i think britain didnt prepare for war is because they do not want to lose their citizens on some pointless war, maybe the government is either underestimate Germany or they want to sarafice France in exchange of Germany not trying to invade Britain.
For number 2, whats the point for adding more troops, german has a new way of using tanks to inspire fear in enemy troops by surrounding them and cut their supply lines. I believe sending more British troops would only mean more captives for the germans
For number 3, Air defense is very strong for Germany especially with FW-190 to intercept bombers or any airtransport, i dont think mustang is ready in that year and Germany is still very powerful on air, how many soldiers must you sarafice before they even reach germany? not realistic at all
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.[/quote]
That’s where you are wrong.[/quote]
please explain why you think the US would have declared war on Germany in Dec 41?
If not you are in danger of TROLLING again…[/quote]
Dont know if America would have joined the war without having been attacked. IRONMAN you on your own on that one.
However…and ive said this before. We cant be there everytime one of your countries goes fucking bananas. If you dont remember your geography … WE DONT LIVE IN EUROPE. The UK and France had enough power to confront Germany on Sept 1st. Would have been hard but any attack would have been better than none. Furthermore we did finally join the conflict. And by the time we joined there was no way Britain was going to win by herself. Dont get my wrong my British brethern we could not have dont it with out you or the russians. But just as in WW1 we supplied the extra kick in the end to drive home the win. If America had not joined … I think the Germans could have easily held the Brits at bay and focused more on Russia. Dont see the Germans ever really defeating Russia but hard to speculate what would have happened.
Also let me point out that when we did join we did agree to focus on Europe first and then the Pacific. I would say thats pretty good since we were attacked by Japan.
NOT SAYING THE AMERICANS won the war for you guys. Never could have done it without the UK/Commonwealth and the Russians. Also vice versa.
So instead of bitching that we were late how about a thanks for better late than never.
Fw, if you look through the first couple of pages, you’ll see a reply from me explaining just how prepared Britain was for war, we were probably the country (other than Germany and Japan who were actively looking to start wars) most prepared to go to war - far more so than France, the USSR, the US or any other of the major countries at the time.
Our army was the only fully mechanised army in the world at the time, even the German army still relied on horses for transport. So did the French, Soviets, Americans etc. The US Army did manage to get themselves fully mechanised by the time they entered the war though, as I far as I know.
We also had the only fully integrated air defence system in the world - radar detecting incoming aircraft and passing the details onto a control room which sent fighters to attack the raids or ordered AAA to engage.
The weakest part of the British forces were probably the light/tactical bombers, particularly the Fairey Battle, which was a death trap. We had plenty of them, but they were no good in daylight over terrain that Germany had full control of.
Helping France - by the time Germany invaded France on May 10th 1940, the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) was made up of 10 divisions (over 300,000 men in total), plus the Advanced Air Striking Force, made up of Hurricane fighters and Fairey Battle and Bristol Blenheim light bombers. We sent so many men to France that after Dunkirk the only fully equipped and combat ready division left in the UK was the 1st Canadian Armoured Division. We sent so many fighters (thankfully none of the precious Spitfires, only the Hurricane) that Dowding (Commander of the RAF’s Fighter Command) refused to send anymore because he wouldn’t have enough fighters left to protect the UK with if the did.
Tin Breeches that was not the question that you originally asked. Your initial post referred to the time between the outbreak of war and the end of the Battle of Britain, the period between Sept. 1939 and Oct. 1940. You made no reference to the end of the war until challenged about your ridiculous assertions about the Uk not supporting France.
Germany did not attack Britain directly until several days after the King and Parliament declared war on 9th Sept. 1939. It was a raid on Scapa Floe IIRC.
Why did Britain not attack the USSR in 1945? Because there was no way that Britain could have defeated the Red Army you dolt! They vastly outnumbered the Western Allies, were well supplied from European and trans Ural factories and farms and had built up a fair head of steam having been fighting the bulk of the German forces for years. Oh and your idea of dropping Paras round Berlin is ludicrous, they would be slaughtered
If Market Garden had worked things might have been different and an attempt to prevent Stalin getting much of Eastern Europe may have been possible. But it failed and Eisenhower became too cautious to risk another rapid thrust favouring the rliable but terribly slow broad front.
Lie 19. Easily verifiable, documented fact that the British were very heavily committed in France in 1939/1940.
What about at the end of WWII? Could britain have stopped the USSR if they had attacked them at the end of WWII?
Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 4. Original questions contained NO reference to attacking USSR, nor to 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.
Lie 20. Original thread about US attacking Russia was posted by an AMERICAN poster, and some BRITISH posters, among others in that thread, generally had the consensus that to do so would have been difficult at best, impossible at worst, and folly either way. Other British posters believed that it would ultimately have been an Western-Allies victory, and provided REASONS for this. Either way, an interesting discussion was had by all without resort to lies and petty childishness… Something you could learn from.
So, you are saying that Britain should just leave it up to the US right? Kinda like Korea and Vietnam?
Lie 21, Lie 22 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 5. Not what the poster said at all, and more to the point, trying to shift to Korea and Vietnam. Second of the two lies is that Britain didn’t leave Korea up to the US as you suggest, as others have explained.
No relevance. Not relevant to why britain did not attack the USSR at the end of WWII
Lies 23 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 6. It is entirely relevant that the BEF and Dunkirk existed as it shows Britain was both prepared and in France, despite your dishonest or entirely stupid, ignorant claims to the contrary. Shifting goal posts because the original questions did not include attacking the USSR, or about the end of the war.
No relevance. You have yet to provide an answer.
Lies 24 and 25. Entirely relevant. Britain was in no position to put 100,000 troops outside Berlin after the Battle of Britain until 1945. The question was also answered on the first page.
[quote]1000ydstare wrote:
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.
No relevance. You have not provided an answer.[/quote]
Lies 25 and 26. Entirely relevant as illustrates the sheer stupidity of the original questions and also questions the sanity of original question 3.
The question was why did not Britain attack the USSR at the end of the war to prevent them from doing what they later did.
Do you remember the question?
Lie 27. Original questions are:
[i]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.[/i]
No mention of attacking the USSR nor of the end of the war.
The UK didn’t have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don’t know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?
Lie 28. Britain declared war on Germany - not the other way around, and not after being attacked. Easily verifiable, well known, well documented, undisputed historical fact! (again)
Again, Germany attacked Britain. Do they not teach that in school in britain?
Lie 29. Not what happened. Easily verifiable, well known, well documented, undisputed historical fact!
No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why did they not do it?
Lie 30, Lie 31 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 7. It is relevant, the question has been answered ad nauseum by this point, and the original questions contained NO mention of attacking the USSR at the end of the war.
No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII, and why did they not try?
Lie 32, Lie 33 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 8. Repeating himself to nudge up his lie quota.
So I count 33 bare faced or completely ignorant lies, easily avoided had he
A) any ability to comprehend what is written
B) any grasp of the actual course of history in the Real World as opposed to his own.
Along with 8 attempts to dishonestly shift the goal posts by claiming people should answer a question that was never originally asked.
Hence: TROLL THREAD.
The man is either a liar completely devoid of honour and integrity, immensely stupid - or most likely - both.[/quote]
So, I take it you have no answer to the question? What say you? We have already established that the US had no reason to attack the USSR right at the end of WWII, and that it would have been a stupid idea.
But what about the Beefeaters? Should they have tried? What say you? And please, do try to answer the question instead of spittling.
No, the British on their own could not have defeated the Soviets. The original question on the other thread that led to this whining ‘Brits all hate America’ thread (for that is all this is, if we are all honest) was “COULD THE WESTERN ALLIES BEAT THE USSR IN 1945?”. Nobody said that the US should have attacked the USSR, nobody blamed the US for the Cold War, none of the Brits on here appear to hate the US from what they written. Please can we stop these pathetic attempts to make all of Europe a part of some anti-American plot?
There is a big diffrence between could and should. As Ironman knows the question he is obviously TROLLING again. As Ive already answered it I suggest he reads through this and the other thread.
But what about the Beefeaters? Should they have tried?
I am quite sure that the Yeoman of the Guard would have put up a good fight with their partizan and gone down fighting, but they would be no match for a Guards Army. And as most are of pension age they would be very slow in the assault.
I know this hasn’t been an active thread for a while but I thought I would point out that the reason neither the British nor American armies beat the USSR to Berlin was political. President Roosevelt convinced PM Churchhill to stop short of Berlin and let Russia take it. He forsaw the upcoming conflict with the USSR and was attempting to appease them in some way. Though in hindsight it was a bit like trying to appease a rattlesnake by letting him bite your arm instead of your leg.
Repeating myself for the unpteenth time. It was all decided at Yalta and before where the spheres of influence in Europe would be, so there was no point in getting more ETO troops killed just to have them pull back at a later date.
Indeed. I think that Prof. Holmes is of the opinion that Market Garden was Churchill’s last roll of the dice to try to get ahead of the Russians and into parts of Eastern Europe before Yalta forced him to concede to Stalin’s imperial ambitions.
The UK and France had enough power to confront Germany on Sept 1st. Would have been hard but any attack would have been better than none. Furthermore we did finally join the conflict. And by the time we joined there was no way Britain was going to win by herself. Dont get my wrong my British brethern we could not have dont it with out you or the russians. But just as in WW1 we supplied the extra kick in the end to drive home the win. If America had not joined … I think the Germans could have easily held the Brits at bay and focused more on Russia. Dont see the Germans ever really defeating Russia but hard to speculate what would have happened.