The German campaign of conquering Britain
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Haha even if you could successfully argue that he was forced into a war with the west it would be hard to argue he wasn't prepared to slaughter everything he could find in the east which really doesn't make him a good candidate for a Nobel prize.
As far as the rest of this thread goes I am still stuck on one major question:
Had Germany not invaded Poland would Britain and France have attacked Germany at some stage and everything I have read to date says no they wouldn't have they simply were not in a position to do so which means that for whatever reason the invasion of Poland remains the trigger point.
Does this mean the British and French really wanted peace well some did and some didn't I think it would be hard to imagine Chamberlain wanting war but I think it clear Churchill did he just wasn't in a position to fire the first shot.
quote=Ollie Garchy;331505]How about Poland?
..'.Poland committed suicide.'
O - nicely put Ollie!! Hard thing to do, that!
Just about sums up the Nazi ideology. End of argument I think.
'Oops - O look, Poland, you've gone and committed suicide there! Can we help, by razing Warsaw to the ground perhaps, to ensure it never rises again? There you go Poland.'
*
OllieGarchy – you claim that cannot understand this post. That my English is too bad for your wonderful intellect to comprehend.
Furthermore you presented a Chinese reference that was clearly racist.
So I am pleased to interpret my delicate post in simple English which will reach down to you and make my meaning absolutely clear even to you with your blind denial of the shocking evil of the Hitler regime you support and give succour to the memory of, under cover pretending to take part in a debate on the military conflicts of WW11.
You claim that America was responsible for the war. You claim that America wanted WW11. You claim that Britain wanted WW11. You claim that Britain was responsible for WW11. You claim that Hitler and his regime were not evil. You claim that Hitler and his regime were only a bit evil. You claim that, well, Hitler was not as evil as Stalin , as proof of Hitler not being evil.
In order to do this, your ploy is try to overwhelm the thread with masses of info dragged from the net, so that concentrating on individual points becomes difficult to keep up with, for many.
You accompany this mass of various theory and opinion with your own conclusions, which are invariably red-herring propaganda, lies and misinterpretations .
I spot these as they appear, and present information to expose them as the lies they are, in order that they do not become established as historically correct.
This dirty work of yours necessitates your removing from the scene the historian, the man, with the most accurate inside knowledge of the time, Winston Churchill.
Therefore you continually denigrate, abuse, and engage in the character assassination of this great man.
You seek to prevent his words being heard .
In your efforts to launder Hitler and his regime, you expose yourself as a supporter, and this becomes clear often, as , for example, when you talk of Poland’ committing suicide.’
In plain words, they brought their own terrible destruction upon themselves. It was their own fault. What Hitler did to Poland was Poland’s fault.
In plain Enlglish, you think like a Nazi, you talk like a Nazi. You are what you are. Don’t hide beneath this cloak of respectability. Do you understand that English language?
..'.Poland committed suicide.'
O - nicely put Ollie!! Hard thing to do, that!
Just about sums up the Nazi ideology. End of argument I think.
'Oops - O look, Poland, you've gone and committed suicide there! Can we help, by razing Warsaw to the ground perhaps, to ensure it never rises again? There you go Poland.'
*
OllieGarchy – you claim that cannot understand this post. That my English is too bad for your wonderful intellect to comprehend.
Furthermore you presented a Chinese reference that was clearly racist.
So I am pleased to interpret my delicate post in simple English which will reach down to you and make my meaning absolutely clear even to you with your blind denial of the shocking evil of the Hitler regime you support and give succour to the memory of, under cover pretending to take part in a debate on the military conflicts of WW11.
You claim that America was responsible for the war. You claim that America wanted WW11. You claim that Britain wanted WW11. You claim that Britain was responsible for WW11. You claim that Hitler and his regime were not evil. You claim that Hitler and his regime were only a bit evil. You claim that, well, Hitler was not as evil as Stalin , as proof of Hitler not being evil.
In order to do this, your ploy is try to overwhelm the thread with masses of info dragged from the net, so that concentrating on individual points becomes difficult to keep up with, for many.
You accompany this mass of various theory and opinion with your own conclusions, which are invariably red-herring propaganda, lies and misinterpretations .
I spot these as they appear, and present information to expose them as the lies they are, in order that they do not become established as historically correct.
This dirty work of yours necessitates your removing from the scene the historian, the man, with the most accurate inside knowledge of the time, Winston Churchill.
Therefore you continually denigrate, abuse, and engage in the character assassination of this great man.
You seek to prevent his words being heard .
In your efforts to launder Hitler and his regime, you expose yourself as a supporter, and this becomes clear often, as , for example, when you talk of Poland’ committing suicide.’
In plain words, they brought their own terrible destruction upon themselves. It was their own fault. What Hitler did to Poland was Poland’s fault.
In plain Enlglish, you think like a Nazi, you talk like a Nazi. You are what you are. Don’t hide beneath this cloak of respectability. Do you understand that English language?
Last edited:
Doppleganger
Active member
Sorry Del Boy just being childish.
Doppleganger
Active member
Very good question Monty. I also wonder what would have happened had the Soviet Union invaded Poland first. If we assume that a Soviet preemptive strike against Nazi Germany was almost inevitable, then the Soviets have to do something with that country that just happens to be in the way. I think though that it was almost impossible to conceive that Germany would not do something regarding Poland, given the question of the Danzig corridor and East Prussia. Hitler would never have left these questions alone.
senojekips
Active member
I guess these people also specifically asked for a bomber designed to bomb Germany, and named the project the "Germany" Bomber. In my mind and also the minds of anyone with an ounce of "nouse" this quite clearly shows Adolph's intentions, and He later spoke of this at great length. The specifications for this bomber were that it should carry a three ton bomb load, and get to America and back without the need to re-fuel.
My answer was to indicate the fallacy of your "no expansion to the east" policy, nothing to do with Britain's or America's supposed intentions.
At this time the main bomber in service in England was the Armstrong Whitley a cloth and string bi-plane, as for fighter aircraft many units were still flying the Hart bi plane, this is hardly the air force of a country that intends to go to war with anyone, let alone Germany, a country that was known to have dis-regarded the Versailles Treaty and was building a "modern" Army, Navy and Air force. It was not until Hitler's expansionist policies were announced that Britain started to re-arm.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]BEHOLD THE MAN - OLLIEGARCHY'S HERO - THE CREATOR OF WW11.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]May 22, 2003, 10:50 a.m.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hitler’s Control[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The lessons of Nazi history.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]By Dave Kopel & Richard Griffiths [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
his week's CBS miniseries Hitler: The Rise of Evil tries to explain the conditions that enabled a manifestly evil and abnormal individual to gain total power and to commit mass murder. The CBS series looks at some of the people whose flawed decisions paved the way for Hitler's psychopathic dictatorship: Hitler's mother who refused to recognize that her child was extremely disturbed and anti-social; the judge who gave Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence after he committed high treason at the Beer Hall Putsch; President Hindenburg and the Reichstag delegates who (except for the Social Democrats) who acceded to Hitler's dictatorial Enabling Act rather than forcing a crisis (which, no matter how bad the outcome, would have been far better than Hitler being able to claim legitimate power and lead Germany toward world war).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious about "Never again," then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, the world's foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might be able to kill even more people even more rapidly.[/FONT]
riting in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabres.
COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]May 22, 2003, 10:50 a.m.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hitler’s Control[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The lessons of Nazi history.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]By Dave Kopel & Richard Griffiths [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious about "Never again," then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, the world's foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might be able to kill even more people even more rapidly.[/FONT]
riting in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabres.
COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
Last edited:
BEHOLD THE MAN WHO STOPPED HIM.
This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man.
COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man.
COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
Ollie Garchy
Active member
Sorry for having been so sarcastic. Delboy is having a certain negative impact on me. The point you raised was fine. But now I will have to disappoint you, a bit.
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum"
(Let him who desires peace prepare for war)
Vegetius
(Let him who desires peace prepare for war)
Vegetius
(1) The RAF & War: "It must be remembered", wrote John Terraine in a chapter devoted to the rise of strategic bombing concepts in Britain, "that from its earliest days the RAF had conceived itself to be an offensive instrument". The Air power pundits like Trenchard used Germany as the model for strategic bombing planning during the 1920s and 1930s. They thought about how the destruction of certain industrial targets like steel manufacturing would impact the overall economy.
(2) 1930s Numbers: John Terraine quotes most of the top experts like Richard Overy or Brian Bond in attempting to understand the issue of "parity" during the 1930s. According to Overy, "the great disparity of forces believed to have existed in the air was a myth". British and French air reserves were not as minimal as the average person believed in the 1930s or 1940s. Here are just the British stats. It is important to realize that the British WITHHELD most of their air power during the battle for France in 1940.
Total Military Aircraft
Year German British
1938 5,235 2,827
1939 8,295 7,940
1940 10,826 15,049
On the ground, things did not look much better for the Germans. Terraine even cites Churchill's point of view to demonstrate that his public proclamations and accusations were nothing more than hot air. "The German armies", Churchill wrote, "were not capable of defeating the French in 1938 or 1939". If war is only determined by numbers, Churchill would have been right.
Battle of France 1940: Relative Strength of Major Combatants
Germany France Britain Allied*
Divisions 143 114 15 152
Artillery 7,500 10,700 1,280 13,974
Armour 2,493 3,254 640 3,894
*The number of divisions and artillery pieces includes forces from Belgium and Holland.
(3) Germany: Germany did not develop a strategic bombing force at all during the 1930s and had none during WWII. You can draw any conclusions that you want. But the important thing to realize is that British bombers were larger, more difficult to produce, and could carry larger bomb loads. Look, I have been to the air power museum near London -- Hendon, I think -- and have seen this for myself. German bombers like the Ju 88 were designed for a tactical role.
(4) Versailles: No German was morally obligated to fulfill any aspect of the Versailles Treaty. It had to be enforced through Allied coercion and a total disrespect for international law. No coercion. No compliance. It was that simple. For the love of God, why do you think that Germans had to abide by the provisions of Versailles? Because France believed it was the right thing to do?
John Terraine, A Time for Courage (1985).
[P.S. Delboy, stop using the results of WWII to justify its origins. In any case, most of Rummel's millions died through deprivation and starvation. These deaths were caused by (1) Stalin's scorched earth policy, (2) Hitler's scorched earth policy, and (3) strategic bombing. Attributing all WWII deaths to Hitler is a farce. The REAL murder total for Hitler was about 10-11 million. The Simon Wiesenthal Center and Yad Vashem agree with me on this. Even if you accept Rummel's numbers, why did the western Allies align themselves with a regime that killed 61 million people?]
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB1.1.GIF
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
Ollie, I have moved your paragraphs about to make my answer a little more lucid.
This is something that I have wondered about, but never really queried. Not being au fait with German industry and its interaction with the High Command at that time, I merely wrote it off as a preference of those making the decisions. It was not unknown for Adolph to step in and over ride the decisions of his High Command (e.g. the usage of the Me-262) and could well have been the result of this type of decision.
I do not wish to start a further debate about the Treaty of Versailles as it has been done to death, and I think we all have our own opinions of it. I personally think that it was a "punishment" thing and not in the best interests of anyone least of all the German people. However, it was a "legal" document and was signed (perhaps under extreme duress) on behalf of the German people. Therefore there is no legitimate excuse for it being disregarded. Perhaps Adolph would have been far better served by using his considerable powers of persuasion to get the Brits and others onside and get the Treaty repealed??
Yep, I support this wholeheartedly. Unless of course one is prohibited from this by a previous agreement. (The Treaty)
I can understand this, with the Brits having only recently been involved in a very costly and bloody war with Germany. Also I feel that they viewed Germany as the only "real" possible threat in their post WWI sphere of influence. As per your quote above "Qui desiderat pacem" etc.
Yes, once again I do not dispute your figures. But that's all they were, figures. Most of the equipment was at the very best, obsolescent, and the Government of the day were to "financially embarrassed" to do anything about it.
This in itself, can be more of a problem than help, with disparities in command, right down through to such simple things as calibres of ammunition and languages.
This is something that I have wondered about, but never really queried. Not being au fait with German industry and its interaction with the High Command at that time, I merely wrote it off as a preference of those making the decisions. It was not unknown for Adolph to step in and over ride the decisions of his High Command (e.g. the usage of the Me-262) and could well have been the result of this type of decision.
Last edited:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]BEHOLD THE MAN - OLLIEGARCHY'S HERO - THE CREATOR OF WW11.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]May 22, 2003, 10:50 a.m.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hitler’s Control[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The lessons of Nazi history.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]By Dave Kopel & Richard Griffiths [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]his week's CBS miniseries Hitler: The Rise of Evil tries to explain the conditions that enabled a manifestly evil and abnormal individual to gain total power and to commit mass murder. The CBS series looks at some of the people whose flawed decisions paved the way for Hitler's psychopathic dictatorship: Hitler's mother who refused to recognize that her child was extremely disturbed and anti-social; the judge who gave Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence after he committed high treason at the Beer Hall Putsch; President Hindenburg and the Reichstag delegates who (except for the Social Democrats) who acceded to Hitler's dictatorial Enabling Act rather than forcing a crisis (which, no matter how bad the outcome, would have been far better than Hitler being able to claim legitimate power and lead Germany toward world war).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious about "Never again," then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, the world's foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might be able to kill even more people even more rapidly.[/FONT]
riting in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabres.
COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
this is the post to which Ollie was responding,by the way,and it is perfectly legitimate. if anyone feels it is off-topic, I am quite prepared to defend it and my other strategies on this thread.
COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
Ollie Garchy
Active member
Strategic Bombing:
First of all, thanks for keeping this civilized. I'll stick to quickly answering this point -- from memory, and then just add a brief comment about "legality" in international relations.
As far as I remember, and anyone can add to this or correct me, certain elements of the German air ministry wanted to build a strategic bombing force during the 1930s. But Erhard Milch (proponent) and Ernst Udet (opponent) clashed over strategic air power principles. Göring decided to accept Udet's arguments for dive bombing and a predominantly tactical role.
Göring's decision was surprising. The fat oaf was a power-hungry tyrant who normally wanted as much authority as humanly possible. An independent strategic bombing arm would have boosted his already extensive influence at OKW. Furthermore, strategic bombing would have given him clear military independence and a good argument for increased state funding.
But, the German military and military allocation system did not plan for the waging of a "long war" -- a long, arduous and costly war of attrition in the 3rd dimension. While some ideas were bounced around and a few large bomber projects were weakly funded, the real money went into tactical operations and aircraft. When the war came in 1939, the Germans tried to use these machines in a semi-strategic sense and failed horribly.
Let me list various bombing raids, the general date and casualties so that you can judge the difference in Allied and German strategic bombing capabilities -- but only in terms of civilian casualties (ie. no economic data):
1. Guernica April 1937 (German Condor Legion) 1,600
2. Rotterdam May 1940 (Luftwaffe) 900
3. Coventry November 1940 (Luftwaffe) 554
4. Hamburg July 1943 (BC) 35,000
I want to explain these stats. At Coventry, for example, the Germans massed some 500 bombers. The British sent 353 Lancaster, 244 Halifaxes, 116 Stirlings and 74 Wellingtons against Hamburg. The British killing ratio per aircraft was therefore much higher due to the increased bomb tonnage per aircraft.
It must also be pointed out that average British raids were far less spectacular. Average raids consisted of only a few hundred aircraft and German civilian losses were between 0-500. But this was on a day to day basis. This state of affairs changed in 1945, however. Over half the bombs dropped on Germany fell in the last year of the war -- most after it was clear that Germany had lost the war. (ie. February-May 1945). The last deadly Allied raid: Bad Oldesloe, 25 April 1945, 700 Dead.
Versailles: The French signed the Treaty of Frankfurt (1871) and gave back Elsaß-Lothringen to Germany. They didn't accept the treaty and did everything in their power to regain control of the "lost" region -- of course, forgetting that they had stolen it from the HRE during the 30 Yrs War. Why is this important? It demonstrates that signing a treaty (as the vanquished) means nothing. Only the victor tries to assert the authority of such a document.
Power counts! And absolute power counts absolutely!
or
Whenever I hear the words international law, I reach for my revolver!
I took my stats from Grayling, but you can look at the Wiki:
AC Grayling, Among the Dead Cities (2006).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_deaths_by_aerial_bombing
Ollie Garchy
Active member
Reply to Delboy:
Stalin Killed 60 Million People. See, I win this argument. You lose. Accept it!
Stalin Killed 60 Million People. See, I win this argument. You lose. Accept it!
Last edited:
Your sole rejection of Hitler's utter evilness is always that Uncle Joe Stalin was worse. Please try not be such a clown.
You simply cannot throw off the Nazi cloak. I realise it must be hard. I/we/the world did not and will not lose this one.
Not on my watch!
( Can you understand this grammar, or do you want to insult the Chinese again. )
COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
Ollie Garchy
Active member
a) Ok Dr. Bubbles, your whole argument in support of Britain's preventive war rests on the moral classification of Hitler as evil. This argument is by definition a relative one, not to mention counterfactual. In any case, it rests on the fact that Hitler killed 11 to 20 million civilians. Since numbers now count, we have to look at the actions of other states. It was a bizarre fact of history that the Allies (ie. USSR) actually sat and judged Germans for war crimes after WWII. Stalin's regime killed 60 million. That is just too bizarre.
(b) take a look at Michael S. Bell's doctoral dissertation on the subject of Roosevelt. If you disagree with me, take it up with Bell's doctoral committee. They awarded him a Ph.D for his work. I am sure that they would have kicked you out had you been at the defense.
Wiki: "Roosevelt is also quoted as saying to Morgenthau that "We have got to be tough with the Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can't just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past" [24] At the Tehran Conference in late 1943, Stalin had proposed that at least 50,000 and perhaps 100,000 German officers should be executed. Roosevelt's son, Elliot, enthusiastically agreed. The President remarked that perhaps 49,000 should be enough When Churchill became enraged at these comments, Stalin quickly assured him that they were joking Roosevelt was presumably joking, but at the Yalta Conference the President said that he was feeling "very much more bloodthirsty towards Germany" than earlier and indicated that he hoped Stalin would again "propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German army"".
Furthermore, the Morgenthau Plan accepted the starvation of 20 million Germans as a consequence of deindustrialization.
(In other words, stop being a prat. Your use of Rummel, although totally inappropriate in a discussion of WWII origins, was at least a start).
(b) take a look at Michael S. Bell's doctoral dissertation on the subject of Roosevelt. If you disagree with me, take it up with Bell's doctoral committee. They awarded him a Ph.D for his work. I am sure that they would have kicked you out had you been at the defense.
Wiki: "Roosevelt is also quoted as saying to Morgenthau that "We have got to be tough with the Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can't just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past" [24] At the Tehran Conference in late 1943, Stalin had proposed that at least 50,000 and perhaps 100,000 German officers should be executed. Roosevelt's son, Elliot, enthusiastically agreed. The President remarked that perhaps 49,000 should be enough When Churchill became enraged at these comments, Stalin quickly assured him that they were joking Roosevelt was presumably joking, but at the Yalta Conference the President said that he was feeling "very much more bloodthirsty towards Germany" than earlier and indicated that he hoped Stalin would again "propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German army"".
Furthermore, the Morgenthau Plan accepted the starvation of 20 million Germans as a consequence of deindustrialization.
(In other words, stop being a prat. Your use of Rummel, although totally inappropriate in a discussion of WWII origins, was at least a start).
Last edited:
AlphaHound
Active member
Minor factor?
If the UK was a "Minor factor" in the defeat of Germany, then tell me this.
:tank:
If the UK was a "Minor factor" in the defeat of Germany, then tell me this.
- How far would the forces of freedom have had to travel to get to mainland France to invade? If the UK had been successfully invaded?
- Who gave technology to those forces (Asdic, Radar) to defend and attack U-Boats?
- Whose nation's Ambassador gave the UK only 2 weeks to hold out against Germany? and and was laughed at by the UK population?
- Who fough alone against Germany when the US was only interested in selling us "lend lease" (thank god for it though)!
- Who supplied the USSR with aircraft, supplies & knowhow & lost more men and merchant ships on the run to Murmansk? when the "Forces of Freedom" promised not to get involved?
- Who took delevery of the first Mustang variant and returned it to it's designers with engine improved & flight performance which they did not believe possible, which you now know as the P-51?
:tank:
Doppleganger
Active member
All of what you say is relevant but you (and me for that matter) would be typing English no matter who 'won' WWII. If a foreign language had ever been forced on the UK after WWII it is more likely to have been Russian than German. Nazi German foreign policy was looking ever east, not west. Also consider that it was Stalin's aim to turn the whole world red. A Soviet invasion of the UK would have been more likely than a German one IMO if events in Europe after 1941 had played out differently.
AlphaHound
Active member
Agreed mate! I got a little overheated reading posts from our US friends. It is not always easy keeping a level head, even on an old one!
Thank you
:cheers:
Thank you
:cheers: