Jump to content


Why the Battle of Britain was the most important point in the Second World War.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
157 replies to this topic

Matthew J35U5 #21 Posted 23 August 2015 - 10:54 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 23 August 2015 - 05:48 PM, said:

^^^See? If there's going to be some kind of counter, I'd like it to be at least a civil discussion like this. Not just constant ''no, you are wrong,'' ''no, you need belittling,'' ''why would anyone think that?'' kind of thing, because it makes you sound like a bloody arrogant idiot.

I am perfectly capable of being civil with people that don't think Germany could have invaded the continent of America. 

 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Sqn Ldr B #22 Posted 23 August 2015 - 10:57 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 23 August 2015 - 10:49 PM, said:

 

What makes you think the Americans would let Germany invade anywhere in North America? It had been their policy for many years that European nations were to stay out of American (continent) affairs, I don't think they would happily sit by while Germany invades Canada. 

Invading North America via the Bering strait is a great idea. Except for how you now need to conquer all of Russia instead of just annexing Russia. And instead of sending supplies by ship across the Atlantic, you now need to send supplies by train from Germany to Siberia. And then ship them to North America. And then you're still no-where because you're in Alaska, still hundreds of km from anything important. Remind me why this is such a good plan again?

Barbarossa was already using the vast majority of German resources. (~80% of the Germany army took part in Barbarossa) It isn't as if Germany is going from using 40% of its army against Russia to 90%, its more like going from 80%-90%. 

But look at it this way: Lets say that Germany has a 40% chance of winning a war against Russia with Britain being around. (Biasing to the Russians because they did actually win). And without Britain being around they have an 80% chance of winning. 

Whereas if the British have a 60% chance of winning with the Russians around, how likely are they to defeat Germany with the Russians not around? It seems enormously implausible to me to suggest that Britain+America are more likely to defeat Germany than Russia+America are. (Alone or separately) 

There are many plausible things that could have happened that I wouldn't laugh at people simply for suggesting. Germany defeating Britain could have happened, though for an actual invasion to have worked quite a few things would have needed to have been different. Germany defeating the Soviet Union could have happened, though most people don't seem interested into thinking about how it would happen, and just assert that it would have. Germany could not have successfully invaded North America. You have been asserting yourself that had Britain fell America could not have intervened on the continent. America would be far more likely to be able to invade Europe than Germany would be able to invade America (the continent).

 
Tell me I'm wrong (on Germany being able to successfully invade America), or stop complaining that I think it is a laughable proposition. 

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 23 August 2015 - 10:54 PM, said:

I am perfectly capable of being civil with people that don't think Germany could have invaded the continent of America. 

 

 

For god's sake, I never said they could successfully invade America, I said they could try. Even just having a foothold in Alaska to be able to bring in supplies would be mildly feasible, since the Americans never really attached great importance to defending Alaska until the Aleutian Island campaign, and even then it was hardly a formidable force stationed there. And I'm not complaining primarily about what you think, I'm complaining about the way you go about saying asserting it. If you were just a bit more civil with other people then maybe I would listen to and accept what you say, but until then I will continue to argue with you because I think you're a stupid git with an over inflated sense of self righteousness. Until you can at least treat people with respect regardless of their views on stuff like this, please refrain from posting in my threads.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Matthew J35U5 #23 Posted 23 August 2015 - 11:19 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 23 August 2015 - 05:57 PM, said:

 

For god's sake, I never said they could successfully invade America, I said they could try. Even just having a foothold in Alaska to be able to bring in supplies would be mildly feasible, since the Americans never really attached great importance to defending Alaska until the Aleutian Island campaign, and even then it was hardly a formidable force stationed there. And I'm not complaining primarily about what you think, I'm complaining about the way you go about saying asserting it. If you were just a bit more civil with other people then maybe I would listen to and accept what you say, but until then I will continue to argue with you because I think you're a stupid git with an over inflated sense of self righteousness. Until you can at least treat people with respect regardless of their views on stuff like this, please refrain from posting in my threads.

 

If all you're trying to say is that Germany could "try" and invade America, what is the point of even saying that? Canada could also "try" and invade America. Somalia could "try" and invade America. Every country in existence at the same time as America could "try" and invade America. 

The first post I made is perfectly civil. Civil does not mean treating you as if every word you speak is sacrosanct. "No, you're wrong" (paraphrased) is civil. I didn't stop being civil until you ignored every criticism I made of your post and you started whining that I wasn't respecting your hugbox. I try and treat people with the respect I feel they deserve. Complaining about my breaking your hugbox is not going to encourage me to treat you with respect. 

So would you like to address the criticisms I made of your thesis, or do you want to keep complaining that I'm not being part of your hugbox respecting you?

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Sqn Ldr B #24 Posted 23 August 2015 - 11:24 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

Perhaps your wording was perfectly civil, but the tone it came across in, as with most of your posts, was that you thought of yourself as a higher authority than other people on the subject. Perhaps if you started your posts with things other than blatantly saying people are wrong then the rest of your post wouldn't be seen in the same light. The first line of your post is what sets the tone, and the tone is usually that same arrogant, belittling tone. My point here is that I don't really mind the constructive replies, just at least try and write them in a tone that makes me want to actually listen to what you're saying.

 

And for the record, I have no idea what the hell a 'hugbox' is, so stop referencing it.


"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Section47ABH #25 Posted 23 August 2015 - 11:52 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12126 battles
  • 1,849
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 23 August 2015 - 10:53 PM, said:

 

To be fair, the Germans don't need carriers to make the english channel dangerous for british ships. However, that doesn't do them much good since they can't protect their landing craft flat-bottom river barges anyway, so I agree with you that See Löwe likely wouldn't work.

 

You don't even need ammunition to sink barges  of that kind.  The wake from a destroyer going at flank speed will swamp them: rivers being rivers, barges tend to have less than two feet of freeboard - the modern ones have about that (granted, every time I've sat down to watch them I've been sat in a riverside cafe drinking good german beer, which may perhaps cloud my recollection) and apparently the ones they were proposing to use averaged about eighteen inches. 

 

A couple of thousand tons of destroyer going flat out at thirty knots and change will give you a three foot wave without too much trouble, anything up to a half mile out either side of its track through the water.  Channel fleet would have made fishfood out of most of the first wave, and  wouldn't have had to divert attention away from fighting their escorts.  Who would have had to go slowly to avoid swamping the barges.  And the position of doing the most damage to the barges is the safest place from air attack, too. 

 

And that's before  the frankly insane beach defences that were set up at every likely landing spot, and Home Fleet arriving 24 hours later to cut them off from reinforcement and resupply.  Seelowe would have gone down as one of the great military blunders of all time if they'd actually tried it. 

 

As witness the german Naval staff's response to the plan, which translates and paraphrases as 'what are you smoking?' and the Wehrmacht's hollow, mocking laughter at the prospect of trying to successfully invade through the corridor and with the rate of landings that the navy felt they could pull off in the teeth of an irate Home Fleet even with air superiority.  The german army and navy heaved sighs of relief when the Luftwaffe failed, I suspect.


Terranis Holds.  FOR THE EMPEROR!

Matthew J35U5 #26 Posted 24 August 2015 - 12:07 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 23 August 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

Perhaps your wording was perfectly civil, but the tone it came across in, as with most of your posts, was that you thought of yourself as a higher authority than other people on the subject. Perhaps if you started your posts with things other than blatantly saying people are wrong then the rest of your post wouldn't be seen in the same light. The first line of your post is what sets the tone, and the tone is usually that same arrogant, belittling tone. My point here is that I don't really mind the constructive replies, just at least try and write them in a tone that makes me want to actually listen to what you're saying.

 

And for the record, I have no idea what the hell a 'hugbox' is, so stop referencing it.

A hugbox is what you keep asking for. To paraphrase you, 'Be nicer to me'. 'Stop being so mean'. 

What are you doing here? 'You think you're a higher authority than everyone else'. 'You shouldn't open your posts by saying other people are wrong'. 'You write in an arrogant belittling tone'. Hug-box, hug-box, hug-box. 

What haven't I seen? 'No, you're wrong [and I'm right because of X, Y, and Z]'. Am I wrong, or not? My basic argument is this: The Soviet Union is more likely to win a 1 front war against Germany than America and Britain are, because America and Britain can't invade Europe without the majority of Germany's army being occupied fighting the Soviet Union.*

*I would also argue that the fall of Britain might be enough to encourage the Americans that the Nazi's need to be stopped. Probably not to such an extent that they actually send troops to fight with the Soviets, but maybe enough that they send supplies to them.  

Would you like to discuss it, or would you rather keep complaining about my arrogant condescending tone ruining your hugbox?

View PostSection47ABH, on 23 August 2015 - 06:52 PM, said:

 

You don't even need ammunition to sink barges  of that kind.  The wake from a destroyer going at flank speed will swamp them: rivers being rivers, barges tend to have less than two feet of freeboard - the modern ones have about that (granted, every time I've sat down to watch them I've been sat in a riverside cafe drinking good german beer, which may perhaps cloud my recollection) and apparently the ones they were proposing to use averaged about eighteen inches. 

 

A couple of thousand tons of destroyer going flat out at thirty knots and change will give you a three foot wave without too much trouble, anything up to a half mile out either side of its track through the water.  Channel fleet would have made fishfood out of most of the first wave, and  wouldn't have had to divert attention away from fighting their escorts.  Who would have had to go slowly to avoid swamping the barges.  And the position of doing the most damage to the barges is the safest place from air attack, too. 

 

And that's before  the frankly insane beach defences that were set up at every likely landing spot, and Home Fleet arriving 24 hours later to cut them off from reinforcement and resupply.  Seelowe would have gone down as one of the great military blunders of all time if they'd actually tried it. 

 

As witness the german Naval staff's response to the plan, which translates and paraphrases as 'what are you smoking?' and the Wehrmacht's hollow, mocking laughter at the prospect of trying to successfully invade through the corridor and with the rate of landings that the navy felt they could pull off in the teeth of an irate Home Fleet even with air superiority.  The german army and navy heaved sighs of relief when the Luftwaffe failed, I suspect.

I just wanted to add that the americans and british gathered a much larger fleet than the Germans could have possibly mustered for their cross-channel invasion, and still felt it would be risky, despite having air supremacy and no possible fleet to counter-attack them. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that even if the RAF and Royal Navy magically ceased to exist, See Löwe would have been dangerously likely to fail. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Section47ABH #27 Posted 24 August 2015 - 12:33 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12126 battles
  • 1,849
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 24 August 2015 - 12:07 AM, said:

 

I just wanted to add that the americans and british gathered a much larger fleet than the Germans could have possibly mustered for their cross-channel invasion, and still felt it would be risky, despite having air supremacy and no possible fleet to counter-attack them. 

 

 

D-day also went ahead with the benefit of  four years of operational experience of amphibious landings against defended coastlines, which the germans didn't have in 1940.  Even with that experience, which mostly tells you 'don't do this if you can at all find another way' they still thought it was a very chancy endeavour indeed.  Eisenhower had his apology for the failure of the landings typed up and ready for release.  Didn't need it as it turned out.  And even with all the care they took, the first day still fell short of several objectives.

 

However, there's a very revealing fact about the operational planning for the first wave landings: none of the units sent ashore in that first wave had done an amphibious landing before, or as nearly as they could manage it.  Specifically because they wanted the troops not to realise quite how much danger they were in, and keep going.   Experienced units would have gone to ground and not got off the beach, or at least such was the reasoning.


Terranis Holds.  FOR THE EMPEROR!

Party Poison91 #28 Posted 24 August 2015 - 01:42 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 24 August 2015 - 12:07 AM, said:

A hugbox is what you keep asking for. To paraphrase you, 'Be nicer to me'. 'Stop being so mean'. 

What are you doing here? 'You think you're a higher authority than everyone else'. 'You shouldn't open your posts by saying other people are wrong'. 'You write in an arrogant belittling tone'. Hug-box, hug-box, hug-box. 

What haven't I seen? 'No, you're wrong [and I'm right because of X, Y, and Z]'. Am I wrong, or not? My basic argument is this: The Soviet Union is more likely to win a 1 front war against Germany than America and Britain are, because America and Britain can't invade Europe without the majority of Germany's army being occupied fighting the Soviet Union.*

*I would also argue that the fall of Britain might be enough to encourage the Americans that the Nazi's need to be stopped. Probably not to such an extent that they actually send troops to fight with the Soviets, but maybe enough that they send supplies to them.  

Would you like to discuss it, or would you rather keep complaining about my arrogant condescending tone ruining your hugbox?

I just wanted to add that the americans and british gathered a much larger fleet than the Germans could have possibly mustered for their cross-channel invasion, and still felt it would be risky, despite having air supremacy and no possible fleet to counter-attack them. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that even if the RAF and Royal Navy magically ceased to exist, See Löwe would have been dangerously likely to fail. 

 

Asking for a simple discussion instead of people being [edited]for no reason is hardly a hugbox, is it?
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

Matthew J35U5 #29 Posted 24 August 2015 - 02:29 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 24 August 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

 

Asking for a simple discussion instead of people being [edited]for no reason is hardly a hugbox, is it?

The OP explicitly said he doesn't want a discussion of his thesis, and he doesn't appreciate people coming into his thread and arguing his thesis is wrong. How is that wanting a discussion?


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


RPGStylee #30 Posted 24 August 2015 - 04:10 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014
It were a critical point in the war for us, but not a critical point in the war as whole. Even with air superiority the Germans can't blitzkrieg across 20 miles of mine saturated water with their non-existent(by comparison with the Royal Navy) Kriegsmarine. It would be more difficult for us to supply our troops in Africa given that our ships will be attacked by aircraft more often, but the Afrika korps are in the same boat and are under supplied already. The Americans would likely build more aircraft carriers to make up for Britain loss of air power eventually, we'd just have to deal with the more intense bombings which we probably would.

CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


DStegCat #31 Posted 24 August 2015 - 05:02 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 23 August 2015 - 02:43 PM, said:

 

 a bit far fetched.

 

Summed up.

nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


TocFanKe4 #32 Posted 18 September 2015 - 06:17 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21278 battles
  • 24,718
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

I'd say the main impact of the Battle of Britain was psychological.  For both the British people, and for getting the United States into the war.

I can't seem to find the chart, but I saw one estimate that the United States had as much or more industrial capacity as the other great powers combined.  Germany had more than Britain, and was closer to the Soviet Union, but the combined might of the two were greater than Germany.  From an industrial perspective, the United States had a much better shot defeating the other great powers alone than Germany did.  Though of course an isolationist US was in a poor strategic position to do such a thing if they had wanted.  In any event, if you get the US in the war on your side, you win.

 

Isolationist America wanted to stay out of the conflict. They didn't want to send a bunch of troops or supplies into a doomed island.  The battle of Britain allowed the US to expand it's shipments to England, because it signaled to the US Congress that Germany wasn't just going to roll over England as they had France.  It would be kind of dumb to ship a bunch of equipment to a country that would be captured.  You'd basically be sending arms to a potentially hostile country.


But as an American, I'd say the most decisive moment of WW2 was Pearl Harbor.  In terms of battles, Stalingrad was more directly damaging to the German army.  Does Britain get invaded if the Battle of Britain is lost?  Perhaps.  Matthew seems to think the Royal Navy would be able to keep the invasion fleet at bay.  But I wonder how well battleships would do against the Luftwaffe with no British air cover?  It is a difficult proposition for Germany, but might be possible.  At least I don't think it would be impossible.  

 

Once the US fully enters the war, it's over.  No German victory could be possible.  With Lend-Lease but no full US entry, it's possible that perhaps Germany could make things drag on long enough, and perhaps get a settled peace.  That was a possible outcome if you have a British victory in the Battle of Britain, but no US entry into the war.  The Russian army may still have crushed Germany anyway.  But maybe not as easily without expanded US material support.  My view is that Pearl Harbor signed the death warrant for Nazi Germany.  Unconditional German surrender was the only outcome when the first bomb exploded in Hawaii that day.  

 

In any event, the war was won with Russian blood and ferocity, English tenacity, and American industry.  The Battle of Britain hastened the end of the war, saved many lives, and helped to prevent Nazi Germany from remaining in place though a brokered peace.  Truly their Finest Hour.


 

My dislike of +/- 1 pales in comparison to my hatred of Loaded Dice.


Hellseer #33 Posted 21 September 2015 - 07:53 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7441 battles
  • 1,291
  • Member since:
    10-01-2014
  I do agree Hitler was ridiculous for starting a war on two fronts, though. I do understand the reasons why they invaded Russia but they should have first consolidated Europe.

Russia would have won anyway in my opinion. Even with the U.S. and the UK out of the picture.

Europe is tiny compared to Russia. When was the last time an invading army actually occupied a country of that size? I can't even think? The Mongols?

It's one of the reasons why I don't ever see countries like the US, China, or Russia ever falling.

JAG THE GEMINI #34 Posted 21 September 2015 - 07:56 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 65344 battles
  • 2,429
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
I disagree. Most important and dumbest thing was the war in the east. Great britain could have never defeated germany on it´s own but sovjet russia could and therefore was a much greater enemy that had to be stopped.

Edited by JAG THE GEMINI, 21 September 2015 - 07:57 PM.

 

 

My youtube channel:https://www.youtube....w_as=subscriber


Matthew J35U5 #35 Posted 22 September 2015 - 04:10 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostTocFanKe4, on 18 September 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

I'd say the main impact of the Battle of Britain was psychological.  For both the British people, and for getting the United States into the war.

I can't seem to find the chart, but I saw one estimate that the United States had as much or more industrial capacity as the other great powers combined.  Germany had more than Britain, and was closer to the Soviet Union, but the combined might of the two were greater than Germany.  From an industrial perspective, the United States had a much better shot defeating the other great powers alone than Germany did.  Though of course an isolationist US was in a poor strategic position to do such a thing if they had wanted.  In any event, if you get the US in the war on your side, you win.

 

Isolationist America wanted to stay out of the conflict. They didn't want to send a bunch of troops or supplies into a doomed island.  The battle of Britain allowed the US to expand it's shipments to England, because it signaled to the US Congress that Germany wasn't just going to roll over England as they had France.  It would be kind of dumb to ship a bunch of equipment to a country that would be captured.  You'd basically be sending arms to a potentially hostile country.


But as an American, I'd say the most decisive moment of WW2 was Pearl Harbor.  In terms of battles, Stalingrad was more directly damaging to the German army.  Does Britain get invaded if the Battle of Britain is lost?  Perhaps.  Matthew seems to think the Royal Navy would be able to keep the invasion fleet at bay.  But I wonder how well battleships would do against the Luftwaffe with no British air cover?  It is a difficult proposition for Germany, but might be possible.  At least I don't think it would be impossible.  

 

Once the US fully enters the war, it's over.  No German victory could be possible.  With Lend-Lease but no full US entry, it's possible that perhaps Germany could make things drag on long enough, and perhaps get a settled peace.  That was a possible outcome if you have a British victory in the Battle of Britain, but no US entry into the war.  The Russian army may still have crushed Germany anyway.  But maybe not as easily without expanded US material support.  My view is that Pearl Harbor signed the death warrant for Nazi Germany.  Unconditional German surrender was the only outcome when the first bomb exploded in Hawaii that day.  

 

In any event, the war was won with Russian blood and ferocity, English tenacity, and American industry.  The Battle of Britain hastened the end of the war, saved many lives, and helped to prevent Nazi Germany from remaining in place though a brokered peace.  Truly their Finest Hour.

Idk about how reliable the source is, but the numbers you're thinking of are ~40% warmaking potential for America, ~10% warmaking potential for Britain, ~14% each warmaking potential for Germany and the Soviet Union. France, Italy and Japan are ~<10% each. I particularly liked the anecdote that America produced more of approximately everything than the entire axis did, and more than both of its partners combined (only one of those sets, not both obviously). The only exceptions that come to mind are Soviet tank production>American tank production because of how Soviet tank production was reported, and Soviet artillery production>American artillery production because the Soviet Union had a love affair with artillery that no-one else could match. 

The fall of North africa actually resulted in almost as many German casualties as Stalingrad did, because throwing good money away after bad is not uncommon. As a tangent here, I think victory at Stalingrad would be a more plausible place  for Germany to win if Britain had fallen, not Moscow, as  Barbarossa canonically failed because  of logistical issues, whereas Stalingrad in-part failed because of man-power shortages.


See Löwe has many layers of impossibility. 
Irl, the Germans weren't able to achieve air superiority. Not, "could have but didn't", but "could not have".

That aside, they can't stop the British fleet from sinking their invasion fleet. Not only  is the Kriegsmarine unable to escort its forces, and not only is the Luftwaffe poorly trained and equipped for anti-ship duties, but the British fleet is very big [citation needed]. You can sink some of the fleet, but the Royal Navy demonstrated repeatedly that it was able to perform its duty under enemy air attack, and I don't see a reason why this would be any different. 

The invasion fleet did not have the necessary throughput to succeed. From what I recall, the Germans had the ability to put a ridiculously small number of soldiers (something like 16k?) on Britain, and wouldn't be able to reinforce them for a week. Britain had something like 2 million soldiers under arms, and despite being poorly equipped, it seems dubious to me that a poorly supplied German division will be able to defend its beach head against everything the British can throw at it. (And even when reinforced the Germans can still only send over a limited number of soldiers at a time)
 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


NSW Mntd Rifles #36 Posted 23 September 2015 - 07:39 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39457 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

This is a strange discussion. In a war as globally comprehensive and complex as the Second World War there are many critical points and many crucial battles. Each participating nation has its own take on this. Here in Australia we consider four battles to be critical: The Battle of the Coral Sea stopped a Japanese invasion force heading for Port Moresby and forced a perimeter on Japanese expansion. Kokoda/Isurava and Milne Bay were critical battles that destroyed the myth of the invincibility of Japanese infantry and saved New Guinea. Likewise the defence of Tobruk in 1941 stopped Rommel in his tracks and saved Egypt. Both battles of El Alamein broke the Axis forces in North Africa and led to their eventual defeat.

 

Battles can also be crucial for what is learnt. The mauling of German paratroops by New Zealand and Australian troops on Crete highlighted the inherent weakness of airborne invasions and affected German military thinking for the rest of the war.

 

I must confess a sense of chagrin and bemusement at the commencing statement that the Empire would have collapsed if Britain had been conquered. This was not the case with the French or Dutch empires and would not have been the case with the British. The royal family & cabinet would probably have been smuggled to Canada or the West Indies and the Empire would have fought on. Australia had the largest and most modern steelworks in the British Empire and the largest manufacturing base in the Southern Hemisphere, and Canada had huge industrial capacity. Both countries were/are self sufficient in natural resources and could have formed core supply areas for the defence of the Empire.

 

The Battle of Britain was a crisis point but there were so many other crisis points in the war. I often wonder how much of our perception of the war is shaped by political commentary and the products of movie studios.

 

The contribution of China is scarcely mentioned anywhere. China held down millions of Japanese troops for far longer than any of the other allies were fighting. Their experience in China made the Japanese army commanders nervous about invading other large land masses and affected Japanese strategic thinking in relation to Australia. The only hope that the Japanese had for a successful invasion of India lay in a popular uprising against the British. Given the Japanese treatment of local populations in other parts of Asia it is difficult to see how the population of India would have tolerated Invasion by an overstretched Japanese army.

 

 


Edited by Jose the Padre, 24 September 2015 - 10:33 AM.


DStegCat #37 Posted 23 September 2015 - 08:16 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

Ironic yet pertinent:

"History is written by the victors." Winston Churchill.

Winston was self serving in writing from his perspective which often promoted himself.  Many did that in their memoirs of the war.  It's rare to find a written account that does not have an influence of the writer or the time written in.  Understand the source.

 

Also, Our point of view is manipulated.  It focuses on what is important to us.  Propaganda continues to this day.


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


Sqn Ldr B #38 Posted 23 September 2015 - 08:21 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostDStegCat, on 23 September 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

Ironic yet pertinent:

"History is written by the victors." Winston Churchill.

Winston was self serving in writing from his perspective which often promoted himself.  Many did that in their memoirs of the war.  It's rare to find a written account that does not have an influence of the writer or the time written in.  Understand the source.

 

Also, Our point of view is manipulated.  It focuses on what is important to us.  Propaganda continues to this day.

 

Churchill also said ''History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.''


"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


XxDAFFYxxDUCKxX #39 Posted 23 September 2015 - 08:25 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 19468 battles
  • 12,270
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
You know, I think the outcomes of world war 1 would be a lot more interesting and up in the air than ww2 discussions at this rate. I mean, what would have happened if America had chosen to align with the central powers and actually bothered to supply them during that war?

R.I.P. Lucky the cat, (2-24-14) you magnificent bastard.

Click here to learn about the math of WoT!


Sqn Ldr B #40 Posted 23 September 2015 - 08:26 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostXxDAFFYxxDUCKxX, on 23 September 2015 - 08:25 PM, said:

You know, I think the outcomes of world war 1 would be a lot more interesting and up in the air than ww2 discussions at this rate. I mean, what would have happened if America had chosen to align with the central powers and actually bothered to supply them during that war?

 

I don't know really. Maybe it should have its own thread? :P

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users