You can all argue until you're blue in the face and you'll never change Sam’s mind.
The outcome of WWII is what it is. Trying to determine whose contribution was greater is nonsense. Too many lives were lost, on all sides, and too many emotional scars left open for anybody to claim to be an absolute winner. Everybody loses with war, it isn't a particularly nice thing to have to engage in and it certainly can't be trivialised by arguing about who made the biggest contribution.

Without Britain remaining free there would have been no allied landing in France. Without the United States the enormous amounts of equipment needed by all allied powers would not have been there. Without the Soviet Union holding down and wearing down in the east, Germany didn't have the resources to repel the sea-borne invasions in the West. This also permitted the other allies to allocate resources for a full-scale operation against Japan, which is also often mistakenly thought of as a side show.

If and buts cannot replace the facts that it was an Allied effort that lead to the downfall of Germany and Japan - period.

World War 2 belongs to history now. Who won what is not all that important more, but how to prevent another one and eradicate Hitler-like leaders from this planet.

Nice one, Der Alte. Fine and true, fitting history as I remember. Thank you .

sam has never worn a uniform or marched in the boots that many on here have, he has never been fed up and far from home, sometimes thousands of miles away like many of us have, he has never felt the gut wrenching fear.

I for one, am sick and tired of his constant bleating, Britain should have done this, or Britain didn't do that. He has no idea what sacrifices that the British people made during those dark years. Until he fully understands what Britain really contributed he should shut his damn mouth and LISTEN to what people are telling him who were THERE.

The freedom he has, has been at a heavy cost, men and nationalities that he is so fond of criticising. I shall look down on him and treat him like the moronic cretin he is.

I served Britain and I am proud to have done so and proud of the units I have served in.

Can there be more Blitzkrieg than that of Attila, Genghis, etc,?
The Mongols used sometimes 5 horses per man, so they could travel 24/7, sleeping on the saddle and pouncing on unsuspecting cities and towns hundreds of miles away. A gallopping archer has a surprisingly stable platform, can shoot 10 arrows per minute accurately and is a difficult target for a stationary archer or for a slow, armoured knight. The main reason the Mongols didn't take over Europe is that every time the khan died they had to return to Mongolia to crown the new khan.
Compare the lightning Mongol conquest of Russia with a few tens of thousands of riders with the crawling pace of a half million of Napoleon and even of the millions of troops of Hitler.
The Vikings, Attila, the Mongols, etc, did not even have to occupy a country, they simply extorted tribute and if payment was delayed they caused so much damage in a quick campaign that tribute would be paid again.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

The allies have a half million troops in the Dunkirk pockets that can be easily supplied by the huge allied navy (French+British+Dutch+Norwegian, etc,) across the English Channel....

The Norwegian navy at the outbreak of WW II would have served little purpose at Dunkirk, with few exceptions it consisted of coal fired, steam propelled vessels predating WW I and lacking basic modern equipment like anti-aircraft guns and up to date radio-sets.
The Norwegian navy was reequipped with modern vessels during the WW II, but the main contribution was the large Norwegian merchant fleet.

And no, it couldn't have done much at Dunkirk either, since it was spread out all over the world at that time.

Hi 84RFK,
The Norwegian merchant fleet was quite large and could have certainly contributed to supply Dunkirk, as was the Greek merchant fleet which also helped Britain after Greece fell. In contrast, Mussolini declared war without warning his merchant fleet and promptly lost 1/4 of his ships to the allies, shrinking considerably the already weak axis fleet.

Hi Alte
Of course nothing will change what happened. The idea is to try to evaluate the events so we can appreciate the achievements and mistakes of all the people involved. It is not my intention to denigrate the British people and troops who had to face very difficult times. I am simply trying to point out their leaders incompetence, which just like in the case of Hitler caused most of the debacles, wasting fabulous resources and too many lives.
Although the German and Japanese aggression was wrong and caused most of the world far too much suffering. One can't help to be amazed at the efficiency with which they fought, in contrast to the inefficiency on the far richer and more populated allied side.

Why not stop pissing against the wind for a lost cause; believe it or not, WW11 is over and your supermen had the **** kicked out of them by those useless incompetants and they didn't clear the first hurdle - Great Britain.

Just google 'WW11' and check it out.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Hi 84RFK,
The Norwegian merchant fleet was quite large and could have certainly contributed to supply Dunkirk, as was the Greek merchant fleet which also helped Britain after Greece fell. In contrast, Mussolini declared war without warning his merchant fleet and promptly lost 1/4 of his ships to the allies, shrinking considerably the already weak axis fleet.

Hi Alte
Of course nothing will change what happened. The idea is to try to evaluate the events so we can appreciate the achievements and mistakes of all the people involved. It is not my intention to denigrate the British people and troops who had to face very difficult times. I am simply trying to point out their leaders incompetence, which just like in the case of Hitler caused most of the debacles, wasting fabulous resources and too many lives.
Although the German and Japanese aggression was wrong and caused most of the world far too much suffering. One can't help to be amazed at the efficiency with which they fought, in contrast to the inefficiency on the far richer and more populated allied side.

I will agree with you in part, the purpose of these forums is to discuss "what if's" because to a large degree that is all there is to talk about as the history is already writen.

I also think a lot of people are making the mistake of refusing to look at the recorded history in a different light other than the official version which is also sad because it is only now that documents are becoming available for analysis by the average Joe.

However you need to stop being so extreme, yes we know all the major leaders made mistakes but making mistakes doesnt make you incompetent, not learning from those mistakes and repeating them does.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Hi Alte
Of course nothing will change what happened. The idea is to try to evaluate the events so we can appreciate the achievements and mistakes of all the people involved. It is not my intention to denigrate the British people and troops who had to face very difficult times. I am simply trying to point out their leaders incompetence, which just like in the case of Hitler caused most of the debacles, wasting fabulous resources and too many lives.
Although the German and Japanese aggression was wrong and caused most of the world far too much suffering. One can't help to be amazed at the efficiency with which they fought, in contrast to the inefficiency on the far richer and more populated allied side.

I understand. But as I've said before; History provides understanding, not proof. History provides insight, not analogy.

You will need to critically evaluate the available sources related to your chosen topic. Secondary sources are historical works that offer interpretations of historical evidence and debates, and usually (but not always) draw on some combination of primary sources, and the interpretations of other historians, to support a particular argument. A secondary source is usually in the published form of a book or periodical article from a scholarly journal. A primary source is usually an actual or facsimile record or document from the period under study, for example, newspapers, census records, letters, photographs, or films. Once you have chosen a suitable history research topic and begun your research, you will need to critically evaluate the relevant secondary and primary sources to which you gain access. Historians make arguments and offer interpretations of the past events and available evidence; you need to assess which arguments you find persuasive and articulate why one interpretation seems more plausible than another. Primary material also requires careful scrutiny. Documents do not speak for themselves-if they did, there would be no need for historians. A document from the period under study often reflects the perspective or position of its writer or compiler; primary sources, like secondary sources, need to be assessed rather than simply accepted at face value.

In the beginning of the war the Germans were well equipped, well trained, well led, and our government was 100% behind us. Most European countries still thought with the mindset of WW1. Also remember that the German Wehrmacht had a long standing professional officer corps that had experience going back to the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 and that morale remained high, due in part to the Hitler Youth program, which placed emphasis on nationalistic ideals and group loyalty; personal loyalty to Hitler was above all. The Wehrmacht gained a reputation as an unbeatable foe, and the endurance of the German soldier was legendary. The stereotype was so powerful that even in 1944 some Allied troops feared attacking German units without total numerical supremacy.

There are many reasons for failure in war, such as the lack of training, technological inferiority, the lack of proper intelligence, equipment, failure of logistical support, ineffective flow of information and communication as well as the destruction of morale. However, those factors are external to the leader, whereas military incompetence is an inherent fault in military leadership. All else being equal, a well-equipped, well-trained fighting force will be made ineffective by the presence of an incompetent leader, and no amount of military intelligence, regardless of how accurate and timely it is, will be used effectively by an incompetent general. Therefore it is clear that a military leader is one of the most important force multipliers of any military organisation.

Allied Armed Forces were able to learn from their mistakes and made the necessary adjustments to match the Axis powers' proficiency at the art of war, conversely, Germany's and Japan's Armed Forces did not improve their performance apreciably after their initial successes. But the only thing certain about war is that nothing is certain about war.

Yes, that's what I meant to say.