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.
I have to agree with John-UK here. The RAF was never in any danger of being destroyed during the Battle of Britain. It has been a long running myth that the switch from bombing airfields to cities is the only reason the Luftwaffe failed. In reality, the RAF gained in strength throughout the Battle of Britain while the Luftwaffe declined through attrition.
UK industry was able to churn out fighters at greater than the existing replacement rate. More importantly the fight was happening over England and the Channel (which was controlled by the RN). When British pilots bailed out they did so over their home territory or were quickly rescued by the RN or RAF sea plane patrols. When the Germans bailed out, that pilot most likely became a POW.
Add in advances in radar and tactics and the RAF was never in danger of losing control of the skies over England.
I always appreciate seeing this dispelled, the myth that the Luftwaffe almost broke the RAF.
I'd like to add one other aspect that underscores the reality of the situation. During the Battle of Britain, the RAF maintained strict discipline when it came to assigning pilots beyond the battle itself. A significant number of pilots were in regular rotation out of combat in order to provide top-level instruction to pilot trainees, as well as for further training themselves. Also, it was RAF procedure that pilots make up the backbone of staff and command positions, taking those individuals out of combat. Finally, normal pilot leave was maintained. Not only did these procedures ensure a steady supply of new pilots, the consistent improvement of current pilots, and maintaining the combat effectiveness of pilots, it also provided a large pilot reserve - had things gone bad, this large body of pilots was available.
In contrast, the Luftwaffe did not do this anywhere to the degree as did the RAF. As such, they did not have that reserve to draw upon. They had already played all their cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Many have accused Stalin of working to "export the revolution" or something like that. Neo-Nazis even go so far as to make wild claims that Stalin was preparing an invasion of Germany and that is why Hitler had to launch his pre-emptive strike.
The thing is, Stalin was not in the "export the revolution" camp, that was people like Trotsky who Stalin had already swept aside. Stalin was rather pragmatic when it came to the capabilities of the Soviet Union and his goals. The Red Army was in a rebuilding phase set to culminate in 1943 at the end of the 5-year plan begun in 1938. All of the preparations based on the information and material available from the Soviet archives was related to building an army that could secure the Soviet Union against any invader.
Very true. Stalin found the mandate not just from Trotsky but from Marx himself to export the 'permanent revolution' to be very inconvenient, to the extent that he developed his own counter-theory - Socialism In On Country - to justify his focus on consolidating his power in the USSR itself.
It is also worth noting that Stalin was very cautious about picking fights. When he conquered territory, it was only because he had a massive advantage (ex: Finland, the Baltics) or because it fell into his lap due to defending the USSR (ex: all the gains in Eastern Europe in 1944/45) or due to alliance obligations (ex: Sakhalin and the Kuriles).
He was a butcher, but he was one - unlike Hitler - who responded conventionally to big-stick deterrence.
I am curious to know your thoughts. Also, why is it that after they were conquered, there were no massive resistance movements? Did the average French citizen possess firearms like is common in the U.S. today?
As I understand it, on the eve of war, France had one of the largest standing armies in the world. They mobilized more than 8 million men prior to Hitler's invasion. This was larger than the German Army. Also, the German Army was only 25% mechanized. The French Army's tactics and commanders were inferior to their German counterparts, which contributed greatly to the rapid German victory. I am still puzzled as to why they did not put up a better fight.
Been thinking about this thread recently.
Basically after the Germans unexpectedly broke through, the French began to question whether it was better to throw in the towel or continue the war. What happened in previous wars, especially the huge amount of casualties of WW1, was probably the deciding factor.
The thinking probably went along like this - the sooner the French asked for an armistice, the sooner the British would too. Continued resistance such as moving the French government and military to North Africa as Churchill wanted, would only prolong the suffering.
In 1940 the true evil of Hitler and the Nazis was not yet realized so the French thought peace might come along these lines:
--- recognizing German conquests such as Poland
--- the return of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany
--- return of former German colonies to Germany such as Kamerun
--- Tunisia, Corsica and possibly French Somaliland to Italy
--- Belgian Congo to Germany in order to get the Germans out of the Low Countries. Possibly Dutch colonies to Germany as well.
--- The British would be required to make their own concessions to the Germans and their Italian allies.
Seen from this angle, it seems more understandable that French leaders could offer concessions of land, most of it colonial or belonging to other nations, rather then loose another million causalities like WW1, in a war that already seemed lost. Of course as we know Hitler wanted a lot more then the French in 1940 could possibly comprehend.
I'm cool with this part. No argument. I would add, the invasion of the USSR was always the goal, the war with the British was not the war Hitler wanted to fight.
By attacking westward and northward to France, Belgium, Denmark and Norway he would have to know he was drawing n the British.
One more thing I hear Hitler in his weirdo race ideology thought England as semi-Germanic super-race as it was settled by Angles and Saxons in the 400s. So he did not like to fight a war against England and avoided a direct confrontation. Not sure how much truth is to that.
By attacking westward and northward to France, Belgium, Denmark and Norway he would have to know he was drawing n the British.
The British were already 'in' in 1940 when Hitler moved west - they declared war in 1939 after Germany invaded Poland, and sent the British Expeditionary Force to France. By March 1940, the UK had over 300,000 troops on the continent. Hitler's move didn't draw the British in, it was done to outflank them and then directly engage them.
The whole point of the western campaign was to eliminate that front before turning to the east. Once Dunkirk had happened and the British Army lived to fight another day, and Hitler finally realized that the Luftwaffe was never going to break the RAF and that Sealion was a pipe dream (or maybe he never realized this, but just got impatient after the seasonal window closed at the end of September 1940), Hitler turned east anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potential_Landlord
One more thing I hear Hitler in his weirdo race ideology thought England as semi-Germanic super-race as it was settled by Angles and Saxons in the 400s. So he did not like to fight a war against England and avoided a direct confrontation. Not sure how much truth is to that.
Well, race is a fuzzy human concept, but the British people are Germanic if anything. The very name of the land that comprises the vast majority of the British population - England - is derived from Old English and means 'land of the Angles', the latter being unquestionably Germanic. Toss in the Saxons, the Jutes and the Frisians and that's a whole lot of Germanic-ness right there. Then the Danish invasions brought more Germanic blood to the islands. True, there's Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, but England's population dwarfs them lot of them, and there's plenty of Norse blood in Scotland, too. And the Norman invasion didn't bring all that many bodies into England - it was mostly just aristocracy. Besides, what Normans did come were merely tamed Vikings.
So, yeah, Britain is pretty Germanic.
But then, Hitler's wild-eyed racial ideas only really motivated him with regard to Jews and Slavs. He was fine with the Latin blood of his main ally, Mussolini, and his main interest in France (Germanic in blood to a great extent, sure, but more Latin in culture) was simply removing them as an obstacle. And he courted - in vain - yet another Latin would-be ally in Franco. Mostly, he just wanted the UK to give him a free hand on the continent. The war against them was to that end.
The whole point of the western campaign was to eliminate that front before turning to the east. Once Dunkirk had happened and the British Army lived to fight another day, and Hitler finally realized that the Luftwaffe was never going to break the RAF and that Sealion was a pipe dream (or maybe he never realized this, but just got impatient after the seasonal window closed at the end of September 1940), Hitler turned east anyway.
Sealion was ruse to get the British to talk peace. Hitler conquered Denmark and Norway only to keep these away from the British and French. After France and the Low countries, he had no intention of invading the USSR, however was forced to gain the resources of the east to build an air fleet to counter the large air fleet that would be available to the British in early 1942.
If FDR did not announce he would make 50,000 planes per year, Germany would have concentrated on beefing up its navy and working towards the Mesopotamia plan.
Sealion was ruse to get the British to talk peace. Hitler conquered Denmark and Norway only to keep these away from the British and French. After France and the Low countries, he had no intention of invading the USSR, however was forced to gain the resources of the east to build an air fleet to counter the large air fleet that would be available to the British in early 1942.
If FDR did not announce he would make 50,000 planes per year, Germany would have concentrated on beefing up its navy and working towards the Mesopotamia plan.
Is there an echo in here? I keep hearing the same tired phrases over and over and over and over again...
Sealion was ruse to get the British to talk peace. Hitler conquered Denmark and Norway only to keep these away from the British and French. After France and the Low countries, he had no intention of invading the USSR, however was forced to gain the resources of the east to build an air fleet to counter the large air fleet that would be available to the British in early 1942.
If FDR did not announce he would make 50,000 planes per year, Germany would have concentrated on beefing up its navy and working towards the Mesopotamia plan.
Germany did not have the resources to challenge RN. Beefing up or not. Sealion was impossible in the realities of 1940s.
Germany did not have the resources to challenge RN. Beefing up or not. Sealion was impossible in the realities of 1940s.
Plus the "Fuhrer" was not really close to the German navy. He preferred the army and then next the air force. He felt like he needed to heed the naval commanders' advise more than others and treaded more cautiously in naval warfare. For Sealion the navy would have to be the centerpiece and that was a major obstacle for him.
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.
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.
