Did the British bomb their display?




 
--
 
July 16th, 2017  
George
 

Topic: Did the British bomb their display?


http://www.thedailybeast.com/did-bri...t-us-into-wwii

Or just another conspiracy theory
July 16th, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
An interesting theory but then most conspiracies are.
One thing I was taught when looking into these sorts of things was to apply one criteriainitially and ask yourself "Whats in it for me".

From the British point of view it is an incredibly risky venture that could have backfired horribly but Churchill was a gambler and the lives of others mean't very little to him, Galipolli shows us that.

From the German point of view, they had nothing to gain. Killing the citizens of a neutral power that had vast resources to line up against them just to blow up a meaningless enemy display would not have been a smart move, but then the Germans made a lot of "not very smart" moves during WW2.

Given there really wasn't much to be gained by either side I am going with conspiracy.
July 17th, 2017  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
but Churchill was a gambler and the lives of others mean't very little to him, Galipolli shows us that.

.
Galipolli was a brilliant concept, using Battleships that were escapees from the scrapyard. Operators dropped the ball.
--
July 18th, 2017  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Galipolli was a brilliant concept, using Battleships that were escapees from the scrapyard. Operators dropped the ball.
Gallipolli was a brilliant concept, however where does the blame lay for its failure, Churchill, troops on the ground, senior officers, logistics the Royal Navy???

IF the operation had been successful Churchill would have been hailed as a brilliant tactician and feted for weeks if not months. However, as the operation failed he was castigated by all and sundry and hung out to dry.
July 18th, 2017  
George
 
The plan was to force the Dardanelles, sail to Istanbul & end Turkey's participation. From what I remember the minesweepers were manned by inexperienced Reservists who botched the job. Aircraft could see the mines but had no effective way of communicating with the ships. The Turkish forts were about out of ammo when the fleet gave up, but obviously had no way of knowing.
July 19th, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
Portholes on submarines to let the water out also sounds like a great idea until you try and implement them.

I have yet to find any idea where you dumped an army on a beach surrounded by hills and cliffs hundreds of miles from your supply bases and with rudimentary resupply and logistics capability that was a resounding success.

What you are describing above is not a plan for success as the Allies must have known they had no way to communicate with aircraft and that they were using poorly trained, inexperienced reservists to carry out crucial tasks it was a half-hearted, half-baked plan dreamed up by a loud mouth who firmly believed that the Turks were not capable of resisting the allied forces and would capitulate at the first opportunity.

As for who is to blame, well given that the Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher and the Secretary of State for War, Field Marshal Earl Kitchener came out against the plan I am pretty certain it is Churchill that wears the blame for the debacle.
July 19th, 2017  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Portholes on submarines to let the water out also sounds like a great idea until you try and implement them.

I have yet to find any idea where you dumped an army on a beach surrounded by hills and cliffs hundreds of miles from your supply bases and with rudimentary resupply and logistics capability that was a resounding success.
The Falklands springs to mind, although it was close to becoming a debacle.

I still believe the concept of the Galipolli campaign was a good idea, I don't think the blame could be laid totally at the feet of Churchill.

The same could be said of the Arnhem drop, if it had succeeded it could have shortened the war. Montgomerys reputation took a hell of a battering after its failure.
July 19th, 2017  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I have yet to find any idea where you dumped an army on a beach surrounded by hills and cliffs hundreds of miles from your supply bases and with rudimentary resupply and logistics capability that was a resounding success.

What you are describing above is not a plan for success as the Allies must have known they had no way to communicate with aircraft and that they were using poorly trained, inexperienced reservists to carry out crucial tasks .

.
The landing was a fall back & not part of the original plan. Using Reservists was the fault of who ever is in charge of manning ships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
I still believe the concept of the Galipolli campaign was a good idea, I don't think the blame could be laid totally at the feet of Churchill.

The same could be said of the Arnhem drop, if it had succeeded it could have shortened the war. Montgomerys reputation took a hell of a battering after its failure.
According to the book " A bridge too far" the final exam @ the Dutch Military College is an attack on Arnhem. Anyone who tries it the way the Allies did automatically fails the exam! We apparently didn't even bother to ask the Dutch how to invade their own country.
July 19th, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
The Falklands springs to mind, although it was close to becoming a debacle.
In part, I agree, however, there was little other option with the Falklands.
Essentially it was invade or surrender it to the Argentinians, once the decision to fight for it was made its location was always going to be a nightmare for logistics but a large part of that was offset by the quality of the troops being sent.

Gallipoli, on the other hand, didn't need to be fought, the pretence that it was to supply Russia was nonsensical as they barely had enough resources to supply the Western front and there were shorter ways of shipping supplies to Russia anyway as WW2 indicated.


Quote:
I still believe the concept of the Galipolli campaign was a good idea, I don't think the blame could be laid totally at the feet of Churchill.
Who else can you lay the blame on?
The two senior British leaders (Secretary of State for war and the head of the Navy) said the plan was unfeasible, none of the Generals involved were enthusiastic and Churchill had to go around those who would normally make the decision to get it through.

He is the only one to blame for it.

Quote:
The same could be said of the Arnhem drop, if it had succeeded it could have shortened the war. Montgomery's reputation took a hell of a battering after its failure.
So it should have, they ignored intelligence, the Dutch themselves and the collective knowledge of 5 years of war and charged into a situation that essentially cost them a division.

See I am not a Monty fan either, I tend to see him as an overblow, pompous prick whos reputation was built on the destruction of other peoples careers and by claiming their successes as his own (for example Auchinleck, in my opinion, should have been given the victory at Alamein as it was his plan), where left to his own devices he was a failure (Caen, Sicily, Arnhem).

Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Galipolli was a brilliant concept, using Battleships that were escapees from the scrapyard. Operators dropped the ball.
One of the quotes I recall (but have never been able to verify) was basically Churchill was being spoken to about the loss of ships in the straights and his reply was essentially "What does it matter we can always build more ships".
He essentially didn't give a rats arse about the men on those ships.
July 20th, 2017  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB

One of the quotes I recall (but have never been able to verify) was basically Churchill was being spoken to about the loss of ships in the straights and his reply was essentially "What does it matter we can always build more ships".
He essentially didn't give a rats arse about the men on those ships.
Don't know about the quote, but he knew the pre-Dreadnoughts were obsolete & pretty much useless in a naval battle, but could pull off his plan. As far as not caring about the lives of the crews, you could have a fleet wiped out in any endeavor during war, but especially when you look at in context of the massive casualties that the Army was suffering (useless "Over the top" attacks, for instance) his plan could have saved a lot of later misery, besides the Galipolli standoff , but things like Kut, for instance..
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
How Would You Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
Tom Gross on the forgotten Rachels
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis
counter? anti?