Enda Kenny lays wreath at WW1 site

Jawgap

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Normally i find myself in complete agreement with you JG, but there were variants of the BF109 being designed, tested and put into production all the way up to August 1944. That doesn't sound to me like an airframe design that was nearing the end of it's potential in 1941.

Thanks.

The point I suppose that I was trying to make was that at the outset of the the War the Bf109 was the pre-eminent fighter, but it was further along its lifecycle than the Spitfire.

During the Battle of Britain the E variants were more than a handful for MkII Spitfires (and a different class to the Hurricane), and from then on later E variants were still probably marginally ahead of the later Spitfire marques - until you get to the G variants when really they had wrung all they could out of the airframe.

At the point though, the Spitfire MkV and Vb arrived, and the IX and XIV still had to arrive - which I know struggled to cope with FW190 - but we're comparing the Spitfire's development with the Bf109.

They loaded more and more (rocket pods, underwing wing cannons, bigger engines) onto the Bf109 airframe making the once nimble aircraft heavier, slower and less maneuverable. The result was an aircraft (the later Gs) that had a wingloading 50% greater than the Spitfire.

Late variant G Bf109s had wingloadings comparable to P-47Ds despite weighing in at about half their unladen weight and at about 60% of their weight when combat loaded.

I think the reason it stayed in production for so long was out of necessity. Germany, despite its research prowess, didn't have the time to re-tool factories to produce something else in the numbers required.

TJ Lazer

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Just wondering what the general consensus is with regard to Enda Kenny laying a wreath at the WW1 memorial today. Personally, I think it's long overdue,and I'm happy we as a nation have finally acknowledged the Irish men who fought in the Great War. My maternal Grandfather fought for the British at the Somme, my paternal grandparents met while fighting the British in the war of Independence, I have never honoured one over the other.

Sure typical Kenny eh? As Ireland moves closer to a United Ireland, Kenny moves closer to Britain.

Reekwind

Jawgap wrote: »

The French weren't going to march anywhere, full stop

Because of a political calculation in London and Paris. There were of course French plans to reoccupy the Rhineland (which had only been vacated by French soldiers in 1930) and both powers were nominally committed to keeping the territory demilitarised. This could have easily been achieved without a full blown European war.

There was nothing stopping the Britain and France giving Hitler a bloody nose but political cowardice. The French were of course not immune to this but it can hardly be argued that the French would 'never have marched' when Flandin flew to London in 1936 to get British agreement on exactly that

But just because they (the British) didn't want it, didn't mean they weren't going to prepare for it in a way that met the policy objectives of the government and at least some of the objectives dictated by military prudence

The key phrase here being: "the policy objectives of the government". To translate: the British government did not believe that German rearmament threatened British interests, the British government did not believe that it would be involved in a pan-European war in the coming years and the British government was unwilling to fund any rearmament programme (beyond reallocating Army funds to the RAF).

The British government was wrong. Simple as.

Had the British government taken the Chiefs of Staff seriously (and they had been explicitly warning of the threat of war from a future re-militarised Germany since at least 1933) then it would have taken the appropriate measures to ensure that Britain entered the war in a state of readiness. (Such as being actually capable of meeting their commitments in France.) But that's not what happened.

What did happen is that the British Army was starved for cash until 1937 as the Treasury consistently rejected requests for increased funding. Far from being an oracle intent on a measured military build-up, Chamberlain was at odds with the Chiefs of Staff over this issue. In 1934, to take an example, the Treasury reduced their budget requests from £76m to £50m.

Why? Because Chamberlain was obsessed with balancing budgets and was unwilling, until 1937, to borrow to fund an expansion of the defence budget.

Yes, that was completely in accordance with their defence thinking - first build up Fighter Command to parry the initial air attacks and 'protect the base' (the UK); then the Royal Navy and Bomber Command to blockade the Continent and weaken the enemy; then the Army to be ready to go back on the offensive.

Which was completely unlike, say, Germany, France and the USSR: all of which somehow managed to invest in all three branches simultaneously. The only thing stopping the UK from following suit was the Treasury and the government's Little England approach to its Continental commitments

The UK as the foremost naval power for over 100 years never had a strong army and traditionally when it fought on the Continent it did so with the aid of one of the major countries (France or Germany) usually to neutralise the one it wasn't fighting with - that was always their approach as far back as Marlborough.

Germany, as a continental power squeezed between Russia and France naturally prioritised its army and air force (as an adjunct to the land forces) - in the same way it prioritised east-west railways.

Both countries re-armed according to their strategic views.

Would it surprise you learn, even given those priorities, that German naval expenditure in 1937 was on par with that of Britain (1,479 v 1,595 million Reichmarks, respectively)? In fact, in 1939, with the adoption of Plan Z, Germany spent more on its navy than Britain?

In this area that Chamberlain supposedly prioritised, Britain's rate of increase in naval spending in the 1930s was vastly outstripped by that of Germany. (What with Germany starting from a much lower base.) How lucky for Britain that it takes many years to build a navy

Chamberlain, for all his flaws, was not playing for time - he, like a lot of people, didn't want war for the reasons I've already stated. Unfortunately he didn't know what we know now - that Hitler was unappeasable

You didn't need hindsight to see that - Churchill did. You didn't need to be a military genius to understand the dangers in neglecting rearmament - the Chiefs of Staff did. You didn't need to be a diplomatic whizz to propose a strategy of containment - the Czechs and Soviets could.

Now hours could be spent delving into the sinister reasoning that lay behind Chamberlain's inaction but for now it is merely important to note that he was wrong and that people called him on it at the time. Far from being "very little that the democracies could do to deter Hitler from war", it was the political blunders of the Anglo-French leadership that gave Hitler the time he needed to unleash war

Jawgap

^^^^^^^^^ in contrast to my own posts I notice a complete lack of sources for anything you suggest. As well as a significant misappreciation of politics, policy and grand strategy.

Could you post up a few sources for anything you suggest, or else just acknowledge its your own interpretation of high level political acts.

The Germans chose a rearmament path that prioritised "guns over butter" while the British decided to produce "guns AND butter" as discussed by Denis Richards in his history of the RAF in WWII.

Jawgap

Reekwind wrote: »

......


Would it surprise you learn, even given those priorities, that German naval expenditure in 1937 was on par with that of Britain (1,479 v 1,595 million Reichmarks, respectively)? In fact, in 1939, with the adoption of Plan Z, Germany spent more on its navy than Britain?

Not really, because Germany were trying to catch up with the UK project naval power into the Atlantic - the really interesting question is what did the Germans spend it on? I don't remember too many German aircraft carriers becoming operational before or during the war?

Like I said earlier, absolute spending is not a good guide to war fighting if the money is spent on the wrong things, in the wrong way at the wrong time.

Reekwind

Jawgap wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^ in contrast to my own posts I notice a complete lack of sources for anything you suggest. As well as a significant misappreciation of politics, policy and grand strategy

Anything in particular? There should be nothing there that's particularly novel. A few particulars:

For the budget conflicts between the Treasury and Chiefs of Staff, see McDonagh's Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British Road to War. (He also touches on Chamberlain's insistence on budget stringency but that, like the 'fourth arm of defence' nonsense, is common knowledge.) Ditto with Adams' Age of Appeasement, which also goes into detail on the diplomatic manoeuvring behind the Rhineland crisis. (For a more general overview of French attitudes towards appeasement, see Julian Jackson's great trilogy.) Tooze's Wages of Destruction is the source for naval spending. And, while I don't share the authors' more extreme conclusions, The Hitler-Chamberlain Collusion has some interesting insights on the entire topic of appeasement and rearmament

Anything else?

Could you post up a few sources for anything you suggest, or else just acknowledge its your own interpretation of high level political act

Well that would be the difference between history and aircraft specifications

Not really, because Germany were trying to catch up with the UK project naval power into the Atlantic - the really interesting question is what did the Germans spend it on? I don't remember too many German aircraft carriers becoming operational before or during the war?

Had Hitler's original timeline for war in the 1940s materialised, and Plan Z met expectations, then Germany would have fielded a navy comparable to that of the Royal Navy, including four aircraft carriers and over 230 submarines (Ovary, The Dictators). The key problem with this ambition was time: as I said, "how lucky for Britain that it takes many years to build a navy"

But that's not really relevant to that particular point, is it? The suggestion that Britain had to complete its rearmament in stages is contradicted by other nations (particularly Germany, the USSR and the USA) who managed to fund multiple branches of the armed forces simultaneously. As indeed, the UK did post-1937

Jawgap

Reekwind wrote: »

......
Had Hitler's original timeline for war in the 1940s materialised, and Plan Z met expectations, then Germany would have fielded a navy comparable to that of the Royal Navy, including four aircraft carriers and over 230 submarines (Ovary, The Dictators). The key problem with this ambition was time: as I said, "how lucky for Britain that it takes many years to build a navy"

........

Well, to paraphrase Cunningham I'd say that while it takes three years to build a battleship, it takes centuries to build a navy..........something the Germans found out the hard way, despite their spending.

Reekwind

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, to paraphrase Cunningham I'd say that while it takes three years to build a battleship, it takes centuries to build a navy..........something the Germans found out the hard way, despite their spending.

Ehh... the Germans found out that they couldn't build a navy in three years (which they'd never planned to do so), not that there was a great gulf in tradition. Particularly not in the new field of aircraft carriers

Jawgap

Reekwind wrote: »

Ehh... the Germans found out that they couldn't build a navy in three years (which they'd never planned to do so), not that there was a great gulf in tradition. Particularly not in the new field of aircraft carriers

Well, I think they built ships, whether they managed to fashion those ships into a fleet and a navy to project power is wide open to debate. They were never really blue-water capable in a sustainable way.

They had some success operating it as a fleet-in-being, and the u-boats were undeniably successful in the sea denial role, and for a while were close to imposing an effective blockade.

The German naval budget is probably an excellent example of money spent in the wrong way on the wrong things at the wrong time.

Ozymandiaz

If Britain didn't have a German royal family, a navy and an Empire the Germans wouldn't have felt the need to engage in an arms race to catch up. It's all Britian's fault. They set the bar and the rules and challenged all-comers. The Germans, like the French, just gave it a go. Who could blame them? Any country with even a half decent sense of pride and self-worth would do the same.

God help the world if Ireland finds fabulous quantities of natural resources of unimaginable wealth. We'll still continue to export our people to the four corners of the world but this time we'll be able to build a navy and air force to dominate it and dictate what's what! I'll be the first in the queue to put on the green jersey, wave the tricolor and sing Amhrán na bhFiann. It'll be the Irish way or no way. Verstehen Sie? ... eh, sorry, a' dtuigeann tú?

Ozymandiaz

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Just wondering what the general consensus is with regard to Enda Kenny laying a wreath at the WW1 memorial today. Personally, I think it's long overdue,and I'm happy we as a nation have finally acknowledged the Irish men who fought in the Great War. My maternal Grandfather fought for the British at the Somme, my paternal grandparents met while fighting the British in the war of Independence, I have never honoured one over the other.

I'd be similar to you in terms of my own family but it is not overdue. There were historical reasons why it has not happened before. Time passes, circumstances change, people reassess. I have a granduncle who fought in the Munster Fusiliers and was never right psychologically after the war. But most of those who died for freedom and democracy in WWI never qualified to vote in their own country and were most likely to have lived a relatively poor life had they survived the war.

Reekwind

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, I think they built ships, whether they managed to fashion those ships into a fleet and a navy to project power is wide open to debate. They were never really blue-water capable in a sustainable way

That would be because the German surface fleet was a fraction of the size of the 1939 Royal Navy or even the 1914 Imperial German Navy. The sheer amount of time needed to construct a navy meant that, unlike the Luftwaffe or Wehrmacht, the Kreigsmarine could not have recovered from the restrictions of Versailles before the mid-1940s

So, no. They didn't build the ships. That was the purpose of the rearmament programme, which was curtailed once the early outbreak of war made clear that there would not be the time to complete it

LordSutch

laoch na mona wrote: »

I would have been okay with it if it wasn't for the poppy wreath laid down beside it. World war one show never be glorified it should be denounced for the imperialist slaughter it was, which current commemorations do not do, rather they attempt to glorify the memory of a pointless war

Solemn remembrance (not glorification) of WWI in this country has always involved poppies, and those of us who do remember WWI & WWII Irish war dead have always worn the poppy. I might also add that after WWI it was always the poppy that symbolised those who died on the poppy fields of flanders, and not laurel leaves. Admittedly this 'new fangled' laurel wreath is a step in the right direction, but for it not to contain poppies is not really hitting the mark as far as I and my family are concerned. Well done Enda, but a proper poppy wreath would be preferable next year.

laoch na mona

LordSutch wrote: »

Solemn remembrance (not glorification) of WWI in this country has always involved poppies, and those of us who do remember WWI & WWII Irish war dead have always worn the poppy. I might also add that after WWI it was always the poppy that symbolised those who died on the poppy fields of flanders, and not laurel leaves. Admittedly this 'new fangled' laurel wreath is a step in the right direction, but for it not to contain poppies is not really hitting the mark as far as I and my family are concerned. Well done Enda, but a proper poppy wreath would be preferable next year.

the poppy is a british thing I prefer the white poppy as it does not commemorate one side it commemorates all the victims of that pointless imperialist war

MRnotlob606

my grandfather fought in the first world war he was well looked after by the british legion for the rest of his life

Snickers Man

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Just wondering what the general consensus is with regard to Enda Kenny laying a wreath at the WW1 memorial today. .

There isn't one. Nor should there be.

The idea that there is one right and one, or perhaps several, wrong way or ways of regarding the First World War is wrong headed on so many levels.

There were so many facets to the First World War, so many different agendas and sub plots that is is impossible to deploy a "single unifying theory" as to who was right and who was wrong. Therefore a "consensus" is not possible.

Were the Serbians right to bankroll and support morally a bunch of deranged terrorists to destabilize a neighboring state?

Were the Austrians right to engage in a "war on terror" and demand that all right thinking people in Europe were duty bound to support them?

Were the Russians right to use the Austrian punitive attack on Serbia as a pretext to further their own expansionist ambitions?

Were the British right to provoke Turkey into a war between their two countries (for the first time since the Crusades!!!) so they could get their hands on the oil wells of Arabia, or at least share them with the French?

Were the Germans right to attempt to provoke a civil war in Ireland just to weaken Britain by happily providing arms to BOTH sides in the Home Rule controversy?

And from a purely Irish point of view just look at how divided the country was in 1914; not just between Orange and Green but between the different shades of green on the Nationalist side. To join up or not? The Irish volunteers split very firmly on that issue. Whom do we regard with approval and whom with disdain? Is it possible to do neither or both?

Forget consensus. We're facing into a year of bitter arguments. Can't wait:P:P:P

And lest we think that this is a purely Irish thing ("When a group of Irishmen meet for a discussion the first item on the agenda is the split") I am warmed to learn that the British have started to beat themselves up about what is the right way to regard the First World War.


You go, Baldrick!!!

Hownowcow

My family too has a mixed history with regard to the sides they took in wars in this country and abroad.

One family member lies in a grave in Belgium and I will go there next year on the one hundredth anniversary of his death. I will go there out of respect for him as a relative. I have no idea why he joined the British army although I suspect that it had more to do with financial necessity rather than any highfalutin political ideas.

I don't like the idea of Enda Kenny having anything to do with my relative. I also don't like other political figures having anything to do with other dead relatives of mine. This is a personal opinion; other members of my family may disagree with me.

Reekwind

Snickers Man wrote: »

There isn't one. Nor should there be.

The idea that there is one right and one, or perhaps several, wrong way or ways of regarding the First World War is wrong headed on so many levels.

There were so many facets to the First World War, so many different agendas and sub plots that is is impossible to deploy a "single unifying theory" as to who was right and who was wrong. Therefore a "consensus" is not possible.

I think there's one cardinal error that people make on WWI but that's not it. The problem is not consensus, it's phrasing the question to determine "who was right and who was wrong"

Obviously, examining the conflict in that way is bound to be divisive. When you start with an 'A or B' question then you'll generally get an 'A or B' answer. The causes of WWI should not be approached in the spirit of casting blame because, aside from being useless, that is exactly what generates pointless "bitter arguments"

Fratton Fred

It should also be remembered that in the British part of the UK, we had conscription, as did the other belligerents.

Whatever the reasons for the war, the vast majority of those battering each other to death in the trenches had no choice.

johnny_doyle

no conscription in Australia or South Africa during WW1. Australians were asked to vote on the issue twice and voted No both times. In England, Scotland and Wales, conscription was brought in early in 1916 (and used to enlist a couple of Easter Rising rebels from Frongoch); Canada brought in conscription in late 1917 with lots of political fallout. With exemptions and riots only about 25000 Canadian conscripts went to a theatre of war.

Jawgap

johnny_doyle wrote: »

no conscription in Australia or South Africa during WW1. Australians were asked to vote on the issue twice and voted No both times. In England, Scotland and Wales, conscription was brought in early in 1916 (and used to enlist a couple of Easter Rising rebels from Frongoch); Canada brought in conscription in late 1917 with lots of political fallout. With exemptions and riots only about 25000 Canadian conscripts went to a theatre of war.

I'm open to correction but I think while the Canadians had conscription you couldn't be compelled to serve overseas - you had to volunteer. Must've been difficult though to refuse if the rest of the unit, or a good portion of them, volunteered.

Fratton Fred

I was thinking more German, French, Russian and American draftees rather than other commonwealth countries/dominions.

pedroeibar1

johnny_doyle wrote: »

Canada brought in conscription in late 1917 with lots of political fallout. With exemptions and riots only about 25000 Canadian conscripts went to a theatre of war.

I suggest that conscription was not necessary in Canada at the beginning of WW1.

A fortnight after the Britain’s declaration of war in August 1914 my great-uncle, who was working his way around North America, joined the 13th Battalion, Canadian Infantry (Quebec Regt.) – the ‘Royal Highlanders of Canada’ on August 29th in Valcartier. This was the largest military camp ever to be seen on Canadian soil. Within four days of the opening of the camp in August, nearly 6,000 men had arrived. A week later the number of personnel in the camp had risen to 25,000. During the month of August trains were bringing 600 men at a time from every corner of the country and not much later camp numbers peaked at 32,000 men and 8,000 horses.

His first posting to the Front was on the eve of the first gas attack at Ypres Salient. The Canadians held the line but paid a very heavy price. He was not among the survivors; he perished along with 12 officers and 454 other ranks, the Battalion losing very nearly half their fighting strength - it had been 45 officers and 1,112 other ranks. The number of French and Algerian soldiers killed that day is estimated to be about 10,000.

I'm not an Enda fan but I have no issues with him paying our official respects to the dead of WW1.

mitosis

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Back OT, it's good that we remember WW1, we've shied away from it and ignored it for far too long as a nation.

Isn't there a park in Dublin dedicated to the memory of the fallen in WW1?

gobnaitolunacy

mitosis wrote: »

Isn't there a park in Dublin dedicated to the memory of the fallen in WW1?

It was neglected for years, it was only cleaned up comparatively recently.

Maudi

When you visit france you will see rows and rows of neat white crosses in immaculate tidy cemeteries. .war graves..in fact they can be found all over europe..thousands and thousands of irish men among them all kept in this tidy condition by contributions from other european countries from all sides of the war....ireland however contributes NOTHING..towards the upkeep of these wargraves ..but we send pots and pots of money over to africa to equip despot warlords..so yeah I would have a problem him touching anything to do with my relatives resting place

kidneyfan

Maudi wrote: »

When you visit france you will see rows and rows of neat white crosses in immaculate tidy cemeteries. .war graves..in fact they can be found all over europe..thousands and thousands of irish men among them all kept in this tidy condition by contributions from other european countries from all sides of the war....ireland however contributes NOTHING..towards the upkeep of these wargraves ..but we send pots and pots of money over to africa to equip despot warlords..

Funny old world eh?

kidneyfan

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

It was neglected for years, it was only cleaned up comparatively recently.

If twenty years is recent.

gobnaitolunacy

kidneyfan wrote: »

If twenty years is recent.

Note word 'comparatively'.

Fratton Fred

Maudi wrote: »

When you visit france you will see rows and rows of neat white crosses in immaculate tidy cemeteries. .war graves..in fact they can be found all over europe..thousands and thousands of irish men among them all kept in this tidy condition by contributions from other european countries from all sides of the war....ireland however contributes NOTHING..towards the upkeep of these wargraves ..but we send pots and pots of money over to africa to equip despot warlords..so yeah I would have a problem him touching anything to do with my relatives resting place

Actually, Irishmen would usually be buried with the standard CWGC headstone made from Portland stone. The white crosses are American. /Pedant.