britain saved the USA during ww2

britian saved the US during ww2

  • Total voters
    24
tom prendergast said:
There were sound military reasons why they did what they did, it was more a combination of the worst winter in 40 years and Hitler's insistence on capturing the Caucasus before removing Stalin's regime in Moscow which did for them.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/invadingrussia.aspx
Click to expand...
No. There was never a good sound military reason to split your army into two fronts, especially to take on the largest land army in the world. That's called stupid.
 
There were sound military reasons why they did what they did, it was more a combination of the worst winter in 40 years and Hitler's insistence on capturing the Caucasus before removing Stalin's regime in Moscow which did for them.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...ingrussia.aspx

No. There was never a good sound military reason to split your army into two fronts, especially to take on the largest land army in the world. That's called stupid.

'Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow".' - Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
 
tom prendergast said:
There were sound military reasons why they did what they did, it was more a combination of the worst winter in 40 years and Hitler's insistence on capturing the Caucasus before removing Stalin's regime in Moscow which did for them.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/invadingrussia.aspx
Click to expand...
No, there really was no sound military reason to attack the Caucuses before they solidified control of Britain. The only way there was any "sound" reason is Hitler's insane dedication to following the bad advice of an astrologer led him to put troops out in Russia during the worst winter of 40 years...
 
No, there really was no sound military reason to attack the Caucuses before they solidified control of Britain.

They couldn't have solidified their control of Britain because they never gained control. They lost the Battle of Britain which meant they had no option but to shelve Operation Sealion.

Losing the Battle of Britain meant that Operation Barbarossa was delayed, meaning they had to attack Russia late, meaning they ran into the same Russian winter that Napoleon ran into.

If they had won the Battle of Britain, it would have taken a good number of years to pacify Britain.
 
AnyOldIron said:
No, there really was no sound military reason to attack the Caucuses before they solidified control of Britain.

They couldn't have solidified their control of Britain because they never gained control. They lost the Battle of Britain which meant they had no option but to shelve Operation Sealion.

Losing the Battle of Britain meant that Operation Barbarossa was delayed, meaning they had to attack Russia late, meaning they ran into the same Russian winter that Napoleon ran into.

If they had won the Battle of Britain, it would have taken a good number of years to pacify Britain.
Click to expand...
The reality is renewing attacks on Britain gaining and solidifying control over Britain would have pretty much guaranteed total victory for Hitler in Europe at that point he could have aimed at Russia, without running into the winter. However, he changed plans for Britain and lost a winnable battle because a prognosticator told him that attacking Russia was the right thing to do at that time. His own generals advised against it, he plowed on.

Hitler's own insanity is what helped the US and Britain turn that war around on the continent. And saying that Britain would have won regardless is a bit sticky, because it really is just guessing. The US went and spent her blood in defense of Europe. Flatly we came to help, attempting to dismiss our participation in that arena isn't justified nor born out by history.
 
The US went and spent her blood in defense of Europe. Flatly we came to help, attempting to dismiss our participation in that arena isn't justified nor born out by history.

I am not trying to dismiss the US participation, I would vote no in the above question.

It is just a little galling to constantly hear how 'America saved us'. We did a pretty good job of it ourselves. What would have happened if the Germans didn't turn east it is impossible to know. Maybe resources could have been pulled from across the Empire, who knows.

But don't forget that American troops didn't just fight in defense of Europe. If Hitler had conquered Britain it would have looked very glum for the American homeland...
 
AnyOldIron said:
The US went and spent her blood in defense of Europe. Flatly we came to help, attempting to dismiss our participation in that arena isn't justified nor born out by history.

I am not trying to dismiss the US participation, I would vote no in the above question.

It is just a little galling to constantly hear how 'America saved us'. We did a pretty good job of it ourselves. What would have happened if the Germans didn't turn east it is impossible to know. Maybe resources could have been pulled from across the Empire, who knows.

But don't forget that American troops didn't just fight in defense of Europe. If Hitler had conquered Britain it would have looked very glum for the American homeland...
Click to expand...
Yeah, we came to save the cheese eating surrender monkeys...
 
Yeah, we came to save the cheese eating surrender monkeys...

They always need saving. Have done since Agincourt. Mostly from themselves...
 
Damocles said:
No, there really was no sound military reason to attack the Caucuses before they solidified control of Britain. The only way there was any "sound" reason is Hitler's insane dedication to following the bad advice of an astrologer led him to put troops out in Russia during the worst winter of 40 years...
Click to expand...

The article I posted outlines the reasons why the Germans invaded Russia when they did. You need to bear in mind that they had to secure oil supplies which, at that time, either came from Russia or the Ploesti oilfields in Romania. They knew that both sources were vulnerable unless they destroyed Stalin and his regime. The Mediterranean and the Middle East had not been conquered, as per the original plan, hence they were left with little choice.
 
AnyOldIron said:

If they had won the Battle of Britain, it would have taken a good number of years to pacify Britain.
Click to expand...

If you include Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, then yes, it would takes perhaps even centuries. But jolly ole England? That pacification would make the French laugh :D
 
I just watched Battle of the Bulge last night. I couldn't resist smiling and nodding my head when Charles Bronson suggests to Henry Fonda that we should just exterminate the German people, level the entire country, and repopulate it with American Buffalo. Henry disagreed and found the suggestion horrific...
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
If you include Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, then yes, it would takes perhaps even centuries. But jolly ole England? That pacification would make the French laugh :D
Click to expand...

You need to read these articles before drawing a conclusion. As for the rest, possibly Scotland could have held out for a while but Ireland and Wales would have fell within days. By the way, the exercise at Sandhurst in 1974 had some of the German planners of the Operation Sealion there to ensure authenticity and accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II

http://warandgame.blogspot.com/2010/01/operation-sealion.html
 
Last edited:
listen Brit, we brought you tanks and toilet paper because you shit yourself that Hitler was about to ass fuck you. Now we are going to send dentist so you can stop using chicklet's as false teeth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top