Brexit

[Habitat]

I don't know if it is revisionism, there are "what if's" galore, but had the Russians capitulated, Britain would have been in a dire situation, because there is no doubt the Med would have become an Axis lake, and the Middle East oilfields Axis property. And the whole of the Luftwaffe available to menace a Britain that refused to come to terms.

[Black Red Devil]

8 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Yes and what a true statement it is. How you make the leap from that to i think we won the war alone - to recreating the British Empire is a jump in your imagination alone. 

I didn't make the leap, you made it when you backed up Spud's quote.  Anyway, I'll tell you what, because I'm such a nice guy I'll let you off the hook.  I was going to insist for an official retraction of your silly claim but at the pace you've been backpedaling I fear you might end up on the shores of the Northern Territory in Oz.  There are a lot of crocs up there and you might get snatched by one or even worse, get picked up by the Coastal Guards and sent to Manus Island as a Refugee.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Black Red Devil

[Black Red Devil]

Damn, there's that annoying voice in the background again.  I wish it would make sense sometimes but all it does is mumble nonsense and disappear.  One thing I did understand is when it said post 346.  It's a funny thing, it seems to follow me around the Forum world and the more I make fun of it, the more it comes back for more.  Weird.

[Space Commander Travis]

3 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Russia was not close to defeat in 1941--they were being beaten and beaten badly.  But they managed their counter attack that stop the Germans before the greater weight of Western assistance even reached them.

The Germans still lacked the manpower and resources to sweep through the Middle East.  Great Britain is not just one island, with a small population, after all.  And why do both of you completely ignore the Royal Navy?

What is it with all of the historical revisionism all of the sudden?

There was never really any grand plan to seize the Middle East and then on to India and so on, there was never even really any deliberate plan to take the Suez canal. the whole North African campaign was pretty much extemporised on the hoof to pull Mussolini's a*ss out of the fire, even Hitler was taken by surprise by just how much Rommel managed to achieve on the very limited resources he had. 

[Black Red Devil]

If I'd have to classify the overall merits of the Ally victory against the Axis during WWII in percentages, I would break it up into 40% for the US, 25% for the Soviets, 20% for GB, 15% to the rest of the allies of which the largest percentages going to the Canadians, French, Polish and Australians. The Americans basically defeated the Japanese on their own in the Pacific and were still instrumental on the Western Front in Europe.  The Soviets managed to resist a full frontal attack of 180 German Divisions on their own in Operation Barbarossa and inexorably squash the Germans back on the Eastern Front.  Great Britain won the aerial battle in the skies over Britain and things would have been much harder for the allies if they lost and were decisive in the African and especially the Western European Campaigns. 

[Habitat]

33 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

If I'd have to classify the overall merits of the Ally victory against the Axis during WWII in percentages, I would break it up into 40% for the US, 25% for the Soviets, 20% for GB, 15% to the rest of the allies of which the largest percentages going to the Canadians, French, Polish and Australians. The Americans basically defeated the Japanese on their own in the Pacific and were still instrumental on the Western Front in Europe.  The Soviets managed to resist a full frontal attack of 180 German Divisions on their own in Operation Barbarossa and inexorably squash the Germans back on the Eastern Front.  Great Britain won the aerial battle in the skies over Britain and things would have been much harder for the allies if they lost and were decisive in the African and especially the Western European Campaigns. 

Given that Japan was a minor threat compared to Germany, and that the main German offensive asset, the Wehrmacht, was a mere shadow of its former self by mid 1944, the Russians clearly played the main role. And died in droves doing it. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by Habitat

[Space Commander Travis]

39 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

If I'd have to classify the overall merits of the Ally victory against the Axis during WWII in percentages, I would break it up into 40% for the US, 25% for the Soviets, 20% for GB, 15% to the rest of the allies of which the largest percentages going to the Canadians, French, Polish and Australians. The Americans basically defeated the Japanese on their own in the Pacific and were still instrumental on the Western Front in Europe.  The Soviets managed to resist a full frontal attack of 180 German Divisions on their own in Operation Barbarossa and inexorably squash the Germans back on the Eastern Front.  Great Britain won the aerial battle in the skies over Britain and things would have been much harder for the allies if they lost and were decisive in the African and especially the Western European Campaigns. 

Well, I'm sure they'll all be very grateful to you for so generously conceding that this nation or that possibly deserves 20% or whatever of the credit. Did you know that the Brits played a not small part in fighting the Japanese in Burma and southeast Asia, and everyone forgets China, don't they, in which Japan had been tied up since the early 30s and which suffered proportionally the highest casualties of all?

[Habitat]

The Germans probably deserve the credit for their defeat, over-confidence and lack of plan B if plan A went awry. The German High Command declared victory on several different occasions. A lot of that arose from poor intelligence, that under-estimated the opposition.

[hetrodoxly]

7 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Instead of being smart and accurate?

Wow, move those goalposts, why don't you?  And you were alone, just read post #345 and stop making **** up as you type.

Russia would have won their part of it, regardless if they were "armed and fed" by Great Britain....which, actually, most of that came from the US anyway.  Our helping Russia out just sped things up, that's all.  Russia wasn't completely unarmed and completely out of food.  For cryin' out loud, do some ****ing research.

How have the goal posts been moved? so Russia would have beaten Germany by eating grass and fighting with sticks all those tanks and airplanes were left on the dockside (that Britain paid for)

If we'd lost "The Battle of Britain" what base would have been used to bomb the German war machine, plan and launch the raids on occupied Europe ie heavy water plant? shall we go through them one by one?

Edited August 12, 2016 by hetrodoxly

[Habitat]

10 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

How have the goal posts been moved? so Russia would have beaten Germany by eating grass and fighting with sticks all those tanks and airplanes were left on the dockside (that Britain paid for)

If we'd lost "The Battle of Britain" what base would have been used to bomb the German war machine, plan and launch the raids on occupied Europe ie hard water plant? shall we go through them one by one?

Many a housewife of old looking to get the clothes clean, would have approved a raid on a hard water plant !

[hetrodoxly]

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Many a housewife of old looking to get the clothes clean, would have approved a raid on a hard water plant !

Ha ha i bet they would have approved.

[Black Red Devil]

2 hours ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

Well, I'm sure they'll all be very grateful to you for so generously conceding that this nation or that possibly deserves 20% or whatever of the credit. Did you know that the Brits played a not small part in fighting the Japanese in Burma and southeast Asia, and everyone forgets China, don't they, in which Japan had been tied up since the early 30s and which suffered proportionally the highest casualties of all?

Yes I do know that and so did the Australians.  But overall the US were most heavily involved in the major battles, Midway, Coral Sea and Guadalcanal and without their aircraft and ships it would have been dire straights.  Twenty percent, considering all the "contenders" and the conditions, is a recognition unless you want to also believe that Britain was the primary reason the Germans lost in WWII, which is ridiculous. 

I mean seriously, some guys posting on these threads really need to do some historical research if they wish to be taken seriously (Black Monk, I'm talking about you).   Hitler shifted his focus on Russia because he despised of the Bolsheviks which were the antipodes of the Nazis.  In fact Concentration camps were initially built for political prisoners, not for Jews.

Look at this link about Operation Barbarossa and read how many Soviets soldiers and citizens (mainly Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians) were killed during the campaign.  This together with D-day were the two turning points in WWII and the Allies were lucky the Germans inexplicably were unprepared for a Russian winter.

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

Yes I do know that and so did the Australians.  But overall the US were most heavily involved in the major battles, Midway, Coral Sea and Guadalcanal and without their aircraft and ships it would have been dire straights.  Twenty percent, considering all the "contenders" and the conditions, is a recognition unless you want to also believe that Britain was the primary reason the Germans lost in WWII, which is ridiculous. 

I mean seriously, some guys posting on these threads really need to do some historical research if they wish to be taken seriously (Black Monk, I'm talking about you).   Hitler shifted his focus on Russia because he despised of the Bolsheviks which were the antipodes of the Nazis.  In fact Concentration camps were initially built for political prisoners, not for Jews.

Look at this link about Operation Barbarossa and read how many Soviets soldiers and citizens (mainly Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians) were killed during the campaign.  This together with D-day were the two turning points in WWII and the Allies were lucky the Germans inexplicably were unprepared for a Russian winter.

This argument is getting rather silly. You clearly don't understand what the war with Japan involved, so I'll leave you to it.

[Leonardo]

On 11/08/2016 at 2:01 PM, Black Monk said:

Britain WOULD have beaten Germany on her own. Britain routed Jerry in the Battle of Britain - on her own. One reason for that was Britain's industrial might, which saw her building new ships and warplanes at a far faster rate than the Germans were doing.

A load of rubbish. Germany lost (rather than "Britain won") the Battle of Britain because the Luftwaffe made a strategic error in opting to bomb British cities, rather than factories, airfields, etc. If the High Command of the Luftwaffe (Goering) had not been strung out on heroin most of the time, and a militarily incapable egoist, Britain likely wouldn't have had an airforce with which to fight the Battle.

Britain's "industrial might" was far below that of Germany's at the time, and the truth is the rate Britain could build ships, airplanes, etc, and train people to use those weapons of war, was insufficient to make up their losses. Britain was losing the war through attrition until the German military command made several mistakes (including the one I mentioned above) which forced them to take a step back.

By then, Germany had decided to focus on North Africa, the Mediterranean and the Near/Middle East, and then entangled itself in the east against Russia, and so the opportunity to crush Britain was lost. Britain would not have "beaten Germany on it's own", that is just your nationalist delusion speaking.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Leonardo

[bmk1245]

Why is this still a thing? Brexit happened while ago. Brits made their choice. Whatever will happen (for good, or for worse), it will happen.

Ah, right, we are breaking swords here...

[Habitat]

Neville Chamberlain, a man with a poor reputation in the modern popular imagination, as a misguided appeaser, was in fact a significant factor in Britain winning the BOB, having been at the forefront of the pre-war push to strengthen the RAF. Without his throwing his weight behind such efforts, it could have been curtains.

[Black Red Devil]

59 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

This argument is getting rather silly. You clearly don't understand what the war with Japan involved, so I'll leave you to it.

LOL, OK mate. 

[stevewinn]

11 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

I didn't make the leap, you made it when you backed up Spud's quote.  Anyway, I'll tell you what, because I'm such a nice guy I'll let you off the hook.  I was going to insist for an official retraction of your silly claim but at the pace you've been backpedaling I fear you might end up on the shores of the Northern Territory in Oz.  There are a lot of crocs up there and you might get snatched by one or even worse, get picked up by the Coastal Guards and sent to Manus Island as a Refugee.

oh please dont im having fun with you. - the longer you go the more wriggling you do. - so far,

Japanese statement was wrong. we've proved that.

You claimed i think WW2 was won by Britain alone, for which i have presented evidence to the contrary - highlighted two posts on record dated before your allegations started proving once again you are wrong in your assumption.  

and bizarrely according to you i want to recreate the British empire, please refer to the quote below dated 2010. in reply to Questionmark, who was making the same assumption as you are doing now.

can you not see a pattern emerging here? No doubt you are a nice guy, even if a little erroneously as is plain to see. faced with evidence provided you still wont accept it. proving don't always believe what you think.

On 11/24/2010 at 8:25 PM, stevewinn said:

I do not want the UK to be a empire or super power, been there got the T-shirt and the title of super power is more trouble than its worth. i want the UK to sit back relax and let the Europeans get on with empire building and all that comes with that status they crave.

 

 

 

 

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, Leonardo said:

A load of rubbish. Germany lost (rather than "Britain won") the Battle of Britain because the Luftwaffe made a strategic error in opting to bomb British cities, rather than factories, airfields, etc. If the High Command of the Luftwaffe (Goering) had not been strung out on heroin most of the time, and a militarily incapable egoist, Britain likely wouldn't have had an airforce with which to fight the Battle.

Britain's "industrial might" was far below that of Germany's at the time, and the truth is the rate Britain could build ships, airplanes, etc, and train people to use those weapons of war, was insufficient to make up their losses. Britain was losing the war through attrition until the German military command made several mistakes (including the one I mentioned above) which forced them to take a step back.

 

Actually I don't think that bit was necessarily the case; the RAF was receiving Spitfires* and Hurricanes (* another great myth there, that the Spitfire was the Plane that Won the War) at a fast enough rate to cover losses, it was trained pilots that were becoming desperately short. Much as it was, in fact, for Germany from 1944. Otherwise, I think your thesis is pretty much right.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Grand Moff Tarkin

[Black Red Devil]

5 hours ago, stevewinn said:

oh please dont im having fun with you. - the longer you go the more wriggling you do. - so far,

Japanese statement was wrong. we've proved that.

You claimed i think WW2 was won by Britain alone, for which i have presented evidence to the contrary - highlighted two posts on record dated before your allegations started proving once again you are wrong in your assumption.  

and bizarrely according to you i want to recreate the British empire, please refer to the quote below dated 2010. in reply to Questionmark, who was making the same assumption as you are doing now.

can you not see a pattern emerging here? No doubt you are a nice guy, even if a little erroneously as is plain to see. faced with evidence provided you still wont accept it. proving don't always believe what you think.

 

 

 

You had to go back 6 years to find a quote?!  Wow, few and far in between huh.    I told you I was letting you off the hook and you're still back peddling?  Thirdeye, you live in Malaysia, if you're reading this stay on the lookout for Steve if he passes by. Catch him before he ends up as a crocs toothpick.    All good fun mate.

[Thorvir]

17 hours ago, Habitat said:

I don't know if it is revisionism, there are "what if's" galore, but had the Russians capitulated, Britain would have been in a dire situation, because there is no doubt the Med would have become an Axis lake, and the Middle East oilfields Axis property. And the whole of the Luftwaffe available to menace a Britain that refused to come to terms.

Sure, if you throw in "what ifs" then anything could happen.  What if the Russians and Germans remained at peace?  What if they decided to take their alliance once step further and join forces (not just in Poland)?  Still, the combined forces of both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany weren't enough to defeat the US at least...unless you want to throw in more "what-ifs"?

Thing is, we're not dealing with speculation here.  Fact is, Britain did not win the war on its own, like a couple of uninformed posters are pushing.  Germany could not have won the war.  Japan could not have won the war.  Events played out exactly as they did for a damned good reason.

[Thorvir]

11 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

How have the goal posts been moved? so Russia would have beaten Germany by eating grass and fighting with sticks all those tanks and airplanes were left on the dockside (that Britain paid for)

If we'd lost "The Battle of Britain" what base would have been used to bomb the German war machine, plan and launch the raids on occupied Europe ie heavy water plant? shall we go through them one by one?

Don't be so damned stupid.  Russia wasn't just "eating grass".  Russia wasn't just using sticks.  Do some actual research and stop trolling me with your stupidity.  Educate yourself for once.

Go through all you want to one by one.  You'll still be absolutely wrong.  It was a team effort.  Geez.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[Thorvir]

12 hours ago, Habitat said:

Given that Japan was a minor threat compared to Germany...

Um, no.  Just no. They were as much of a threat, if not greater, than Germany.  Not a threat of conquering the world as you fear mongers are pushing, of course, but they were a very powerful enemy that did a lot of damage before they were brought to heel.  Don't dismiss them.

Sure, they had no chance of winning, just like Germany, but labeling them "minor" is a gross misinterpretation of history.

[Thorvir]

7 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Why is this still a thing? Brexit happened while ago. Brits made their choice. Whatever will happen (for good, or for worse), it will happen.

Ah, right, we are breaking swords here...

For my part, it's because a couple of historically-deficient trolls riled me up and raised my ire with their willful ignorance and disdain for not only what actually happened, but disdain for the hard-work and effort put forth by millions of non-Brits during the war years to defeat Germany and Japan.  That kind of stupidity really, REALLY, burns me up.

[bmk1245]

Just now, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

For my part, it's because a couple of historically-deficient trolls riled me up and raised my ire with their willful ignorance and disdain for not only what actually happened, but disdain for the hard-work and effort put forth by millions of non-Brits during the war years to defeat Germany and Japan.  That kind of stupidity really, REALLY, burns me up.

OK, fair enough, thats out of my league. I really don't care 'bout Brexit. Why any should?