Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2

Thumpalumpacus · Jun 19, 2021

Shortround6 said:
Doctrine/s are not absolutes, at least they shouldn't be.

They are, in an ideal world, guidelines or best practices should be able to be violated by a junior officer IF the junior officer has good and sufficient reason/s for doing so and can state the existing doctrine and why the junior officer felt it didn't apply in the particular situation. Just saying he didn't fell like it is not good enough.

As I quoted and linked above:

Rather, good doctrine is somewhat akin to a good commander's intent: it provides sufficient information on what to do, but does not specifically say how to do it. Airmen should strive to be doctrinally sound, not doctrinally bound.

Doctrine is guidance based upon principle. It is not operational orders, and isn't intended to be.

The last sentence of that quote is the key to understanding the place of doctrine in military operations, I think. Keep in mind the larger principles, and apply them as they fit into a tactical or operational situation.

Doctrine is absorbed so that it guides decisions, but that doesn't mean all decisions are doctrinal. Exigencies can and do call for disregarding it -- but you'd better be right.

pbehn · Jun 19, 2021

Doctrine has its roots in religion, if it is proved correct by history it is seen as genius and if it isnt it is seen as folly

Doctrine ;- a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

Thumpalumpacus · Jun 20, 2021

Merriam-Webster said:
Definition of doctrine

1a: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA
b: a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
c law : a principle of law established through past decisions
d: a military principle or set of strategies
e: something that is taught

Definition of DOCTRINE

a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma; a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations; a principle of law established through past decisions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Like any word, it has a particular set of meanings based on context. I didn't think I needed to spell out that the context here was military.

If you look at the etymology of the word, it is based on the Latin doctor, for "teacher".

ljadw · Jun 20, 2021

pbehn said:
That is your thought of the day, yet more baseless conspiracy theory, I really cant be bothered anymore. Now you know he was ill, you weave it into your tale, he wasnt ill at the time that he was replaced, not that anyone knew anyway it wasnt until July when he had surgery that his terminal condition was known,

From Wiki "Chamberlain had long enjoyed excellent health, except for occasional attacks of gout,[63] but by July 1940 he was in almost constant pain. He sought treatment, and later that month entered hospital for surgery. Surgeons discovered that he was suffering from terminal bowel cancer, but they concealed it from him, instead telling him that he would not require further surgery.[212] Chamberlain resumed work in mid-August. He returned to his office on 9 September, but renewed pain, compounded by the night-time bombing of London which forced him to go to an air raid shelter and denied him rest, sapped his energy, and he left London for the last time on 19 September, returning to Highfield Park in Heckfield.[213] Chamberlain offered his resignation to Churchill on 22 September 1940. The Prime Minister was initially reluctant to accept, but as both men realised that Chamberlain would never return to work, Churchill finally allowed him to resign. "

That only in July his terminal condition was known, is not a proof that he was not sick in May .
It is the opposite : his condition did not become terminal suddenly in July : he was sick already before July .You do not become terminal sick in a few days .
And Wiki is wrong : Churchill did not allow him to resign,Chamberlain decided to resign and there was nothing Winston could do against this decision .

ljadw · Jun 20, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
I suspect Chamberlain was ousted because the contrast between his "Hitler missed the bus" comment and the Allies being hustled out of Norway made him look out of touch.

Amery's "Speak for England, Arthur!" outburst, and his speech in Commons attacking the Chamberlain government's prosecution of the war, seem to be pretty important in giving voice to the misgivings Parliament had concerning Chamberlain's leadership.

Churchill on assuming office had a coalition to lead, and he had to mollify its constituent parties. Compromise, especially in coalition politics, is a fact on the ground, and it is no criticism to say so. He likely kept Chamberlain in an official position 1) out of respect for the man, whom Churchill lauded in his memoirs when he could have thrown NC under the bus; and 2) because in June of 1940 what the UK needed more than anything, outside of more fighters and heavy weaponry for defense against invasion, was unity. That political exile for Chamberlain would perhaps work to undermine the drive for unity (in Churchill's view) is my guess.

So -- I suspect that Chamberlain was ousted over dissatisfaction with the state of the war at the time; and I suspect he was retained in government because he still had contributions to make, including helping to weld over any potential political fractures that might undermine the ongoing efforts.

I know very little about Attlee and cannot offer any useful comments on his status.

NO : Chamberlain was the leader of the Tories, not Churchill ,and if he was not in the war cabinet,Churchill would not have remained PM for longer than a few days .
Other point : Chamberlain did not laud him in his memoirs . The memoirs of Churchill had as aim to convince the population that all bad things that happened before and during the war were the responsibility of Baldwin and Chamberlain and that WW 2 would not have happen if they had listen to him .
Other point : the allies were not hustled out of Norway at the start of May .
Even without Norway, Chamberlain would not have remained PM .

pbehn · Jun 20, 2021

ljadw said:
NO : Chamberlain was the leader of the Tories, not Churchill ,and if he was not in the war cabinet,Churchill would not have remained PM for longer than a few days .
Other point : Chamberlain did not laud him in his memoirs . The memoirs of Churchill had as aim to convince the population that all bad things that happened before and during the war were the responsibility of Baldwin and Chamberlain and that WW 2 would not have happen if they had listen to him .
Other point : the allies were not hustled out of Norway at the start of May .
Even without Norway, Chamberlain would not have remained PM .

No idea what point you are making. It is just your thought of the day, who was or wasnt lauding whom, and when?

ljadw said:
That only in July his terminal condition was known, is not a proof that he was not sick in May .
It is the opposite : his condition did not become terminal suddenly in July : he was sick already before July .You do not become terminal sick in a few days .
And Wiki is wrong : Churchill did not allow him to resign,Chamberlain decided to resign and there was nothing Winston could do against this decision .

Tendering your resignation was common in that era, as a point of honour, it then becomes a discussion of what to do next. Since Chamberlain wasnt told of his condition Churchill may have assumed Chamberlain would be able to return later at some point, when this was not the case he accepted the resignation. He didnt have to, Chamberlain could have held the post until death. Being an MP only became a "job" in 1911, prior to that they received no pay, which is why its traditions are not like a normal work place.

Thumpalumpacus · Jun 20, 2021

ljadw said:
NO : Chamberlain was the leader of the Tories, not Churchill ,and if he was not in the war cabinet,Churchill would not have remained PM for longer than a few days .
Other point : Chamberlain did not laud him in his memoirs . The memoirs of Churchill had as aim to convince the population that all bad things that happened before and during the war were the responsibility of Baldwin and Chamberlain and that WW 2 would not have happen if they had listen to him .
Other point : the allies were not hustled out of Norway at the start of May .
Even without Norway, Chamberlain would not have remained PM .

There you go again.

1) I was addressing why Chamberlain lost the PM office but stayed in government. As noted above, Chamberlain had already lost the confidence of Parliament, and that included a significant number of Tories who voted to oust him.

(See also from the same article):

To the surprise of many, during Churchill's service in Chamberlain's government he adhered to a position of personal loyalty to the Prime Minister. This was most evident in the crucial debate of 7–8 May 1940 that followed the failure to prevent the German conquest of Norway, in which the closing speech was Churchill's vigorous defence of the government. The sharp fall in its normal majority, however, forced Chamberlain to resign as Prime Minister. His preferred successor was Lord Halifax, partly because he would be more acceptable than Churchill not only to Conservative MPs but also to the Labour Party, whose entry into a reshaped government was now essential. At their crucial meeting on 9 May, Chamberlain attempted to secure this outcome by asking Churchill directly whether he would serve under Halifax; the ensuing silence led Halifax to withdraw his claim, and on the following day Churchill became Prime Minister.

2) Churchill most certainly did laud him in his memoirs. He also criticized him for the policy of appeasement. That dos not mean he didn't praise NC as well. In fact, Churchill supported Chamberlain's accession to the office in the first place. You really should base your replies on facts.

3) The Allies were in full retreat from Norway but early May. The Norwegian government was already fleeing to England, and the Glorious was already evacuating RAF planes.

Once more, I suggest you read for conversation rather than contradiction. You radiate more heat than light -- and that is not a compliment.

GrauGeist · Jun 20, 2021

ljadw said:
And Wiki is wrong

Out of all of your countless posts, this breath-taking epiphany is the only factual contribution you've made so far.

You are to be commended.

*slow clap*

pbehn · Jun 20, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
Definition of DOCTRINE

a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma; a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations; a principle of law established through past decisions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Like any word, it has a particular set of meanings based on context. I didn't think I needed to spell out that the context here was military.

If you look at the etymology of the word, it is based on the Latin doctor, for "teacher".

I was referring to military doctrine. Like the bomber doctrine, and everything associated with it. The bomber will always get through. Heavily armed bombers will provide mutual defence to reach the target. Precision high altitude bombing will remove strategic industries and end the war. Escorting of bombers with single engine fighters isnt possible. etc etc.

It was a doctrine with little evidence to support it and people clung to it in spite of all evidence to the contrary. "The bomber will always get through" needs a huge paragraph of disclaimers and conditions to make it remotely realistic, and when the bomber gets through there is no guarantee it can see the target let alone hit it.

Thumpalumpacus · Jun 20, 2021

pbehn said:
I was referring to military doctrine. Like the bomber doctrine, and everything associated with it. The bomber will always get through. Heavily armed bombers will provide mutual defence to reach the target. Precision high altitude bombing will remove strategic industries and end the war. Escorting of bombers with single engine fighters isnt possible. etc etc.

It was a doctrine with little evidence to support it and people clung to it in spite of all evidence to the contrary. "The bomber will always get through" needs a huge paragraph of disclaimers and conditions to make it remotely realistic, and when the bomber gets through there is no guarantee it can see the target let alone hit it.

Sure. I was referring to formal doctrine, and thought that could stand to be clarified.

pbehn · Jun 20, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
Sure. I was referring to formal doctrine, and thought that could stand to be clarified.

So was I, the proponents of Bomber doctrine clung to it with religious conviction, magnifying the small positive results and ignoring anything negative. It was the same with Leigh Mallory and his big wing theory, which only ever showed the massive level of overclaiming you get with a big wing.

Thumpalumpacus · Jun 20, 2021

pbehn said:
So was I, the proponents of Bomber doctrine clung to it with religious conviction, magnifying the small positive results and ignoring anything negative. It was the same with Leigh Mallory and his big wing theory, which only ever showed the massive level of overclaiming you get with a big wing.

Not all doctrine is held with religious fervor.

A any rate, my point was and is that air doctrines have been passed down through time, contrary to ljdw's claim. I'm uninterested in semantical nits.

Glider · Jun 20, 2021

ljadw said:
That only in July his terminal condition was known, is not a proof that he was not sick in May .
It is the opposite : his condition did not become terminal suddenly in July : he was sick already before July .You do not become terminal sick in a few days .
And Wiki is wrong : Churchill did not allow him to resign,Chamberlain decided to resign and there was nothing Winston could do against this decision .

I keep suggesting to you that you try some research.

The following is a quote from the NHS Website on Bowel Cancer

The symptoms of bowel cancer can be subtle and do not necessarily make you feel ill. However, it's worth trying simple treatments for a short time to see if they get better.

Some of the symptoms mentioned in the site ware also symptoms of stress

pbehn · Jun 20, 2021

Glider said:
I keep suggesting to you that you try some research.

The following is a quote from the NHS Website on Bowel Cancer

The symptoms of bowel cancer can be subtle and do not necessarily make you feel ill. However, it's worth trying simple treatments for a short time to see if they get better.

Some of the symptoms mentioned in the site ware also symptoms of stress

He had enjoyed good health throughout his life, no one who feels unwell or has a stomach ache has the first thought "I have cancer and will be dead soon".

Thumpalumpacus · Jun 20, 2021

The idea that Chamberlain's medical condition had anything to do with his unseating is historically unsupported. He was unseated because his conduct of the war provoked doubts about his ability to lead the nation through the war. It seems he recognized that himself and stepped down, and with Attlee putting his weight behind Churchill rather than Halifax sealed the deal.

Is this the most important battle of the war?

pbehn · Jun 20, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
The idea that Chamberlain's medical condition had anything to do with his unseating is historically unsupported. He was unseated because his conduct of the war provoked doubts about his ability to lead the nation through the war. It seems he recognized that himself and stepped down, and with Attlee putting his weight behind Churchill rather than Halifax sealed the deal.

Is this the most important battle of the war?

Losing a no confidence vote is reason to step down, Thatcher won a no confidence vote and then stepped down.

Thumpalumpacus · Jun 20, 2021

pbehn said:
Losing a no confidence vote is reason to step down, Thatcher won a no confidence vote and then stepped down.

Right. And then after that sort of rebuff, Chamberlain still had the heart to serve in a different government, under the leadership of his main rival. I think that says a lot good about him; he didn't seem to cling to butthurt, but put his nation ahead of himself.

I can respect that even if I disagree with his policies or thinking. As Churchill said, he died in harness. What's not to admire about that -- flaws and all?

pbehn · Jun 20, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
Right. And then after that sort of rebuff, Chamberlain still had the heart to serve in a different government. I think that says a lot good about him; he didn't seem to cling to butthurt, but put his nation ahead of himself.

I can respect that even if I disagree with his policies or thinking.

It was perfectly normal at the time, he didnt see himself as a war time leader, he was a social reformer who became Chancellor and then Prime Minister in the era of Adolf. I take exception to the introduction of the booklet "Guilty Men" (not by you), one of the authors was Michael Foot, who later became Leader of the opposition and was thrashed in a general election by Thatcher. He was clueless about what had been spent or done, everything Churchill saw when he visited Uxbridge to see the Battle of Britain first hand had been ordered commissioned or paid for on Chaimberlain's watch. History has been very unkind to Chamberlain, I dont really know what else he could have done with the cards he was dealt, he could certainly have done a lot worse.

Thumpalumpacus · Jun 20, 2021

pbehn said:
It was perfectly normal at the time, he didnt see himself as a war time leader, he was a social reformer who became Chancellor and then Prime Minister in the era of Adolf. I take exception to the introduction of the booklet "Guilty Men" (not by you), one of the authors was Michael Foot, who later became Leader of the opposition and was thrashed in a general election by Thatcher. He was clueless about what had been spent or done, everything Churchill saw when he visited Uxbridge to see the Battle of Britain first hand had been ordered commissioned or paid for on Chaimberlain's watch. History has been very unkind to Chamberlain, I dont really know what else he could have done with the cards he was dealt, he could certainly have done a lot worse.

I have in my own thinking been unkind to Chamberlain over the years, for my having supped at the plate of common history.

It's only as I've grown older and really tried to understand what a mess he dealt with that I started to understand that whether I agree with his decisions or not, I can see that he tried as best he could.

I still detest appeasement, but it's easier now to see that in 1938 the options were limited, and not only for short-sightedness.

Shortround6 · Jun 20, 2021

There is a school of thought (or a few authors) that seems to go with the idea that he sold out Czechoslovakia not because it "secured peace in our time"
But because it bought Britain (and France) more time to rearm.

But you can't step out of the airplane into a news conference, and wave a peace of paper and say that is what you did.

Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2

Major

Colonel

Major

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Colonel

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Colonel

Major

Colonel

Major

Captain

Colonel

Major

Colonel

Major

Colonel

Major

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads