Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 05:53
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
BTW Kraj is a very astute and articulate guy, I'm glad somebody can see the difference between criticism of an action and personal abuse.
Brian
Brian
Brianwarnock said:Germany was never going to invade GB, he actually wanted to do a deal we keep our Empire he gets Europe, but unlike those sitting on the sidelines getting rich we decided to fight evil.
Brianwarnock said:Hi Dan slight delay as the missus stole the computer to order books![]()
Brianwarnock said:1 I was not talking about Neville Chamberlain, but Hitler's offers to Churchill from 1940 - 42
Brianwarnock said:2 If Britain and Germany made a pact who was America supplying?
Brianwarnock said:3 The battle of Britain was hitlers alternative to risking an invasion afte being rebutted by Churchill
Brianwarnock said:d Chuchill was a ruthless bastard , he knew that if we bombed German cities they would retaliate by bombing ours and thus our airfields would be spared.
Brianwarnock said:e Us supplies were vital , its just that they cost us all our overseas investments, they were not free.
Brianwarnock said:4 Ah yes the Japs. The war was over for Germany immediately after Pearl Harbour, with the Japs moving south thr Russians could move millions of troups from their Eastern borders to their Western front. But if we hadn't been fighting in Europe then who knows how things would have gone in the East.
Brianwarnock said:5 The sitting on the sidelines refers to the period upto Japan and Germany declaring war on the USA, and I in no way want to minimise the human loss to america, but it was the one nation that came out of WW2 richer than when it started.
Brianwarnock said:My sole objection is to the we won the war without us you would be speaking German brigade, oh and that we didn't get charged for our goods.
dan-cat said:I understand, but I hope you appreciate why I wanted to point out the US casualties in the conflict. The delay was there, there is no arguing against it and there is a good argument that the Marshall plan was a money-making exercise. However I have known US citizens who were involved in the D-Day landings and visited the American cemetry in Cambridge, UK. I didn't want to allow that to get brushed under the carpet as it were.
Brianwarnock said:Agreed Churchill would not trust Hitler, but accepting the offer may have bought us time, especially as Churchill's on the beaches speach hinted that he knew the US would eventually join the war, I can't quickly find it on the web but the last line is "until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might,steps foreward to the rescue and liberation of the old."
Just a joke Brian and your closeness to a US airbase?Brianwarnock said:Quote from Rich about me
Just for the record I have no lineage back to America
Fathers side is from lowland Scots via Northern Ireland, Mothers almost pure Welsh, but there was a Hamilton in there a few generations ago.
I suppose Rich thinks anybody not attacking America must be American![]()
Brian
dan-cat said:Going to disagree with you here Bri, hope you don't mind![]()
1) Neville Chamberlain did a deal with Hitler once. What came of that?
2) The UK was of vital strategic importance to the invasion of Europe. The UK had to be added to the reich to cut off the crucial supply routes from the United States.
3) The battle of Britain was a total commitment to achieve point 2. Why it didn't happen?
a) Radar
b) The UK being an island
c) The geniuses who designed the spitfire (and those who flew them of course)
d) Hitler switching his air superiority campaign from the airfields to the cities
e) Supplies from the US (had to slip that one in)
4) The agreement to keep your empire was worthless because of point 1) and because the Japanese (who were solely interested in conquest) were a superior force in the Pacific. The fall of Singapore for example.
5) I would like to remind you that US military casualties in world war 2 was going on towards 300,000. Yes this probably includes the war in the Pacific but the UK's empire extended there too. I really don't think 'sitting on the sidelines' is an apt way to describe the US's involvement.
Rich said:1/ Chamberlins deal with Hitler bought the UK time to re-arm since it had spent the twenties and most of the thirties disarming
Rich said:5/ Russia lost appr. 20,000,000 the Commonwealth lost app. 1,000,000, the French lost appr. 1,500,000, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, perhaps you'd better explain
dan-cat said:I really don't think 'sitting on the sidelines' is an apt way to describe the US's involvement.
dan-cat said:Once Russia had fallen, you would have been next, IMHO.
.
US military involvement was not forthcoming at the time, I guess desperate times calls for desperate measures. With total air superiority to the Luftwaffe, the UK would have fallen.
I agree, to be honest Roosevelt's delay is still something I don't get. Probably something along the lines of Chamberlain's initial approach of appeasment but carried to a much further extent.
I understand how some may see this in a bitter light, but Chamberlain did much worse to the Czechs with the Munich agreement.
Rich said:b/ correct
The United States wants the role of the worlds policeman yet refuses to accept the rules of those it pretends to be protecting.
Where have I ever said it wasn't ?FoFa said:So if I understand, When things go wrong, being disarmed is a bad thing.![]()
Rich said:Hitler had already tried during that little squabble called the Battle of Britain, what makes you think he could have succeeded a second time around?
Rich said:The Krauts couldn't get air superiority over Britain, see previous response
Rich said:Don't you guys get any history lessons?
Rich said:Chamberlin ultimately bought time, had he not you'd all be speaking German by now.
The_Doc_Man said:What irks me here is that you can't or don't want to see the parallel, however, imperfect, between the UK during WW2 and Israel now. Yes, we help our friends. When our friends turn on us (and yes, some of the insurrectionists in the Middle East fall into that category), we often have to change our mind. Which is better? A. Letting things continue as they are in a bad situation, or B. helping others to make changes in their own government, or C. going in with lots of bombs and enough troops to turn a country into a big parking lot to impose our ideas? Well, in the case of Iraq, options A and B turned out to be no-go, leaving us with C. Were we right to be in Iraq? Look at the treatment done to the Kurds.
Oh, heck, we could diatribe this all day. Screw it. Rich, your ideas are not shared by all to whom you speak.
The Eastern front hadn't been opened when the Battle of Britain was in operation, are you suggesting that he'd have come back for a second try?dan-cat said:No eastern front and all the extra resources of Russia to back him up perhaps?
Anyway my point wasn't that Britain would fall but that it would have been next on Hitler's list. ie Hitler had every intention of invading Britain regardless of any pact.
Well the good natured feel was nice while it lasted *sigh*
I was just paraphrasing the standard American pitch on the subject, did I do something wrong?see previous response
Rich said:The Eastern front hadn't been opened when the Battle of Britain was in operation, are you suggesting that he'd have come back for a second try?
Rich said:I was just curious *heaves larger sigh*
I was just paraphrasing the standard American pitch on the subject, did I do something wrong?![]()
dan-cat said:Yes, Hitler had clear plans to invade Russia. If he had succeeded, then, IMO, Hitler's attention would once again have turned to Britain. Simply because of it's strategic importance.
You mean the phrase is like a red rag to a bull?What I think you did was take an aggressive stand against me for no real reason.
Well one or two minor points that I've let passThere isn't actually very much that I have said over the past few posts that you disagree with is there
Rich said:But he'd already tried it once, in order to invade the UK he had to wipe the RAF from the skies, had he come back for a second try the RAF would have grown even stronger to match it.
Rich said:Maybe it was a close run thing but Germany could not match the losses it was suffering during the battle and Britain was not brought to its knees during the blitz. Neither was Germany brought to its knees by bombing which is why it's so strange that America still thinks it can win wars by bombing the crap out of a country.
Rich said:You mean the phrase is like a red rag to a bull?
Rich said:Well one or two minor points that I've let pass![]()