Holding Them Off!

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#101

people speak of the Dunkirk Spirit of this time. It was more than just a catchphrase to be bandied about by historians. Our boys were back home. The Miracle of Dunkirk! God was on our side, the Tommies were home and safe. Now it was sleeves-up; nose to the grindstone and get on with the job at hand.

People were handing over their pots and pans to be manufactured into Spitfires. The metal railings from gardens and parks were harvested to be converted into tanks. None of this was necessary. Britain wasn’t short of raw materials with which to make tanks or aircraft. The British public had their spirits up, they wanted to make a contribution, and the government didn’t want to deny them. Morale was high and it was gaining in momentum with each passing day. There was a will, not merely to ‘Hold them off’, but to win!
Who did they think they were…these foreigners with their crooked, Black Crosses?

Would Hitler have attempted an invasion if he had been successful in the Battle of Britain?..Of course he would!
Would he have been successful?..Of course not!

#102

32B,

Okay, Soldier! The handbag is back in the wardrobe! So!..let’s get back on topic!!

That’s SIR to you, and get your leather together next time.

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

#103

My dear, fellow, I only say ‘Sir’ to the wife! :smiley:

#104

Why, does she not work for a living? :smiley:

#105

Of course she does. Meanwhile, I’m stuck in the kitchen with my pinney, cooking, cleaning and looking after the marigolds.

#106

The British Spitfires played an important role in taking the Germans back were they came from. The Luftwaffte put a good tole on the casualties in Britian during the 1940’s.

It has been a while since I have replied to this topic, but anyways I can tell that it has gone off topic a little too much. So maybe we can try to get back on topic if you wouldn’t mind people. At least it was about ladies.:o

#107

good thing britain survived the battle of britain otherwise, nazis might rule today

#108

Now I would not say that they would rule today. If Nazis would of taken Britian the US would have sent them back to the Fatherland by a quick invasion and domianation.

#109

i dont think its that simple for the americans to cross the ocean and attack england

#110

With no bases in teh vicinity, the yanks would have had to assemble a massive amount of ships.

Even then it would have taken them a long time to invade.

#111

Which then face the undamaged U boat fleet, which will be much larger as production has continued unhindered. As well as the German fleet, none of which is bottled up or has been sunk by the RN.

The realities of politics and trade are that Germany and the US might have just continued as they were, as they weren’t at war in 1940 and the war was profitable for major American corporations which had strong influence on American policy.

Nineteen fourty proved an exceptionally good year for corporate America. Not only did the subsidiaries in Germany share in the spoils of Hitler’s triumphs, but the European conflict was generating other wonderful opportunities. America herself was now preparing for a possible war, and from Washington orders for trucks, tanks, planes, and ships started rolling in. Moreover, initially on a strict “cash-and-carry” basis and then through “Lend-Lease,” President Roosevelt allowed American industry to supply Great Britain with military hardware and other equipment, thus enabling brave little Albion to continue the war against Hitler indefinitely.

By the end of 1940, all belligerent countries as well as armed neutrals like the US itself were being girded with weaponry cranked out by corporate America’s factories, whether stateside, in Great Britain (where Ford et al., also had branch plants), or in Germany. It was a wonderful war indeed, and the longer it lasted, the better — from a corporate point of view.

Corporate America neither wanted Hitler to lose this war nor to win it; instead they wanted this war to go on as long as possible. Henry Ford had initially refused to produce weapons for Great Britain, but now he changed his tune. According to his biographer, David Lanier Lewis, he “expressed the hope that neither the Allies nor the Axis would win [the war],” and he suggested that the US should supply both the Allies and the Axis powers with “the tools to keep on fighting until they both collapse.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PAU20070127&articleId=4607

Maybe biased given the source, but still a good short survey of the trade interests America had in Germany, and the influential people in America who were pro-Nazi. And virulently anti-communist. If America had to choose between supporting the Nazis and the Soviets in late 1941 with Britain out of the war, I wouldn’t be willing to bet my life on it being the Soviets.

#112

Probably not. I still think they would of taken a while. After a while they would have taken over the Germans if they were still in Britian.

#113

At the risk of you accusing me of arguing :cool: , may I just say, the crossing of the Channel from England to Normandy,was a huge undertaking. There was a massive build-up of troops and logistical supplies in England before the invasion could be launched. To move enough forces accross the Atlantic, and keep them supplied would have to have been something beyond imagination. Imagine if the troop transporters were coming accross the Atlantic, with masses of U-Boats waiting to intercept them.

Actually, come to think of it, this was roughly the scenario if the Warsaw Pact had attacked Western Europe. Then again, the Warsaw Pact would have been opposed in Europe while reinforcements wre crossing the Atlantic. Sorry, I digress.

By the time the US could have built its forces to a strength to attack accross the Atlantic, the Nazis would have had a lot of time to prepare. The US would probably have had to Nuke them. Even with that solution, they would have to have Nuked Germany, and not an occupied country. So, we have to think of delivery systems. Perhaps the Nazis would have Nuked the US first?

#114

Perhaps the Nazis would have Nuked the US first?

Doubt it, all the boffins were heading out of Germany fast than a Nazi at a Bar Mitzvah. Einstein for example. Many had left in 38 and early 39.

#115

Any one who thinks sealion would have worked has no concept of logistics. And without logistics your army is dead.

#116

First, Germany didn’t have much of a resentment toward the United Kingdom to begin with. They became enemies because the British maintained an alliance with France throughout Germany’s invasion, supported the Free French Forces, and attacked the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime. Also, after Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister, he began a policy of bitterly denouncing German militarism and National Socialism. In a way, Germany’s and the United Kingdom’s egos got in the way of any chance at a sustainable peace. There was also the feeling among the British that they were threatened by their own isolation, because by this point, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, and France had all fallen to Nazi Germany. Both Italy and the Soviet Union were allies of Germany at this time, and Spain and Portugal under Franco and Salazar remained neutral, but pro-Axis. This is why the British felt the United States was their only reliable ally left.

It’s wrong to assume that the British did “nothing” against the Nazis until the United States entered the war. They repulsed the invasion of their own homeland, forcing Hitler into a corner of invading the Soviet Union, launched massive air raids on Berlin which helped chip away at German civilian morale, and, alongside Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand forces, struck severe blows to the Italians and the Germans in North Africa, which closed an entire theater of operations, freed many colonial possessions from Axis control and turned their resources over to Allied hands, and degraded Italy militarily.

#117

As for Hitler’s mistakes, there were many. He was a brilliant politician and public speaker, but wasn’t terribly good at military strategy.

In no particular order:

  1. Declaring war on the United States, and urging Italy to do the same. Since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany was not required under the Tripartite Pact to declare war, considering the pact was a mutual-defense treaty, that only applied if one of the member-states(Germany, Italy, or Japan) was attacked. Now, Hitler made this mistake for two reasons. First, he thought if declared war on the United States, Japan would reciprocate by breaking their peace with the Russians(signed after the short border war over Manchukuo) and declare war on the Soviet Union, giving Germany much needed aid on the Eastern Front. Second, he felt war with the U.S. was inevitable anyway, so he had nothing to lose. He miscaculated; Japan was already having problems taking China, and now the United States and Australia were going to enter the scene. Hitler should have know that there was no way Japan would divert resources from the Pacific to aid him on his little misadventure, and especially considering the Russians posed no threat to Japan at the time. Also, war with the U.S. probably was inevitable, but if he didn’t declare war, the U.S. probably wouldn’t have taken action against Germany for several months at least. The delay would have aided Germany tremendously on the Western Front, and they could’ve diverted more resources to Barbarossa.

  2. His actions during the Anglo-Iraqi war of 1941. Hitler should have sent Rashid Ali and Mohammad Amin al-Husayni much more extensive Luftwaffe aid in order to destabilize the British in Iraq completely. The problem was that he was so focused on the Afrika Korps’ struggle in North Africa that he failed to see the bigger picture. By 1941, Erwin Rommel and the Afrika Korps, backed by Italian divisions, had complete control over Libya, and were amassed on the Egyptian border, threatening the British position. If Hitler had devoted the resources to a German victory in Iraq, he could have flown in German troops and used Iraq as a staging area, much in the way Bulgaria was used as a staging area for the invasion of Greece. From there, controlling Iraq(along with the vast oil reserves), he would have been able to push all the way through Jordan and Palestine, and squeeze Egypt in a massive pincer movement. By taking the Suez Canal, a German victory in North Africa would be practically guaranteed.

  3. Not aiding the Japanaese militarily with Operation Mo. If Hitler sent German forces to New Guinea and the Axis powers were able to defeat the U.S. and Australia there, Japan would have taken control over New Guinea, would have been able to isolate Australia and New Zealand, and would be extremely close to invading Australia outright, in which they probably would have suceeded. Weakening New Zealand and knocking the Australians out of the war would have significantly helped the Axis in East Asia, as well as help relieve the burden on Germany in the European theatre.

#118

How do you work that one out?

#119

The Germans had difficulty, even in 1941, in getting fast single ship blockade runners past the RN to Japan, getting a large enough convoy to support this scheme to the Pacific would have been a total impossibility.

#120

Forgot about that, redcoat. They may not have been able to aid with infantry, but Hitler could have sent a reasonable-sized Luftwaffe force to launch bombing raids on the Kokoda Track.