but not all) of his stolen gains.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, ink said:

Ain't that always the way.

Yes, but Stuart has never made a date with a war later he didn't wish he was meeting for coffee now.

Edited November 6, 2024 by glenn239

[seahawk]

5 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The deal is seems feasible is that Trump signs a US treaty with Russia that NATO will never expand one more inch eastwards, and Putin coughs up some (but not all) of his stolen gains.

Much easier would be to re-unite the 2 Russian states and be done with it.

[Stefan Kotsch]

6 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Trump signs a US treaty with Russia that NATO will never expand one more inch eastwards,

The problem, however, is that such an agreement has no connection to Putin's war goals. Why should Putin be happy with that? In the best case scenario, he could accept that as an alibi for defeat.

Trump would have to open Yalta V.02. And there, together with Putin, draw red border lines with a thick red pencil. According to the motto: You can keep Poland and .... . We get Ukraine and can do whatever we want with it.  In addition, Russia also wants Georgia, Moldova, Serbia...

[ink]

49 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The deal is seems feasible is that Trump signs a US treaty with Russia that NATO will never expand one more inch eastwards, and Putin coughs up some (but not all) of his stolen gains.

Hm... Can't see the Russians giving anything up at this point (could be wrong about that) least of all the land bridge to Crimea. Can't see the Ukrainians agreeing to redraw their map either. So, there might not be a deal there for Trump to make.

Unless, of course, the Ukrainian government really is dependent on its political existence on the US. In which case, they might be made to accept some sort of Serbia-style "we'll never concede part of our territory" compromise.

[ink]

37 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

 In addition, Russia also wants Georgia, Moldova, Serbia...

Funny word, that "wants". Judging by recent media and official reactions to elections, the West also "wants" those countries. And yet, nobody's promising to help make the lives of people living in Europe's poorest countries any better (least of all the local politicians themselves).

[Stefan Kotsch]

3 minutes ago, ink said:

Funny word, that "wants"

This will certainly be clarified during Yalta V.02. 😎

[urbanoid]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

With a thin screen covering the French border, and all their airpower pounding the crap out of you? Not sure. Not good odds perhaps, not like it would have been the previous year when we sat by and watched Czechoslovakia be dismembered. But a lot better than waiting for France to be invaded. Of course, we didnt quite appreciate that the offence overmatched the defence at that point.

The RAF was not strategic bombing Germany at all until 1940. We were allowed I think to bomb docks and warships at sea, that was about it. Not that we would have done bugger all considering how bad our targeting was, but still..

I look on wiki and note the very first target we bombed in Germany was the seaplane base at Hörnum on the night of 19–20 March 1940. I dont believe we started city bombing till after London got Bombed, that was sometime in September 1940.

Meanwhile the 'thin screen':

Quote

"A weakened Wehrmacht in the West" = 42 infantry divisions, supported by SS and border guard units, based on one of the most powerful fortification lines in the world with 15,000 military facilities, almost four thousand artillery shelters, tens of thousands of mines and two Air Fleets, with 600 of the world's most modern fighter planes.

The plan was that Poland would 'feel the effects' of a French offensive after 6-8 weeks and it would still be limited - by this time it was over (several times) plus the Soviets entered the war on German side. Breaking through Siegfried Line alone would take weeks, with success nowhere near guaranteed.

There was an air war in the West, with the Western allies generally having their asses handed to them, despite being superior on paper. Well, numerically at least.

Wilhelmshaven was bombed, Cuxhaven too, there were other raids too.

As for how powerful Germany was in 1939:

Quote

The power of France in 1939 was largely paper, even mythical. I will only say that by the spring of 1940 the French had managed to increase the number of modern tanks and aircraft they had by 100%. Which was still not enough, because fighting the Germans at the beginning of the war resembled a boxing match with a heavyweight champion who was high on testosterone, supplements and drugs. With brass knuckles instead of gloves. You could hit him once, twice, maybe three times, but there was no way you could knock him down. The Germans were too strong. In the years 1935-1939 they spent as much on armaments as France, Great Britain, Poland and the Benelux countries TOGETHER - 24 billion dollars. They even outpaced the USSR. German spending on armaments exceeded the ENTIRE POLISH BUDGET 10 TIMES. In September 1939, the Germans fired more artillery shells than Poland had in its entire stockpiles.

Add to that tactical superiority and the sheer weight of population, which was about equal to UK and France combined. 

Quotes are from my favourite Polish fb page about WW2, autotranslated.

Another comment of his from the same entry:

Quote

The day when Poles finally admit to themselves that in 1939 Poland could not have been saved even by an atomic bomb dropped on Berlin will be a beautiful day. And I will lose my hobby.

https://www.facebook.com/WojnawKolorze2.0/posts/pfbid029kWyiBJecwrgSnZSs2v4jo2MxNwXCNa7Li77mTpkyCZzTKVvGj2AGFCymdArTP76l?locale=pl_PL

Polish government and the most senior military officers were fully aware about how much can the Western allies help them - which was not very much. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Like I said, we could bomb ports, and did. That was how the RAF found out their AP bombs wouldnt go throught he deck armour of a German Cruiser. What we were not doing was bombing area targets, or anything like what we were doing in 1940 and 41. Because seemingly the mentality was, lets destroy the German navy that can threaten us, but lets not actually do anything that might help poland, because we might get bombed. Call it the Chamberlain doctrine in full swing.

Im not saying we could do much. Im just saying we didnt even do what we could, which wasnt very much admittedly.

[urbanoid]

What you could have done would have still achieved... fuck all. 

'Poland being betrayed in 1939' is a rather persistent myth here.

[Yama]

Yeah, Poland was betrayed by USSR, not the Allied. The Allied did what they could, they just couldn't do much.

Czechoslovakia is of course another story.

[JWB]

The United Arab Emirates began to help Russia with butter. However, it turned out to be not Arab, but Ukrainian.

https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1853855067570319491

[Stuart Galbraith]

21 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

What you could have done would have still achieved... fuck all. 

'Poland being betrayed in 1939' is a rather persistent myth here.

Well yes, but it would still have been less than sub optimal, which is what we actually did. Im not sure what exaclty we are arguing about here.

For me the real betrayedoccurred in 1938. Everything that followed from that, from the Anschluss and the abandonment of Czechoslovakia just ran on rails.

 

[mkenny]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

When Hitler invaded we sat on our hands. France invaded Germany what, 20 miles? Britain didn't do anything, other than leaflet bombing Germany.

 

Britain declared war. That is  the exact opposite of 'doing nothing'. The reality was that there was nothing the UK could do to stop Poland being defeated. There never was a plan to attack Germany in 1939-40 and 'save Poland.  

 

 

[mkenny]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well yes, but it would still have been less than sub optimal, which is what we actually did. Im not sure what exaclty we are arguing about here.

For me the real betrayedoccurred in 1938. Everything that followed from that, from the Anschluss and the abandonment of Czechoslovakia just ran on rails.

 

You really need to read the deal with Poland. It is indisputable that the UK kept to it and delivered 100% on its commitment.