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

XxDAFFYxxDUCKxX #41 Posted 23 September 2015 - 08:26 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 19468 battles
  • 12,270
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 23 September 2015 - 08:26 PM, said:

 

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

 

On it. :great:

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

Click here to learn about the math of WoT!


Valiant Valor #42 Posted 23 September 2015 - 09:30 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4875 battles
  • 143
  • Member since:
    04-22-2014
Thank gosh for Britain but the U.S.S.R would have never fell, they simply had a vast number count in their military to spare, which they did spare. 

signature.png

Down with Gold, Grind Life!


NSW Mntd Rifles #43 Posted 24 September 2015 - 10:37 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39367 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
Not too long ago an Italian political scientist expressed his deep admiration for Britain as the British people were the only group of nations to stand firm against fascism when their allies had been defeated. People on a certain side of the Atlantic easily forget that Britain and her empire had been fighting fascism for over two years before a certain country attacked a certain naval base on a tropical island. 

Section47ABH #44 Posted 24 September 2015 - 10:47 AM

    Captain

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

View PostJose the Padre, on 24 September 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

Not too long ago an Italian political scientist expressed his deep admiration for Britain as the British people were the only group of nations to stand firm against fascism when their allies had been defeated. People on a certain side of the Atlantic easily forget that Britain and her empire had been fighting fascism for over two years before a certain country attacked a certain naval base on a tropical island. 

 

More like two hundred years.  Napoleon, then the Kaiser, then the Nazis.  And we paid for the american kit we got.  Last instalment was 1994, as I recall.

 

Edit to add: and some of the bonds we sold to pay for slapping Bonaparte down are still outstanding, albeit in the form of really old 4% consol gilts.  There's a redemption program in place for those, though.


Edited by Section47ABH, 24 September 2015 - 10:53 AM.

Terranis Holds.  FOR THE EMPEROR!

Section47ABH #45 Posted 24 September 2015 - 10:56 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12126 battles
  • 1,849
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015
Oh, and without us?  The present continental United States would be a series of departements of Greater France.  Bonaparte's ambitions included using Louisiana  as a springboard, except we'd been slapping the French silly all across the map for fifteen years at that point and he had to sell it instead to raise money.
Terranis Holds.  FOR THE EMPEROR!

Matthew J35U5 #46 Posted 24 September 2015 - 10:58 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
I don't understand how Napoleon or the Kaiser count as fascists. 

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


Section47ABH #47 Posted 24 September 2015 - 11:00 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12126 battles
  • 1,849
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015
Equivalent of their era.  Strong-man leader, imperial ambition: the 20th century version was just refinements on an old, old idea.
Terranis Holds.  FOR THE EMPEROR!

I3iggus Nickus #48 Posted 24 September 2015 - 11:22 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 34187 battles
  • 4,813
  • [ACES]
  • Member since:
    03-17-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 24 September 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

I don't understand how Napoleon or the Kaiser count as fascists. 

 

I always like when there are historical threads, and wonder "when is matt gonna start taking this guy's post apart"


​Member of the Senior Technical Engineer Club [ACES] Armoured Aces "Louder than God's revolver and twice as shiny"

1: A leap of faith. An unproveable belief in a reality beyond this world. 2: suicide. Escaping a pointless existence. 3: acceptance of an Absurd existence, and the freedom that comes with creating your own meaning.

"He who snipes snipers, runs the risk of becoming the sniper himself. If you gaze into the scope, the scope gazes back"


JAG THE GEMINI #49 Posted 24 September 2015 - 12:18 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 65310 battles
  • 2,429
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 24 September 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

I don't understand how Napoleon or the Kaiser count as fascists. 

 

This man is right, you guys are VASTLY exaggerating if you think Napoleon or Kaiser Wilhelm were FASCISTS!? lol!!!

 

Btw, what is with great Britain nowadays? it lost a LOT of it´s influence and power after all those "won wars". Strange isnt´it?


 

 

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


Sqn Ldr B #50 Posted 24 September 2015 - 03:01 PM

    Major

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

View PostJAG THE GEMINI, on 24 September 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

 

This man is right, you guys are VASTLY exaggerating if you think Napoleon or Kaiser Wilhelm were FASCISTS!? lol!!!

 

Btw, what is with great Britain nowadays? it lost a LOT of it´s influence and power after all those "won wars". Strange isnt´it?

 

Probably something to do with fighting a six year war that at the end had little advantage for Britain other than survival, and then having to either sell off assets and interests abroad to keep the economy afloat, and losing the majority of its empire due to decreased spending on the empire.

"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 #51 Posted 24 September 2015 - 03:43 PM

    Major

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

View PostJAG THE GEMINI, on 24 September 2015 - 07:18 AM, said:

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 24 September 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

I don't understand how Napoleon or the Kaiser count as fascists. 

 

This man is right, you guys are VASTLY exaggerating if you think Napoleon or Kaiser Wilhelm were FASCISTS!? lol!!!

 

Btw, what is with great Britain nowadays? it lost a LOT of it´s influence and power after all those "won wars". Strange isnt´it?

Went bankrupt. 

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 24 September 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

View PostJAG THE GEMINI, on 24 September 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

 

This man is right, you guys are VASTLY exaggerating if you think Napoleon or Kaiser Wilhelm were FASCISTS!? lol!!!

 

Btw, what is with great Britain nowadays? it lost a LOT of it´s influence and power after all those "won wars". Strange isnt´it?

 

Probably something to do with fighting a six year war that at the end had little advantage for Britain other than survival, and then having to either sell off assets and interests abroad to keep the economy afloat, and losing the majority of its empire due to decreased spending on the empire.

Where was the advantage for the USSR? A bunch of puppet states that they had to spend enormous quantities of resources to support?

Britain lost all of its influence because it was a waning power, and the USA and USSR were rising powers. Hell, Britain had been a waning power since the 1870's. (Though it was so relatively strong at its height that even steadily decreasing in power left it formidable until halfway through the 20th century.)



NSW Mntd Rifles #52 Posted 25 September 2015 - 02:53 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39367 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 25 September 2015 - 01:43 AM, said:

Went bankrupt. 

Where was the advantage for the USSR? A bunch of puppet states that they had to spend enormous quantities of resources to support?

Britain lost all of its influence because it was a waning power, and the USA and USSR were rising powers. Hell, Britain had been a waning power since the 1870's. (Though it was so relatively strong at its height that even steadily decreasing in power left it formidable until halfway through the 20th century.)

 

Totally agreed. The British Empire was unravelling before the Second World War. The war was just the midwife that gave birth to new states in the old colonies. Empires rise and empires fall. China is the new rising power.

 



Sqn Ldr B #53 Posted 25 September 2015 - 06:29 AM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 24 September 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Went bankrupt. 

Where was the advantage for the USSR? A bunch of puppet states that they had to spend enormous quantities of resources to support?

Britain lost all of its influence because it was a waning power, and the USA and USSR were rising powers. Hell, Britain had been a waning power since the 1870's. (Though it was so relatively strong at its height that even steadily decreasing in power left it formidable until halfway through the 20th century.)

 

Where was the advantage for the USSR? The puppet states they got must have held some advantage, or they wouldn't have taken them over would they? They could have just liberated them and gone back home, but they stayed for 46 years.

"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


ExiledHannibai #54 Posted 25 September 2015 - 07:12 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 19554 battles
  • 901
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 23 August 2015 - 10:14 PM, said:

 

Look, I'm not the one, nor are any of us, to go about asserting how the Germans would have gone about invading the Britain. The point is, if the RAF was destroyed, the Germans would have made a series of landings on the south coast unopposed from the air. The Germans could well have boxed the Royal Navy in at Southampton and Scapa Flow using U-Boats.

I'll just point out that I never said the Germans would successfully invade the USA, I said they would try. I also never said the USA specifically, I said North America, meaning Canada as well as the USA. With no opponents in Europe the Germans would be free to develop Amerika Bombers and such. Just think what the Germans would come up with if resources weren't having to be diverted to the war effort. Oh, and the Atlantic isn't the only route of invasion to North America. The Germans could go into Alaska through their newly conquered Russia. As for defeating the USSR in the first place, the Germans wouldn't have a 'margin of strength' added to their eastern forces. We're talking thousands of aircraft, large amounts of troops used in the invasion of Britain, the Afrika Korps and the corresponding air component there too. Naval forces could be diverted to the Baltic and Arctic as well.

 

And can I just point out that if you are of the mindset that people need belittling then you are an arrogant fool. Stop dictating to people that your views on something that never happened are right, stop dictating to people that they are wrong, and just stop acting like you and your opinions are the be all and end all of historical eventualities that never happened.

If you don't mind me saying I was quite impressed with your proposition and Matthews counter proposition. Both well written and well argued. It's a pity that instead of discussing the very good points that Matthew made you went straight into Rottweiler personal attack mode. I have no white knight delusions: it's just a pity that you responded in such a silly and immature way to a perfectly reasonable point.

For what it's worth I agree with Matthew. For those of us who are British the Battle of Britain was pivotal. For the rest of the world Stalingrad was probably much more important.



Matthew J35U5 #55 Posted 25 September 2015 - 10:04 AM

    Major

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

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 25 September 2015 - 01:29 AM, said:

 

Where was the advantage for the USSR? The puppet states they got must have held some advantage, or they wouldn't have taken them over would they? They could have just liberated them and gone back home, but they stayed for 46 years.

It made them feel more secure. The cold war is much easier to understand I think, if you consider that the USSR was not an aggressive power, but was actually as afraid of us as we were of them. (Democracies are so much less predictable than dictatorships. ;))

 


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


IronBallsMatt #56 Posted 25 September 2015 - 11:05 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10629 battles
  • 1,415
  • Member since:
    05-06-2014

if Hitler had ordered construction of the U boats which the German submarine service needed, they would not have needed to invade England. At one point in the war, Britain was 6 weeks away form running out of supplies, the wolf packs were taking so much shipping from the Atlantic Convoys. This is amazingly close when you factor 6 weeks to an entire country.

 

With no food, Churchill would have eventually had to sue for peace, and the Germans could have sailed right up the Thames laiden with fuel and food, without firing a bullet

 

 

 

 

 

 



Uranprojekt #57 Posted 25 September 2015 - 01:47 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostExiledHannibai, on 25 September 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

If you don't mind me saying I was quite impressed with your proposition and Matthews counter proposition. Both well written and well argued. It's a pity that instead of discussing the very good points that Matthew made you went straight into Rottweiler personal attack mode. I have no white knight delusions: it's just a pity that you responded in such a silly and immature way to a perfectly reasonable point.

For what it's worth I agree with Matthew. For those of us who are British the Battle of Britain was pivotal. For the rest of the world Stalingrad was probably much more important.

 

I'm British and I don't find the Battle of Britain to be as pivotal a moment as Stalingrad. In terms of actual war progress, I'd rank the desert campaign above the Battle of Britain as a marginally more pivotal moment. As has been discussed, a German seaborne invasion would have been either a fast failure or a long, drawn out failure so the Battle of Britain was more successful from a morale standpoint than a strategic one. It was in North Africa that the British learned we could beat the Germans on the ground which, considering various factors, was more significant in my opinion. It was a lot more dangerous to fight the Germans on the ground than in air because at least you could see them coming in the air. The way I see it, North Africa was our Stalingrad.


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


LordGrayHawk #58 Posted 20 October 2015 - 08:05 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10333 battles
  • 2,968
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

It's interesting when someone proposes a "what if question (What if the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain?)" on any forum, let alone this one. Every discussion from that point on is nothing but speculation.  If all participants accept that, then all is well.  Facts can be presented to either support or argue against the original post.  The original OP should be willing to accept arguments against his/her opening post and be willing to debate those arguments with strong counterpoints rather than view them as personal attacks.  With that being said, I wish to offer a couple of counterpoints to the OP's original statement and opinions.

1.  Had the RAF lost I still don't see this as an automatic loss of Great Britain.  The bombing of London only served to prove the fortitude of the British people.  Had Germany attempted a landing onto Britain they would have felt the direct wrath of the British people and would have been forced into another prolonged land battle that they could not afford.  Hitler was so sure that England would surrender following the fall of France and the debacle of Dunkirk that the attack on England was delayed for a month so as to allow for England's surrender without expending additional manpower or equipment.  You should consider an even stronger "What If?"  What if Churchill had failed to succeed in defeating those politicians who wished to negotiate with Hitler?

Had Hitler directly invaded England I feel the United States would have entered the War then than waiting until 1941.

2.  Regarding an Invasion of North America by Germany.  It's Ironic to bring that up as the United States believed the biggest threat for an invasion was from the British Empire!  This was the belief up until the mid 30's and "War Plan Red" was formulated to deal with a direct British invasion of either the United States or Canada.  Germany did launch sabotage attacks against the United States, Operation Pastorius, with successful landings in Florida and New York.  These attacks failed.  Germany did however entertain the idea of Trans-Atlantic bombing of the US (Amerika Bomber) and had both Russia and England been defeated Germany's plan Z would have been implemented.

3.  The invasion of England I feel would have also expedited the development of England's own Atomic bomb, Project "Tube Alloys" which was farther along than America's.

4.  I don't believe the British Empire would have ever been defeated, diminished perhaps but never defeated.


To excellence through effort

 

 


Sqn Ldr B #59 Posted 20 October 2015 - 08:34 PM

    Major

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

View PostLordGrayHawk, on 20 October 2015 - 08:05 PM, said:

It's interesting when someone proposes a "what if question (What if the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain?)" on any forum, let alone this one. Every discussion from that point on is nothing but speculation.  If all participants accept that, then all is well.  Facts can be presented to either support or argue against the original post.  The original OP should be willing to accept arguments against his/her opening post and be willing to debate those arguments with strong counterpoints rather than view them as personal attacks.  With that being said, I wish to offer a couple of counterpoints to the OP's original statement and opinions.

1.  Had the RAF lost I still don't see this as an automatic loss of Great Britain.  The bombing of London only served to prove the fortitude of the British people.  Had Germany attempted a landing onto Britain they would have felt the direct wrath of the British people and would have been forced into another prolonged land battle that they could not afford.  Hitler was so sure that England would surrender following the fall of France and the debacle of Dunkirk that the attack on England was delayed for a month so as to allow for England's surrender without expending additional manpower or equipment.  You should consider an even stronger "What If?"  What if Churchill had failed to succeed in defeating those politicians who wished to negotiate with Hitler?

Had Hitler directly invaded England I feel the United States would have entered the War then than waiting until 1941.

2.  Regarding an Invasion of North America by Germany.  It's Ironic to bring that up as the United States believed the biggest threat for an invasion was from the British Empire!  This was the belief up until the mid 30's and "War Plan Red" was formulated to deal with a direct British invasion of either the United States or Canada.  Germany did launch sabotage attacks against the United States, Operation Pastorius, with successful landings in Florida and New York.  These attacks failed.  Germany did however entertain the idea of Trans-Atlantic bombing of the US (Amerika Bomber) and had both Russia and England been defeated Germany's plan Z would have been implemented.

3.  The invasion of England I feel would have also expedited the development of England's own Atomic bomb, Project "Tube Alloys" which was farther along than America's.

4.  I don't believe the British Empire would have ever been defeated, diminished perhaps but never defeated.

 

Yes, the Empah! Even if they took over Britain itself, they'd still have to deal with the Royal Navy and about a third of the world.

"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


UnsoundDineen #60 Posted 20 October 2015 - 09:03 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10166 battles
  • 9,209
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 23 August 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

Now I often see people arguing about how things like Stalingrad or Midway were the most important points in the Second World War, but people rarely mention what has to be the most important, the Battle of Britain. To point out why this is so, we must consider the eventualities arising from the RAF failing to win the Battle of Britain:

  • The Luftwaffe gains aerial superiority and Operation Sea Lion is successful.
  • With Britain defeated, thousands upon thousands of men and vast quantities of equipment being used to fight the British in Europe and in Africa can be transferred to the Eastern Front.
  • As a result of the second point, the USSR is defeated or crippled due to the increased strength of axis forces.
  • A lack of British scientists in the Manhattan project slows the development of the allied atomic bomb.
  • The Americans have no staging point or base for a war in Europe....
  • ....and the incentive for a war on Germany by the Americans is gone.
  • With the USSR and Britain defeated, Germany now has no European enemies left, and is free to build up its strength.
  • Germany can easily invade Ireland.
  • With its now enormous and almost unopposed strength, Germany will have the potential to make an attempted invasion of North America.
  • The collapse of Britain causes the collapse of the Empire....
  • ....and British forces cease fighting in the CBI and Pacific theatre.
  • Thus the Americans lose a vital ally in the Pacific theatre.
  • India is overrun by the Japanese.

 

Now, some of these are a bit far fetched. For instance, even if Britain was defeated, British forces in the Empire, particularly the Royal Navy and the Commonwealth nations would have continued the war against Germany, but it must be considered that it could lead to the collapse of the Empire and Commonwealth as a whole.

 

So hopefully now you can see why the Battle of Britain was the crucial point in the war, and how the RAF saved Britain, and to an extent the world, from being subjugated by the Nazis. (Obviously I could go into a lot more detail but this is just a brief explanation).

 

I agree, if Britain fell, there would be little to stop the Germanys and America could no way produce enough atom bombs in time to deal with the threat. I don't even think their bombers could reach main land Europe?

 

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users