Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:
They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany’s behavior.
Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.
Paratrooped every available man outside of Berlin after the end of the battle of Britain.
Your problems are starting to show, go to the C rations thread and take the advice
Could the Allies in WW2 have won a lot quicker if America hadn’t sat on the sidelines making money from the war for the first three years (as usual)?
You have no asnwer to the question I see, nor the intellect to try.
Next.
Ok, here we go - the UK was more prepared for war than any other country at the start of WW2 (apart from Germany of course). We were the only country in the world to have a completely mechanised army and the only country in the world to have a fully integrated air defence system (i.e. radar and fighters to attack what the radar saw).
The tactics used by the British Army at the time were, unfortunately, not good enough to counter the Blitzkreig doctrine used by the Germans, however you’ll find that the US also suffered some heavy defeats from the Germans when they first entered the war (look up Kassarine Pass). It’s a fact of life that Generals from armies that won their last war prepare to fight that war again. The Germans had lost their last war and came up with a new plan that no one expected.
The British did see war coming, the Munich Agreement was signed because Chamberlain knew that Britain was not strong enough to fight Germany at that time. By the time Poland was invaded in 1939, the RAF had re-equipped virtually all of their squadrons with new aircraft (particularly the Spitfire and Hurricane that would be so important in 1940). The radar system was now fully funtional and the mechanisation of the army and the training on the equipment was also complete.
I doubt we had 100,000 spare troops to send to France in 1940, those we had spare, we did send. Why would 100,000 troops have made any difference anyway? The French army in 1940 was the biggest in Europe, the British and French combined outnumbered the Germans. We were beaten by far superior air power and land forces organisation, not by numbers.
Why would we paratroop every man we had to Berlin after the Battle of Britain? All that would have happened is that the whole army (without any heavy equipment, which couldn’t be paratrooped) would have been surrounded and wiped out - look what happened at Arnhem, and that was onlt a couple of Panzer Divisions, not the whole Whermacht. That’s even if the transport planes would have survived all the way to Berlin without being hacked from the sky by Flak and Luftwaffe fighters.
editted to add - feel free just to quote the bit about Kassarine Pass and then accuse me of anti-Americanism. See? I’m even helping you find the three words from half a page you need to quote now.
Man how many of these are you going to start?
As stated before they were about as prepared as they could be.
I think we had more than 100,000 troops in France, as we somehow managed to lift 300,000 and more from the beaches at Dunkirk.
No british paratroopers existed in 1940, and even if they had Im not sure any nation on earth could drop 100, 000 men.
I find these questions a bit childish in their nature to be honest. A bit of reading on the subject before posting them would have told you all the information.
THEBESTSOLDIERTHATNEVERWAS wrote
Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:
They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany’s behavior.
Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.
Paratrooped every available man outside of Berlin after the end of the battle of Britain.
Answer to 1. And the Yanks were obviously better prepared. Two words PEARL HARBOUR.
Answer to 2. Take it you don’t know about BEF and Dunkirk then.
Answer to 3. Shame you werent our General IRONMAN, you could have got the remainder of our populace to wrap Britian up in gift wrap and presented the now Defence less Island to the Nazis.
Try and drag yourself away from inane comics, and computer games. How would they have got there? In what planes? The Luftwaffe was still quite strong after the Battle of Britian.
Why didn’t the yanks get their arses in to the war quicker? They seem to make sure they there at the kick off at everyone since!!!
Maybe airdroping all of the Doughboys in on Berlin would have worked.
Or maybe not.
Try and keep your computer game tactics to yourself, you can’t hit restart when you start losing a war.
You have no asnwer to the question I see, nor the intellect to try.
Next.[/quote]
Will you now answer that quite simple question posed to you now that people have answered your (quite frankly, rather disingenuous questions in that Britain was trying it’s best to prepare in the years before WWII, that they did send as many troops as could be spared to France, and that no parachute troops existed to go on a logistically unsupportable suicide mission to Berlin) questions,
Or do you lack the intellect to try?
Americans would resent that. We had no need for our country to go to war until Pearl Harbor.
Americans would resent that. We had no need for our country to go to war until Pearl Harbor.[/quote]
I would agre wth this as well. I would go further, if Germany hadnt declared war on the US, I dont think public support would have been there for the US to declare war on Germany.
I’m not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that’s open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it’s the right thing, not because you HAVE to.
None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.
Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn’t have joined in to stop it?
Nope. I agree with you. The thing is that in 1939 neither we (the free world) nor the general public, at that time, had any inkling of the final solution (nor I suspect did most Nazis). We thought it was another German Land Grab.
the UK did need to join the war, because it was being fought right on their doorstep, they didnt know if germany would invade them or not. better safe then sorry. as for the US, they did need to declare war on Japan, because Japan attacked them, and germany declared war on them…so the US was right to go to war with both of the countries.
More? Doubtful, but more is not the same as adequately. Historians say otherwise. No relevance to the questions. Still haven’t ansered them.
Yes and no. Radar yes. Only with fully mechanized, no. No relevance to the questions. Still haven’t ansered them.
No relevance. Still haven’t answered the question.
No relevance. Still haven’t answered the questions.
No relevance. You have not explained why, once the Germans were pushed to Berlin, the british did not attack the Soviet Union and prevent them from being naughty in Eastern Europe.
So, you are saying that the british felt no need to attack the Soviet Union? It was not necessary? You are not being very clear.
No relevance. You have not answered the questions:
Why did britian not attack the Soviet Union at the end of WWII to prevent them from doing what they did?
Could the Allies have won WWII if the british had put an army in France before the Germans invaded? I mean, everyone in Europe saw the war coming for several years beforehand. They knew Germany was going to start a war somewhere soon. Did the british not have enough foresight to defend France or did the age old France vrs England crap stand in their mental way?
That’s a good point. It could be that britain failed to come to the aid of France because of stupid pride. Maybe they would have rather watched France get clobbered than help. That is certainly a very, very posiible cause of why britain failed to support France at any time before D-Day.
So why the failure to properly prepare or support France instead of watching France get over-run?
TROLL POST
All your questions were directed at 1940.
All your rebutalls seem to be directed at 1945.
REASON
You have changed the goalposts (if you dont understand this - you have changed the original criteria) to suit your objective.
DEFINATE change of initial thrust.
You need to explain whether or not your questions pretain to 1940 or 1945.
If they are 1945, then you need to change your initial questions, which have been aswered.
Your choice?
IRONCHILD
You have not yet been issued an opinion on this topic. Shouldn’t you be out in the street with the other kids, playing in the sunshine?
…after D-Day, perhaps.
What about at the end of WWII? Could britain have stopped the USSR if they had attacked them at the end of WWII?
Why? Why childish when you have been posting arguments that the US could have attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why is it any different to wonder the same thing about Britain? It’s not. You just don’t like it.
So why the failure to properly prepare or support France instead of watching France get over-run?[/quote]
How was Britain not properly prepared?
How did we not support France?