U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Europe
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-25-2014, 07:56 PM
 
Location: London
4,323 posts, read 3,612,497 times
Reputation: 1966

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JedlaRoche View Post
It's impossible to say what the UK would have done if the Channel didn't exist. Unlike in sea or air, on land, one error can cost the war.. If Paris wasn't so close of Germany, France would have resisted much longer. German's Blitzkrieg was a poker move, and it succeeded.
If the Channel did not exist I doubt Germany would have even thought of invading France. The Brits would have had a large land army. Germany had a large army as it is largely landlocked and small navy. The K would adopt a similar view. Also another Maginot line would have been between the UK and France. It is silly to speculate of this.

Blitzkrieg was a one-time unrepeatable shot. They tried it again in the USSR and failed.

Quote:
Then even after the fall of Paris, France could have resisted. The French Head of State Paul Reynaud and the majority of politics didn't want to surrender and were ready to "fusion" with the UK to continue the war. But Petain and many politics were quite fascists with a huge hatred of the communists, they preferred to surrender.
Churchill offered to merge the two countries into one. The French also informally requested to join the British empire in the mid 1950s. It was turned down. Churchill was contemptuous towards Vichy. In his "Some chicken ! Some neck !" speech he went on that if the French had fought on they would have control of North Africa with the British and taken Italy out of the war and made the Med an allied lake. Instead the Germans arrived just as the Brits were wiping up the Italians in North Africa and it started all over again. 250,000 British troops and equipment could have been used elsewhere for three years. Allied troops would be on Corsica ready mount an invasion from the south. Maybe Spain invaded and a stepping stone into France. The point is the war would have been very different and probably been over much quicker without US military intervention. Maybe Hitler would not have invaded the USSR, which brought Japan into the war.

The only reason Japan attacked the British and US was because the Germans promised they would declare war on the USA. Japan thought the USSR would crumble any week. They never and they were left facing the world's two largest economic powers alone - what they did not want. The Japanese would not have gone into French Indochina and Malaya if the full French navy was there patrolling that region with British backing and French troops in Indochina. The RN was too stretched and could not face the large Japanese fleet and do its other duties in North Africa, Indian Ocean and the Atlantic.

Quote:
By the way when French wanted to fight Franco, English said a big no.
The Brits were right to say no as it would have been overstretching when Germany was the prime focus. But if French forces did roll south it would have been easy enough. Franco did not join Hitler as he was afraid the British would take Spanish islands and territory. The Germans could not have stopped them.

The French not staying with the British was a despicable act of betrayal. The Americans viewed it even worse than the British.

Last edited by John-UK; 04-25-2014 at 08:08 PM..

 
Old 04-25-2014, 08:04 PM
 
Location: London
4,323 posts, read 3,612,497 times
Reputation: 1966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Devil View Post
USSR defeated the Nazis
Not by themselves.
 
Old 04-25-2014, 08:19 PM
 
579 posts, read 636,887 times
Reputation: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Not by themselves.
Pretty much, yeah. Look at death toll
 
Old 04-26-2014, 01:17 AM
 
Location: North West Northern Ireland.
20,695 posts, read 19,392,871 times
Reputation: 3107
Well fortunately for us the channel DOES exist!
 
Old 04-26-2014, 03:00 AM
 
Location: London
4,323 posts, read 3,612,497 times
Reputation: 1966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Devil View Post
Pretty much, yeah. Look at death toll
Which was mainly due to incompetence in leadership at all levels and poor training. Most of the deaths were in captivity. The Brits were bombing German industry although Bomber Command suffered 55,000 dead. The Brits and Germans in the desert never suffered the death tolls of the eastern front in percentage figures.
 
Old 04-26-2014, 03:51 AM
 
1,600 posts, read 1,449,090 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Which was mainly due to incompetence in leadership at all levels and poor training. Most of the deaths were in captivity. The Brits were bombing German industry although Bomber Command suffered 55,000 dead. The Brits and Germans in the desert never suffered the death tolls of the eastern front in percentage figures.
Just the battle of Rzhev provoked more deaths than British,Americans and French casualties combined.
Plus, bombings may have been effective, it remains though that German war production was the highest in 1944.
 
Old 04-26-2014, 06:57 AM
 
554 posts, read 681,672 times
Reputation: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Churchill offered to merge the two countries into one. The French also informally requested to join the British empire in the mid 1950s. It was turned down. Churchill was contemptuous towards Vichy. In his "Some chicken ! [...] Japanese fleet and do its other duties in North Africa, Indian Ocean and the Atlantic.
I agree. But it's not like Petain and its fellows preferred Nazi Germany to the Liberal Anglos. The surrender act was not military but politically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
The Brits were right to say no as it would have been overstretching when Germany was the prime focus. But if French forces did roll south it would have been easy enough. Franco did not join Hitler as he was afraid the British would take Spanish islands and territory. The Germans could not have stopped them.

The French not staying with the British was a despicable act of betrayal. The Americans viewed it even worse than the British.
I disagree. What "prime focus" ? The UK and France didn't do anything against Germany until the invasion of Poland. If they had took down Franco (which would had been easy) they would had a new ally, and an already prepared army if needed against Germany. Sadly the French Gov couldn't start a war without the approval of the British, the French so called "non-interventionist" parties were in reality most of them fascists.

And btw France didn't want to join the British Empire but the commonwealth. In the same way France was building the EU with Germany they wanted to do something with the British.
 
Old 04-26-2014, 08:36 AM
 
Location: London
4,323 posts, read 3,612,497 times
Reputation: 1966
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander.XVII View Post
Just the battle of Rzhev provoked more deaths than British,Americans and French casualties combined.
Plus, bombings may have been effective, it remains though that German war production was the highest in 1944.
Prof. Adam Tooze says that the biggest mistake of the British in WW2 was not concentrating Bomber Command on the Rhur, as the coal mines, heavy manufacturing and steel was all concentrated there. They can disperse manufacturing as much as they like, without the materials they cannot do anything. Also into 1944 Bomber Command and the USAAF moved bombing away from industry to strategic targets to assist the landings and the fighting after. That is why manufacturing rose in Germany.

From June 1944 onwards the RAF used Tallboy and later Grand Slam earthquake bombs in strategic infrastructure targets. One Tallboy went through a hill on France, exploded and took down the rail tunnel beneath the hill preventing rail supplies getting to Normandy. The tunnel these days has nice large vent shaft through it. The 1945 German monthly production figures were dire once Bomber Command refocused on industry.

Churchill said the biggest mistake was diverting troops from the desert to assist Greece which allowed the Germans a foothold in the desert.

I go with Tooze. Bomber Command and the RNs blockade of Germany combined would have starved Germany out quite quickly.

Last edited by John-UK; 04-26-2014 at 08:51 AM..
 
Old 04-26-2014, 08:42 AM
 
Location: London
4,323 posts, read 3,612,497 times
Reputation: 1966
Quote:
Originally Posted by JedlaRoche View Post
I agree. But it's not like Petain and its fellows preferred Nazi Germany to the Liberal Anglos. The surrender act was not military but politically.
The French broke an agreement that one party cannot negotiate a separate peace. The French did the dirty on the Brits. The Americans sneered the French for that - more than the Brits.

Unprovoked and moving in on Spain would have been what Hitler was doing. How would Spain be an ally if the UK and France went into Spain? A wild assumption.

Yep the French made moves to join the British Commonwealth. Something which Argentina should be doing right now. The EU was a British idea, heavily promoted by Churchill.
 
Old 04-26-2014, 08:48 AM
 
7,143 posts, read 7,913,663 times
Reputation: 4370
amusing reading the points about the english chanell , were the english channel not there , its likely it would have been an issue centuries before that when it came to englands battles with other nations , never mind what happened in WW2
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Europe
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top