Arsenal of beating Germany

[SpicyJuan]

Which Hitler said that? Was it a different one that said he respected the British people, and admired their empire, and proclaimed that he was going to base German colonial policy in the East off of British rule in India?

The one who did not dare risk getting his army drowned by the RN.
The one who withdrew when outfought by the RAF.
That one.

And how is that relevant to Hitler's opinion of the English?

[Michael Kenny]

And how is that relevant to Hitler's opinion of the English?

I have no idea. I am not the one who introduced 'Hitler's opinion of the English' so I leave you to answer your own question.

The thread was simply about if the war would have ended in a victory for the Allies if the US had not been drawn in. I say yes. Several people took exception to this and introduced lots of convoluted reason why (without US troops) the UK would be a helpless prostrate target for the all powerful all conquering Germans. Granted it was mostly Anglophobes to start with but then a contributer fresh from posting claims (in another thread)that Churchill had secret pre-WW2 plans to kill innocent German civilians decided to claim the demise of the Empire was prooof Germany 'won' the war. You have decided to run with this by saying Germany is the de facto 'head' of the EU and this confirms the absurd claim.
Let us deal with the reality and stop making claims the Hitler 'admired' the UK and thus 'allowed' them to escape at Dunkirk and also did not really intend to invade the UK. The facts are that the German's were simply unable to reduce the Dunkirk pocket in time to get at the evecuating troops. Hitler failed to gain air superiority and thus could not launch his invasion because the RN would drown most of his army and those that landed would be defeated. That is the way it was. Germany was not powerful enough to defeat the UK in 1940.

We do not have to speculate as to how the UK would fare if fighting on her own because we can look at the events of late 1940 and see what happened. The UK stood up to and repulsed the full concentrated might of the German war machine and repulsed it.

[paspartoo]

Love the discussion....

[Kurfürst]

the Germany of today has much more diplomatic and political influence in Europe (and the world) than the Third Reich ever had before WW2, and one could say even more than the carcass of the British empire today.

Does Germany have a veto at the UN?

Why, does it worth anything?

[SpicyJuan]

And how is that relevant to Hitler's opinion of the English?

I have no idea. I am not the one who introduced 'Hitler's opinion of the English' so I leave you to answer your own question.

Well let's see here:

This downplaying of everything to do with the UK reminds me of someone else who claimed the UK was a washed -up bankrupt country that could not even defend itself. What was his name again..............Adolf Hitler?

Quit with your backpedaling, I'm not the one who pathetically tried to compare a view of geopolitics, and a false opinion of Adolf Hitler of the British people and her former empire.

...decided to claim the demise of the Empire was prooof Germany 'won' the war. You have decided to run with this by saying Germany is the de facto 'head' of the EU and this confirms the absurd claim.
Let us deal with the reality and stop making claims the Hitler 'admired' the UK and thus 'allowed' them to escape at Dunkirk and also did not really intend to invade the UK. The facts are that the German's were simply unable to reduce the Dunkirk pocket in time to get at the evecuating troops. Hitler failed to gain air superiority and thus could not launch his invasion because the RN would drown most of his army and those that landed would be defeated. That is the way it was. Germany was not powerful enough to defeat the UK in 1940.

To say that Hitler 'let' the British escape at Dunkirk is absurd, that was a moment of failed leadership. It is equally absurd to claim that Germany 'won' the war (that was America), but perfectly reasonable-and correct-to conclude that the Britain expended to its fullest its material, moral, and military resources, which left the nation and its people a phyrric victory.

We do not have to speculate as to how the UK would fare if fighting on her own because we can look at the events of late 1940 and see what happened. The UK stood up to and repulsed the clumsy and uncoordinated might of the German war machine and repulsed it.

Fixed.

[SpicyJuan]

Love the discussion....

I wish he was still here with us, he was so great

[SpicyJuan]

the Germany of today has much more diplomatic and political influence in Europe (and the world) than the Third Reich ever had before WW2, and one could say even more than the carcass of the British empire today.

Does Germany have a veto at the UN?

Why, does it worth anything?

Precisely

[Michael Kenny]

the Germany of today has much more diplomatic and political influence in Europe (and the world) than the Third Reich ever had before WW2, and one could say even more than the carcass of the British empire today.

Does Germany have a veto at the UN?

Why, does it worth anything?

Precisely

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 17489.html

Dream of Influence: Germany Renews Campaign for UN Security Council Seat

[BDV]

Well, British citizens were not necessarily enthralled with defending the Empire as such, a short time later (1947 mutinies). How enthralled would they be to lift the slack in defense of Joe Stalin slave emporium? And towards the end of the war there was some serious battle fatigue setting in (IIRC I've seen some comments on the 7th Armored veterans shying away from contact).

IMO, the British aggressive stance past August 30th 1939 was predicated on USA involvement in the war. Surely given 1917, not only material. Maybe even before that, without POTUS Delano's ultimatum to Schicklgruber, I propose there are not the material conditions for a British guarantee to apetyt hyena Poland.

[Michael Kenny]

And towards the end of the war there was some serious battle fatigue setting in (IIRC I've seen some comments on the 7th Armored veterans shying away from contact).

Your in luck.
I have the ability to check that out.
Details please.
I think you have confused the chatter after PERCH and being confused moved it to the 'end of the war' but we will see.
I would also like the details of the 'serious battle fatigue' that (you say)set in.
To be honest I believe you made it up.

IMO, the British aggressive stance past August 30th 1939 was predicated on USA involvement in the war
Surely given 1917, not only material. Maybe even before that, without POTUS Delano's ultimatum to Schicklgruber, I propose there are not the material conditions for a British guarantee to apetyt hyena Poland.

IMO your imagination is working overtime and causing you to halucinate.

[SpicyJuan]

And towards the end of the war there was some serious battle fatigue setting in (IIRC I've seen some comments on the 7th Armored veterans shying away from contact).

Your in luck.
I have the ability to check that out.
Details please.
I think you have confused the chatter after PERCH and being confused moved it to the 'end of the war' but we will see.
I would also like the details of the 'serious battle fatigue' that (you say)set in.
To be honest I believe you made it up.

IMO, the British aggressive stance past August 30th 1939 was predicated on USA involvement in the war
Surely given 1917, not only material. Maybe even before that, without POTUS Delano's ultimatum to Schicklgruber, I propose there are not the material conditions for a British guarantee to apetyt hyena Poland.

IMO your imagination is working overtime and causing you to halucinate.

IMO, you're using ad hominem's to try to bolster the little value that your posts have.

[Michael Kenny]

IMO, you're using ad hominem's to try to bolster the little value that your posts have.

A specific claim was made. I say it is false. I laid out where I believe the error accured.
I can not see how I can be more specific.
It should be easy to discredit me by referencing the specific claims

I.E.

towards the end of the war there was some serious battle fatigue

And:

7th Armored veterans shying away from contact


I note how a simple denial that the US was essential to an Allied victory (with no slights on the ability of the US soldier) brings forward disgraceful slurs on the character of the Commonwealth troops.

[BDV]

Details please.

War weariness of 7th Armored (and bonus! 51st Highlander):
British Armour in the Normandy Campaign
by John Buckley
pages 203, 204.

To be honest I believe you made it up.

As above.

Were you the guy who, a few years back, did not remember that some of the fortified ports and the Channel Islands were bypassed and blockaded?

I mean there's a dedicated thread on 7th Armored's performance in Normandy, on this very forum. On which you participated!.

[Michael Kenny]

The exhaustion problems for all armies (US/Commonwealth/German) in Normandy in June-Aug are well known. This period was the peak for losses.


Please provide the details of your earlier claim:

And towards the end of the war there was some serious battle fatigue setting in (IIRC I've seen some comments on the 7th Armored veterans shying away from contact).

I take 'near the end of the war' to be Jan. 1945 at least..


However if you insist on backing away from your initial claim (because you have no evidence to support it-i.e. made it ip) I urge you to check Buckleys later work 'Monty's Men'.

Try Chapter 5 'Stalemate'. Start with Page 142 where Buckley shows the 15th Scottish Division (considered a good performer)had higher discipline problems than 51st HD. Seems Buckley did more reaearch.

[Michael Kenny]

I mean there's a dedicated thread on 7th Armored's performance in Normandy, on this very forum. On which you participated!.

So then I ask you for the specific incidents that allow you to say it had 'problems'. Can you give me 3 examples where , in your words, we can see '7th Armored veterans shying away from contact'?

I repeat what I said in 2012

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1713416

I was going to chip in earlier with 'who says they underperformed' but thought better of it.
I can give you any number of quotes from US and German commanders where they berate their own troops for poor performance.
It pales in comparison to the way individual US/UK Generals spoke about each others troops and apart from the rather lax recce skills shown at Villers (due in part to a late unloading of certain 7th AD Units) I struggle to find any really 'bad' behaviour.
The way their commander refused to send them forward at Goodwood is another incident used against them but remember he said there were enough tanks crowded in front of him and adding to the confusion would achieve nothing.
Anyone ever stop to consider if he was right?

Who knows perhaps you will be the first to provide evidence rather than simply repasting what you find via Google search?

Why do you feel the need to denigrate a nations soldiers simply because you belive me to be English (I am Irish by the way)and I rejected your opinion that without US soldiers WW2 could not be won by the Allies?