Ou lala,. ze britain fight alone for ze ferst couple of yew,. err Monsieur RS ;)?,.
if not for the channel,. “the British would soon have ‘its neck wrung like a chicken’ by the Germans” 
dont debate me, i just recollecting some comments few years back when reading “prelude to war, pony war and the fall of low countries”
What was it that Stalin said in the matter - “Britain gave time; America gave money; Russia gave blood” ? Something to be said for that. As regards the question of whether Britain would have been defeated by Germany had the English Channel not been there … this is just too “what-iffy” for me. So many variables on the “road not taken”. To mention just one - what if the bulk of the British and northern French armies had retreated, across a “dry” Channel, with the bulk of their equipment, and faced off against a Wehrmacht exhausted by its initial thrust, and also menaced by substantial (if less than first class) French forces to the south ? Of course, in asking this question, one also has to ask how French politics would have developed in such a scenario; would Pétain and his reactionary and functionalist friends, in such circumstances, have been able to effect the coup that ended the Third Republic ? And how would the Soviets have reacted if the Germans found themselves in difficulties in the united Anglo-French land mass ? And so on - too many questions. And this is without going near the question of how English and French history would have developed if there had been no Channel ? Thousands upon thousands of questions, there. I thin I should stick to actual History … Yours from the White Cliffs of Dover, JR.
Would britain have been so ill prepared with out the Channel - it separated Britain from the european mainland, helped cement Britain as a naval power and its Empire at the time.
With no thoughts of entering a land war in Europe the Army was kept for colonial police action and not a major war - would that be so if Britain was connected by a land bridge
but if you start with Britain loses against Germany with no channel you have to go back and re-write history - Napoleon would possibly have been successful - Romans even may have invaded much earlier et etc - cant just pick one thing unless you assuming the German Forces could do a Moses on the Channel.
he did never say that.
the East Front was the main WWII front where the biggest part of Nazi Germany troops was amassed and largest & most decisive battles ever in the history of mankind fought, so it was the USSR that won this war, hands down.
All by itself?
all by itself.
Pity someone didn’t tell Stalin that, as he was continually pressing the Western allies to open a western front and deliver more and more armaments etc to the USSR from mid-1941 when the USSR officially entered the war.
Presumably it was Soviet troops, airmen and sailors cunningly disguised as British Commonwealth forces who fought the Nazis alone to mid-1941 while the USSR cleverly appeared to be at peace with Germany pursuant to their non-aggression treaty. This is a major revelation to historians. You could make a lot of money writing a book revealing this previously unknown aspect of the war.
Also a pity someone didn’t tell the Western allies that they weren’t needed, which would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives among the Western allies’ forces on pointless activities such as the Murmansk run and bombing Germany and other Axis targets and the Italian and North African campaigns and D Day onwards, along with needless deaths of German, Italian, French and other civilians along with German and Italian armed forces in these pointless activities by the Western allies.
You could make even more money showing how the USSR defeated Japan all by itself, without committing any forces to combat against Japan until the last few days of the Pacific War stupidly fought by the US and other Western Allies from December 1941 without realising that the USSR had it all under control by avoiding combat with Japan while the rest of the world thought that the USSR was flat out fighting Germany from mid 1941 until Germany was defeated.
‘continuously pressing’? Stalin had never done it like that; and the West Front was opened only in 1944 - a bit too late, isn’t it?
was Japan powerful enough to even think of launching an invasion using its infantry against the USSR ?
It was certainly Stalin’s view that the Western Front in 1944 was far too late.
He was already moaning about the absence of a second front as early as November 1941, barely a few months into his war with Germany. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/41937421 See if you can find Britain moaning about the USSR not opening up a second front 1939 to mid-1941.
Stalin sent Molotov to Washington in May 1942 to encourage the Americans and Britain to open a western front in 1942 to draw off about 40 German divisions.
Stalin spent the next couple of years pressing the Western allies to open up a second front, and in other respects seeking their assistance such as requesting bombing raids on German targets to assist Soviet troop movements.
You’re out of your depth with your ill-informed assertions about how the USSR won the war by fighting in only four of the six years of WWII in only the eastern European land theatre. There was a bit of fighting going on elsewhere, not to mention some rather significant logistical matters which also exceeded Soviet production which was conveniently limited to that land war while the rest of the Allies had to fight on land, sea and air around the rest of the planet.
What does this have to do with the defeat of Japan by the glorious forces of the USSR in a few days of battle at the end of what the Western Allies thought was the Pacific War?
You assert that the USSR won WWII all by itself.
Japan attacking the USSR is irrelevant as you say that the USSR won WWII all by itself.
By the way, could you explain why there weren’t any Soviet occupation forces in Japan to cement the magnificent Soviet victory, all by itself, over Japan?
Also, why were the glorious forces of the workers’ paradise conspicuous by their absence in North Africa, Malta, Sicily, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland and so on as the USSR won the war all by itself?
‘moaning’?.. the article shows he only tried to justify himself, far from moaning.
while the Red Army alone successfully fought the Wehrmacht on the East Front.
how could they attack since they didn’t have enough infantry men for that?
The Kuril Islands - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands , Sakhalin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin
Em no, the West front was opened in 1939, when Stalin was still helping Hitler invade other nations. One could just as easily argue that the Poles and French provided much assistance to the Soviet Union by wearing down the Luftwaffe (most notably) via attrition and exhausting the crews. This had a real, lasting impact well into 1942…
was Japan powerful enough to even think of launching an invasion using its infantry against the USSR ?
In conjunction with Barbarossa, they could have caused significant difficulties. Although China had already sapped much of Japans power. The Western armies may never have been drawn back to defend Moscow…
A rational historian would also be forced to conclude that the massive strategic air war over Western Europe was in itself a front soaking up large German resources in technical endeavors that go beyond production of relatively simple machines such as trucks and armor and sapped Luftwaffe strength in the East considerably…
What about the Red Air Force and Navy?
The Red Army also nearly lost the battle early on - mainly due to the idiotic paranoid tendencies of Marshall Stalin…
how could they attack since they didn’t have enough infantry men for that?
The Kuril Islands - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands , Sakhalin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin
They wouldn’t need all that many to significantly tie down Soviet Western armies, and perhaps Moscow falls and Stalin pisses himself again like he did in the opening days?
to call that a front would be a gross exaggeration. 1944 did look like it, but certainly not 1939.
only moral support… it is obvious neither French or Poles were up to do fighting, not to mention fighting the Luftwaffe.
no, Japan did not have enough manpower to conduct a proper invasion.
the WWII was an infantry war, so air and naval forces were only a minor contribution.
the WWII was a war conducted on land, that’s where the major military forces clashed.
paranoid Stalin was not; countries can’t be ruled by paranoids.
still it would need significantly more than Japan could field at the moment.
and how do you know? have any evidence?
Why would Stalin want a second front when the USSR won WWII all by itself?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol::lol:
ROFLMAO ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a contender for the all time most ignorant and stupid statement on any military forum, ever.
ROFLMAO, Again.
Where is that written?
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?
Check out Stalin and his ilk like Saddam Hussein, who lived in constant fear of being assassinated and, for example, rarely spent two nights in the same place lest they be found by potential assassins.
Clearly not a front, with only all of France’s army, the BEF, Belgium’s and the Netherlands’ forces involved
Mate, you really need to refine your act as a comedian, satirist, troll, idiot or whatever it is that you’re trying to present yourself as, because so far you’re just coming across as a sad fu*kwit.
because the West as always was jealous when there’s something going on without its part taking. Stalin only wanted to be polite in order not to enrage the West.
not at all, the vast majority of WWII armed forces movements and operations took place on land; and to control land territiories it takes men walking, not flying or sailing.