От Пауль
К Skvortsov
Дата 27.06.2019 16:55:43
Рубрики Современность; Загадки;

Я вижу просто слова, а не конкретные решения. (-)
От Skvortsov
К Пауль (27.06.2019 16:55:43)
Дата 27.06.2019 21:04:55

А конкретные решения Чемберлен принимал вопреки советам Гарда.

BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT PERSPECTIVES ON
FRANCE, 1936-40

Michael Dockrill
Professor of Diplomatic History
King's College, London


The creation of a small but all-mechanised British force was supported at this time by the maverick military pundit, Basil Liddell Hart, who became unofficial military consultant to the new secretary of state for war, Leslie Hore-Belisha, in June 1937.
Although Hore-Belisha asked the general staff to investigate the
possibility of raising a mechanised force, there was no prospect that it
would be accepted. As it was the War Office was facing immense difficulties in obtaining sufficient recruits for the regular army, and its problems were made worse by shortages of funding and hence equipment.

………

Many high-ranking British army officers, of course, supported the
campaign for a larger British land commitment to the continent. General
Sir W.H. Bartholomew, a former director of military operations, and now
General Commanding, Northern Command, wrote to Hankey in December:

"We cannot choose the way we will go to war and I feel [we] must
be prepared to intervene in France & Belgium and we cant [sic] do
that without some army. I do not ask for a large one but larger than
we have. Something should be done to kill the idea that we can take as
little of the war as we like relying only on a navy & air force & Home
Defence, all due to the myth created by Liddell Hart, ex-soldiers &
others."

In fact, following the change in the strategic balance in Germany's
favour as a result of the Munich settlement, Liddell Hart no longer
opposed the despatch of an expeditionary force to France. The loss of the
Czechoslovakian army had left France to face both Germany and Italy
alone, and now Liddell Hart believed that Britain would have to send an
army to help defend France.

Address by Captain B.H. Liddell Hart on 'The Role of the Army after
Munich', 20 December 1938, Dalton Mss., 4/ I.

Nevertheless Liddell Hart still maintained that the size of a British expeditionary force should be limited, telling Anthony Eden on 30 January 1939 that, while a British 'land reinforcement' of France had become 'a necessity', it could not be on the scale of Britain's efforts in 1914-18.

By the summer of 1939 Liddell Hart had, however, reverted to his pre-Munich opposition to the despatch of the expeditionary force to the Continent.

Diary Notes, Liddell Hart, 30 January 1939, Liddell Hart Mss., 11/1939/6;
Bond, Liddell Hart, pp. 104--5.

………..

By November (1939) Liddell Hart had become so depressed by what he believed to be the inability of the entente to defeat Germany once war began in earnest that he became, like Lloyd George, an advocate of a compromise peace.


'The Prospect in This War'. 7 November 1939, Liddell Hart Mss .•
111193/128.
От Пауль
К Skvortsov (27.06.2019 21:04:55)
Дата 28.06.2019 10:31:34

И тоже процитирую

I found your articles in the Times on the role of the Army extremely useful and suggestive. I am quite sure we shall never again send to the Continent an Army on the scale of that which we put into the field in the Great War.

Из письма Чемберлена от 8 марта 1937 г., прочитавшего свежевышедшую книгу Лидделл Харта Europe in Arms.

И из книги Брайна Бонда:

What is one to conclude in the strange case of Liddell Hart and the doctrine of limited liability? Although the arguments for a small, high-quality mechanized force - which Britain did not possess before 1939 - sound plausible, there is a strong impression that Liddell Hart was fundamentally opposed to the idea of sending even a single soldier to the Continent lest the dreadful experience of 1914-18 should be repeated.

Так что сухопутные войска строили в соответствии с пожеланиями сэра Бэйзила и они оказались на положении Золушки по сравнению с ВВС и ВМФ.

С уважением, Пауль.
От Skvortsov
К Пауль (28.06.2019 10:31:34)
Дата 28.06.2019 19:34:05

Re: И тоже...

> I found your articles in the Times on the role of the Army extremely useful and suggestive. I am quite sure we shall never again send to the Continent an Army on the scale of that which we put into the field in the Great War.

>Из письма Чемберлена от 8 марта 1937 г., прочитавшего свежевышедшую книгу Лидделл Харта Europe in Arms.

>И из книги Брайна Бонда:

>What is one to conclude in the strange case of Liddell Hart and the doctrine of limited liability? Although the arguments for a small, high-quality mechanized force - which Britain did not possess before 1939 - sound plausible, there is a strong impression that Liddell Hart was fundamentally opposed to the idea of sending even a single soldier to the Continent lest the dreadful experience of 1914-18 should be repeated.

>Так что сухопутные войска строили в соответствии с пожеланиями сэра Бэйзила и они оказались на положении Золушки по сравнению с ВВС и ВМФ.

Не строили в соответствии с пожеланиями сэра Бэйзила и даже и близко не подошли к его модели армии в 1939 г.

9 ноября 1937 г. сэр Бэйзил подал военному министру записку "Роль Армии", написанную на основе вышеуказанной книги. В ней он предлагал сформировать восемь танковых дивизий - 5 регулярных, 2 территориальных и одну в Индии. Это описано им в The History Of The Royal Tank Regiment.
От Пауль
К Skvortsov (27.06.2019 21:04:55)
Дата 28.06.2019 09:48:58

Ну-ну-ну.

Основные идеи, влиявшие на Чемберлена и коррелировавшие с его взглядами - это Limited liability и сдерживание Германии, давая понять последней, что войну она не выиграет. Вдобавок Лидделл Харт проповедовал, что на текущем этапе механизация и моторизация даёт значительное преимущество обороне, потому французам и незачем помогать.

А уж когда Чемберлен отошёл от политике умиротворения, дав гарантии Польше, Лидделл Харт посчитал это ошибкой, которая втянет Британию в войну, к которой она не готова, и, по сути, перешёл на сторону "умиротворителей".

С уважением, Пауль.