Member
Actually it's the yanks that say that not us Brits, I get fed up with hearing how we would supposedly all be speaking ****ing German if it wasn't for the US. None here in the UK doubts Americas massive contribution to the War effort but the tide had turned against Germany before the US got involved. America's involvement in WW2 served to end the war much earlier, without America it would have rumbled on into the 1950s.Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
As long as we are "revising" history...
I'm somewhat bemused by the posts crediting the Brits with "saving" the Yanks' backsides at D-Day, giving them all that lovely anti-U-boat technology, etc. How about if the Brits [and the French] had not ****ed things up in the first place? In other words, no Rhineland re-occupation, no Munich sell-out and so forth. How about if Britain and France had some balls and did not need the Yanks at all to clean up their Euro-mess [again!]?
I just love how the Brits are credited with winning the war all on their own. I mean, really, if you want to take credit for winning the war, how about taking the blame for allowing the rise of the Nazis? Who was it that actually kept Britain alive... you know, Lend-Lease, destroyers for bases, etc.?
I'm not a Brit basher, but I will not sit idly by and hear the Yanks get lambasted again.
Member
the reason so many soldiers were evacuated:
"General Gerd von Rundstedt had doubts about the agressive tactics of Heinz Guderian and argued that his tanks should halt until infantry divisions could catch up so that a conventional assault could be made on Allied troops. Adolf Hitler agreed and this decision stopped Guderian cutting off the escape of the British and French troops from Dunkirk."
"Despite attacks from German fighter and bomber planes, the Wehrmacht never launched a full-scale attack on the beaches of Dunkirk. Panzer tank crews awaited the order from Hitler but it never came. In his memoirs, Field Marshall Rundstadt, the German commander-in-chief in France during the 1940 campaign, called Hitler's failure to order a full-scale attack on the troops on Dunkirk his first fatal mistake of the war. That 330,000 soldiers were evacuated from the beaches at Dunkirk would seem to uphold this view."
"One of the reasons put forward for Hitler not ordering an attack was that he believed that Britain had suffered from the might of the Wehrmacht once and that this experience would be sufficient for Britain to come to peace terms with Hitler. The total destruction of the British Expeditionary Force might have created such a climate of revenge in Britain that our involvement would be prolonged. That is one idea put forward for why Hitler did not order a full-scale attack on the beaches of Dunkirk - however, we will never know the true reason."
Allied loses:
68,000 casualties including
34,000 captured
9 destroyers and 200+ other vessels sunk
177 planes shot down
Enemy loses:
? killed
132 planes shot down
I dont know how many Luftwaffe planes were involved but Hermann Göring had promised air power alone could win the battle.
Senior Member
Yes, I am aware that the Americans often portray themselves as having won the war themselves. No argument there. As a Canadian I am for too aware of that fact. Our own efforts are often underemphasized. Had such an invasion taken place, it is most likely that Canadian troops would have played a prominent part, in that we had at least one fully equipped division in England at that time.
When discussing the American participation in the war, it seems that only their formal part in the war, i.e. December 1941 and onward is considered. America was much more involved in the war prior to that date. Yes, agreed, Britain kept the war going until such time as the full might of the Allies could be brought to bear. However, if the U.S. had strictly observed neutrality, it is open to debate whether Britain could have survived.
I disagree that the tide had turned against the Germans prior to the formal participation of the U.S. What was the situation to that date? Germany was at the gates of Moscow, Rommel was pressing toward Egypt and the U-boats were harrassing the Atlantic lifeline, whilst nightly the Luftwaffe were blitzing London and other English cities. As with Britain, the USSR also received substantial aid in the form of foodstuffs and supplies vital to their war effort. Again, not the decisive factor, but a significant contribution to assist the USSR's survival until her own industry could mobilize fully.
As to speaking German... highly unlikely. Hitler had no designs on British real estate. Had he succeeded in occupying Britain or enforcing her neutrality, England as a country and English as the language would have survived. I wonder in light of what has happened since if this really would have been as bad as it has been made out to be. Would having to speak German be any worse than having to speak Punjabi, etc. if things carry on?
Member
I believe that is incorrect. If memory serves me correctly, what happened was that a german bomber got lost and off course during a night bombing. It dropped it's bombs on London by accident. Previous to this, Hitler had given orders for the cities to be avoided. Enraged by the bombing of London, Churchill ordered a bombing raid on a german city as retaliation for the bombing of London. This, of course, infuriated Hitler, who then gave Goering the ok to start bombing British cities, thus alleviating the pressure on the airfields and RAF. It could not have happened at a more opportune time, for it was estimated that the RAF had about 2 weeks of fighting left.Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
Germany never did know that the forward airfields were nearly wiped out. That's why Goring switched to bombing London, in order to flush the British fighters into the air and try to finish them there.
This is all from memory, so I may be wrong, but that seems to be what I recall.
Senior Member
Yes, Fiz, that's how it happened. A "fortunate" accident of war for Fighter Command, but not for the cities. While Goring's reaction was petulant, it did have the desired effect of drawing the fighters to the defence of London, once the British realized that was now the target. For the Luftwaffe it was, as postwar analysis revealed, a strategic mistake.
Senior Member
Yes, sounds about right to me.
I have recently finished a fantastic book about the Battle of Britian called "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay. It is perhaps the best book I have read on the subject and goes into depth of all the subjects involved with the battle.
You could say that the decision to bomb London was a political one to avenge the attack on Berlin, almost a Hitler vs Churchill showdown.
It sometimes annoys me, and I can tell from previous posts, when certain countries say "They won the war" - I would disagree. The "Team" won the war, every country no matter how small played a role in the downfall of such an evil regime. General Eisenhower was such an advocate of the "team" ethos, which maybe stems from his love of American Football - being the ultimate team game. He was able to fuse together that winning team from personalities that never saw eye to eye such as Monty who always annoyed his peers with his aloofness.
Being a Brit I am thankful for my own countrymen's sacrifice and for those of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.....etc - Everyone played a part and for those who paid the ultimate sacrifice so that WE can enjoy life today - it's sometimes annoying that people don't appreciate the things we have today!
Senior Member
U.S. B-36 bombers would have nuked Germany into radioactive **** starting in 1946.Originally posted by WirMussen:
today has marked the 65th anniversary of the battle of britain, but something i often think about is what would of happened if operation sealion went ahead and succeded?
firstly, would the british government have dissolved along with the armies, or, would britians' government become another 'government in exile' and continued the fight in north africa?
secondly, d-day, would the americans in 1942 concentrate on japan instead of the nazis, or would they attempt an invasion at another location (churchill saw the threat posed by the soviets and wanted the original invasion to be around greece to limit the amount of land the soviets could gain)? but with the possibility of britain being out of the war they would have little if no influence (though that case can be argued with britain in the war).
i know this question cant have a definate answer as it is a 'what if' scenario, but thanks ahead for any input or thoughts on the matter.
Germany was never close to getting the A-bomb. U.S. still gets it first and wins.
The important thing to remember is that Germany was fatally handicapped by its system of government and Hitler himself.
Member
Hitler was in the process of making a nuclear bomb before USA, there design was based around the use of 'heavy water', and they had captured a plant that produced 'heavy water' in Telemark, Norway, which led to an allied commando raids (mainly norwegians who knew the area), which resulted in the plant being put out of action (early 1943).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegi...water_sabotage
So america being the first to make the bomb with an occupied britain is not a certainty.
Senior Member
Im not quite sure you could call American involvement prior to Germanies declaration of war help. America was paid (extortionate amounts) for the destroyers and food was not aid, it was food/equipment Britain was purchasing, as the Soviet union had. Just wanted to clear that up as many get confused about Lend lease which is a misnomer.
Aid in my mind would have been troops, free food. Free ships, can you call aid something you pay for?
My comment about the landings mentioned nothing of Britain saving America at D-day, only that it was planned and finalised by Britain (monty). I was using it as an example of what might have been had britain been out of the war, with the way the American beach landings went and also the subsequent American Air drops.
Im not anti US. Nice to see you had the usual comments of Britain and France being bailed out by the US though.
But back on topic.
As for those B-36's are you forgetting the Jet interceptors which Germany now has? Coupled with Radar which it would have got from Conquered Britain, mounted on those interceptors
Senior Member
Now now.. Germany would not have invaded ALL of Europe, should Britain have falled. You lot seem to forget the few neutral nations on the continent!
Let's say though that Britain was invaded by Germany, with the government fleeing to Canada. The cost would have been immense to the aggressors though. Who would've benefited? The Soviet union of course! They would probably have been on German soil in 1943. Germany would have had access to Britain's impressive war industry and possibly without the constant bombing of German cities..
Unless the USSR had agreed on letting their allies fly bombing missions from their occupied territories (which by 1954 would've included the whole of Germany, Austria and France).
Anyway, the commonwealth would've been rather keen on getting their home islands back, and so an invasion of Britain from the west would've been planned (via Iceland-Norway-Britain) by ~1944.
In the meanwhile, the USA now finding themselves in a position where they must engage Germans from the east, west and south of Europe, while pressing back the Japanese in the pacific, realise the Manhattan project could very well be the key to quickly ending the war. British and Polish scientists in exile build a marvellous long-range jet bomber capable of delivering a nuclear device to either Europe or Japan from Canada (not risking shipping these miracle weapons to the USSR).
In 1947 or 48, the bombs are dropped. First on Berlin (as Germany is still the stronger of the two enemies) and then Tokyo. From there, a complicated and bloody guerilla war rages roughly a decade until Europe and Oceania look about the same again.
Yeah, that's what I reckon.
+ The ending of The man in the high castle is a major disappointment.
And the quality of the US tanks and planes can be discussed.. the Lee/Grant and Wildcat were absolute rubbish.
