PDA

View Full Version : Who Knew!



llotter
10-25-2011, 05:47 PM
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/184178_1632124917697_1073861966_31380636_7628367_n .jpg

Soflasnapper
10-25-2011, 06:07 PM
As it was Russia who defeated Germany, and the US next most responsible for that defeat (in part by supplying Russia for the 3 years or more it took us to get our forces in the European fight), Britain's role was not decisive.

Qtec
10-25-2011, 06:51 PM
Maybe not decisive in the FINAL moments but if not for the Brits, the world would be a different place.

Hitler tried invading, the Brits survived by a miracle.
He tried bombing them into surrender, its only made them more determined.

Without Britain, there would have been no Normandy invasion. No other place to mass troops. Between Ireland an New York there is only ocean.

The USA would have had to do a deal with Hitler and the Japanese..

Q

Soflasnapper
10-26-2011, 04:17 PM
Sorry, but that is bad history.

Hitler never tried to invade Britain so far as I remember. He had the opportunity to crush the British forces at Dunkirk, but intentionally allowed their escape. He sought a modus vivendi with GB, as the Rudolph Hess mission shows.

Nor did he order the Blitz over London until Britain had initiated bombing raids on civilian cities in Germany themselves. Hitler's move there was in revenge for that.

Yes, had he not diverted his attention to GB, and also to pulling Mussolini's fat out of the fire in his failed Ethiopian venture, he might have gotten to Operation Barbarossa sooner, and beat the winter somewhat.

cushioncrawler
10-26-2011, 07:53 PM
Yeah it appears Hitler lost when he switched from attacking GB airfields and planes to attacking citys.
Plus Hitler wasted time and resources in chasing a few heros in Yugoslavia.
mac.

Qtec
10-26-2011, 08:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The failure of Germany to achieve its objectives of destroying Britain's air defences, or forcing Britain to negotiate an armistice or an outright surrender, is considered its first major defeat and one of the crucial turning points in the war.[29] If Germany had gained air superiority over England, Adolf Hitler might have launched Operation Sea Lion, an amphibious and airborne invasion of Britain </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Operation Sea Lion (German: Unternehmen Seelöwe) was Germany's plan to invade the United Kingdom during the Second World War, beginning in 1940. To have had any chance of success, however, the operation would have required air and naval supremacy over the English Channel. With the German defeat in the <u>Battle of Britain</u>, Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940 and never carried out.[2]

</div></div>

Q

cushioncrawler
10-26-2011, 09:33 PM
Winston woz half yank.
Adolph woz half crank -- possibly 1/8 jew.

Both were soldiers and painters and authors.
Winston woz awarded a Victoria Cross. Adolf woz awarded an Iron Cross.

It woz a fair fight. But in hiz last days Adolf shot hizself. Winston didnt.
mac.

Qtec
10-27-2011, 01:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the war began on 1 September 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the neutral United States, issued an appeal to the major belligerents (Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Poland) to confine their air raids to military targets, and <u>"under no circumstances undertake bombardment from the air of civilian populations in unfortified cities" [22] The British and French agreed to abide by the request,</u> with the British reply undertaking to "confine bombardment to strictly military objectives upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all their opponents".[23] <u>Nazi Germany also agreed to abide by Roosevelt's request and explained the bombing of Warsaw as within the agreement because it was supposedly a fortified city—Germany did not have a policy of targeting enemy civilians as part of their doctrine prior to World War II.</u>[24][25]

The United Kingdom's policy was formulated on 31 August 1939: if Germany initiated unrestricted air action, the United Kingdom "should attack objectives vital to Germany's war effort, and in particular her oil resources". If Germany confined attacks to purely military targets, the RAF should "launch an attack on the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven" and "attack warships at sea when found within range".[26] The government communicated to their French allies the intention "not to initiate air action which might involve the risk of civilian casualties"[27]

While it was acknowledged bombing Germany would cause civilian casualties, <u>the British government renounced deliberate bombing of civilian property, outside combat zones, as a military tactic.</u>[28] <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The British changed their policy on 15 May 1940, one day after the German bombing of Rotterdam, when the RAF was given permission to attack targets in the Ruhr Area, including oil plants and other civilian industrial targets which aided the German war effort, such as blast furnaces that at night were self-illuminating.</span> The first RAF raid on the interior of Germany took place on the night of 15/16 May 1940 while the Battle of France was still continuing.[29] </div></div>

I live in Rotterdam. here is the church in the very centre of the city.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Rotterdam.jpg/793px-Rotterdam.jpg

No military targets.


Rotterdam waterfront, with spotlights shining into the air to commemorate the Rotterdam Blitz.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/HerdenkingVuurgrensRotterdam1940_2007_edit1.jpg/640px-HerdenkingVuurgrensRotterdam1940_2007_edit1.jpg

Q

Qtec
10-27-2011, 01:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It woz a fair fight. </div></div>

Did Churchill gas 5 million of his enemies to death?

Did he use collective punishment as a tool?

Fair fight?

Q

LWW
10-27-2011, 09:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry, but that is bad history.

Hitler never tried to invade Britain so far as I remember.
</div></div>

SORRY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands)

Soflasnapper
10-27-2011, 04:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It woz a fair fight. </div></div>

Did Churchill gas 5 million of his enemies to death?

Did he use collective punishment as a tool?

Fair fight?

Q </div></div>

Churchill called for, and implemented, the use of what we now would call 'weapons of mass destruction,' (in this case, biological/chemical weapons), back when GB invaded Iraq.

Pretty much any war crime there was, Churchill favored and committed.

Soflasnapper
10-27-2011, 04:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry, but that is bad history.

Hitler never tried to invade Britain so far as I remember.
</div></div>

SORRY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands)
</div></div>

(Rolls eyes!)

Your link clarifies that the channel islands seized were never part of the United Kingdom.

Additionally, there is no mention here of any use of those islands to mount an invasion of the United Kingdom.

Your link does not contradict, and rather supports, my memory.

Qtec
10-28-2011, 08:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Churchill called for, and implemented, the use of what we now would call 'weapons of mass destruction,' (in this case, biological/chemical weapons), back when GB invaded Iraq. </div></div>

First of all, that's debatable and secondly, that was the 1920,s. nothing to do with WW11.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pretty much any war crime there was, Churchill favored and committed. </div></div>

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, <u>if necessary for years, if necessary alone.</u>

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.

The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, </span>and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.” </div></div>

I'm done on this.

Q..my dad was at Dunkirk.

eg8r
10-28-2011, 09:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q..my dad was at Dunkirk. </div></div>Do you say this for sympathy, or because you feel it gives you the upper hand on the correct history of what happened during that war? If you choose the latter then why didn't you give our fellow soldier, who posted on this board while stationed in Iraq during the war, the same respect?

eg8r

cushioncrawler
10-29-2011, 03:57 AM
But Stalin can hav Poland.
mac.

LWW
10-29-2011, 04:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As it was Russia who defeated Germany, and the US next most responsible for that defeat (in part by supplying Russia for the 3 years or more it took us to get our forces in the European fight), Britain's role was not decisive.

</div></div>

OMFG ... do you honestly believe that?

LWW
10-29-2011, 04:46 AM
Your ability to self delude knows no bounds.

Soflasnapper
10-29-2011, 11:46 AM
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Which shows the nature of the English battle was defensive, a holding action to protect England, until such time the New World (America) could be brought into the fray.

If the Battle of Britain was so decisive, then the war ended in 1940? I recall it lasting until '45 somehow, despite the English having defeated Hitler some 5 years earlier?

Soflasnapper
10-29-2011, 11:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As it was Russia who defeated Germany, and the US next most responsible for that defeat (in part by supplying Russia for the 3 years or more it took us to get our forces in the European fight), Britain's role was not decisive.

</div></div>

OMFG ... do you honestly believe that? </div></div>

Sure, what's wrong with the claim?

Admittedly, Britain's role in defending HERSELF was decisive, to sustain their independence, and refuse to make a peace with Hitler. That did not defeat Hitler, as that defeat was still 5 years in the future.

Qtec
10-29-2011, 06:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Which shows the nature of the English battle was defensive, a holding action to protect England, until such time the New World (America) could be brought into the fray.

If the Battle of Britain was so decisive, then the war ended in 1940? I recall it lasting until '45 somehow, despite the English having defeated Hitler some 5 years earlier? </div></div>


When you are attacked, you defend, right?

Churchill was not the aggressor here. By the time of the Dunkirk evacuation, Hitler had annexed Austria, invaded Poland, Norway, Denmark ,Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and France!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The German advance pushed the Allied armies to the sea to a French port called Dunkirk. During what some people called a miracle, <u>800 small boats</u> managed to lift most of the men off the beaches and back to England. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The RAF were successful in keeping the majority of German bombers and fighters away, shooting down 150 aircraft. However, they lost 100 precious fighters and 80 irreplaceable pilots.</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He had the opportunity to crush the British forces at Dunkirk, <u>but intentionally allowed their escape.</u> </div></div>


If he was 'letting them go', how come he lost 150 aircraft ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hitler never tried to invade Britain so far as I remember. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The lull as the German forces consolidated their position was vital to the British armed forces, as it allowed them to prepare. By the beginning of July 1940, the RAF had built up its strength to <u>640 fighters</u>, but the Luftwaffe had<u> 2600 bombers and fighters.</u> The stage was set. In the skies above South East England, the future of Britain was about to be decided. As the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill put it; "What General Weygrand called the Battle of France is over, the Battle of Britain is about to begin".
</div></div>

Once you have total air superiority, then you can bomb at will. This was the first thing the USA did when invading Iraq. Once you control the skies, its over. Its only a matter of time. I call that an invasion or at least the prelude to an invasion.

If Britain had fallen, there would have been no final push.

Q,, link (http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/background.html)


Q

Qtec
10-29-2011, 07:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you say this for sympathy </div></div>

You flatter yourself. You don't have a sympathetic bone in your body but you call yourself a Christian!!!!!!!



Sympathy for what?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">or because you feel it gives you the upper hand on the correct history of what happened during that war? </div></div>

No.

Q