- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WWII hypothetical: could Britain have defeated Germany by itself after June 1940
Posted on 4/25/16 at 7:37 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 4/25/16 at 7:37 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
But they paid a very heavy price in the process, losing over 150,000 men, 1,200 aircraft, and close to 800 tanks.
Can you imagine how the American public would react today if the U.S. sustained those sort of losses in a six week period? Yet, for some reason the Battle of France is widely viewed as an easy German victory.
now you know if your son has a nagging cough, because he skypes.
I doubt those losses were lead stories in German press.
1
Posted on 4/25/16 at 7:44 pm to CelticDog
quote:
now you know if your son has a nagging cough, because he skypes.
I doubt those losses were lead stories in German press.
Well that's a great point. The message the German public received from the press reels was and endless stream of German victories. Say what you will about the Nazis but one thing they we better than just about anyone else at was propaganda.
But still, I always find it ironic that even today with the benefit of hindsight and all the facts, most people think of the Battle of France as an easy German victory.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 7:50 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
However, much as our entering the war saved Britain, without our logistical help the Soviets would have collapsed eventually. Yes, the Soviets could churn out tanks, planes, bullets, guns, and things of that nature on a scale the Germans could not fathom. But what they couldn't do was something as simple as feed their army or even provide the trucks the red army needed to keep the steamroller rolling.
I will have to disagree a little with this, Darth.
The Soviets were highly dependent on us for lots of things, including clothes, trucks, heavy equipment, locomotives, and even our Sherman tanks, in addition to food.
In particular, our aid in the form of trucks and locomotives kept them in the fight. Without the billions of dollars and aid we gave them, I doubt they could have fought the Germans off at Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow. JMHO
Posted on 4/25/16 at 7:52 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
I will have to disagree a little with this, Darth.
The Soviets were highly dependent on us for lots of things, including clothes, trucks, heavy equipment, locomotives, and even our Sherman tanks, in addition to food.
While the Soviets were absolutely reliant upon the U.S. for a wide variety of necessary aid, food and logistical items most vitally, they were in fact producing arms at a tremendous rate.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 7:55 pm to RidiculousHype
No.
Japan staying out helps but brits didn't have industrial might of Germany.
Japan staying out helps but brits didn't have industrial might of Germany.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 7:56 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
While the Soviets were absolutely reliant upon the U.S. for a wide variety of necessary aid, food and logistical items most vitally, they were in fact producing arms at a tremendous rate.
They were producing quantities of some arms, yes. But they would have been of little use without the means of transport to get to the front that we gave them, along with quite a bit of other material. These are facts which they have never acknowledged.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:00 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
I will have to disagree a little with this, Darth.
The Soviets were highly dependent on us for lots of things, including clothes, trucks, heavy equipment, locomotives, and even our Sherman tanks, in addition to food.
In particular, our aid in the form of trucks and locomotives kept them in the fight. Without the billions of dollars and aid we gave them, I doubt they could have fought the Germans off at Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow. JMHO
See the rest of my post. I was saying the Russians could produce some things in massive quantities but other things they could not make in any significant numbers. That's why I gave the examples of the Studebaker and Spam from the U.S. being vital to the Soviets staying in the war. Without those two things, not to mention the other vital supplies we gave them, the Soviets would have lost.
However, when it comes to producing tanks, the Soviets had no problem doing that. Look at the venerable T-34 as an example. They built almost 35,000 of them. And when you add in all other types (light tanks, SPG's, assault guns, heavy tanks) the number rises over 100,000 tanks and armored vehicles they built during the war. And that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands of towed artillery pieces and millions of rifles, MG's, and sub-machine guns they built as well. Then there's aircraft. The Soviets built over 35,000 the IL-2 alone.
But as I said, they were able to achieve these production levels of weapons only by concentrating on these things while we supplied them with everything else.
This post was edited on 4/25/16 at 8:02 pm
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:01 pm to LongueCarabine
Keep in mind German economy didn't go on a war footing until 1943. Think about that.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:02 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
See the rest of my post.
Agreed.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:02 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
They were producing quantities of some arms, yes. But they would have been of little use without the means of transport to get to the front that we gave them, along with quite a bit of other material. These are facts which they have never acknowledged.
I agree, and I know Darth does as well. But one area they did not lag was tank, aircraft, small arms, artillery pieces, etc. I think that's sometimes lost in the recognition of the importance of Lend-Lease. The Soviet military was still a juggernaut.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:05 pm to RidiculousHype
quote:
could Britain have defeated Germany by itself after June 1940?
No. /Thread
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:05 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Keep in mind German economy didn't go on a war footing until 1943. Think about that.
I've always wondered how things would have been different had they not made this stupid mistake. Yeah, morale on the home front is vital, but not going on a war footing from a production standpoint from the start was just stupid. Hell, if nothing else as soon as the decision was made to invade the Soviet Union they should have gone on a war footing.
Alright, time to put my baby girl to bed and watch Better Call Saul. Awesome thread everyone. I'll try to check back later tonight.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:07 pm to Darth_Vader
Before you leave Darth
How much is rent?
Cuz I'm all in your head
Insert David Caruso shades here
How much is rent?
Cuz I'm all in your head
Insert David Caruso shades here
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:15 pm to Mr Personality
quote:
Cuz I'm all in your head
It's unfortunate that Southeast LA State Hospital and Central LA State Hospital are closed.
You would have made a nice study to keep psychiatrists busy for years.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:20 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I've always wondered how things would have been different had they not made this stupid mistake. Yeah, morale on the home front is vital, but not going on a war footing from a production standpoint from the start was just stupid. Hell, if nothing else as soon as the decision was made to invade the Soviet Union they should have gone on a war footing.
This goes back to Hitler's fear and paranoia about not wanting to repeat what happened in WWI. In his mind, Germany's loss in the Great War stemmed fundamentally from a breakdown of will and resolve on the homefront due to the blockade and the privations that resulted, which of course was exploited by leftist agitators to foment unrest and revolution. Hitler was adamant that Germany's war effort would not be ruined by internal agitation again, and this mindset was a big contributor to putting off the total war footing until '43. An error for sure. It was also a contributor to the harsh treatment of groups that could be considered threats to civil order internally.
The Nazi obsession with will and internal strength and resolve was a double edged sword but I believe this was a major driving force behind the German nation holding out to the bitter end even when defeat was absolutely imminent. The previous 12 years of Nazi culture had created a fanatical mindset of resistance to the end and of the power of will to overcome overwhelming odds. Of course the Soviet behavior upon entering Germany and the Allied announcement at Casablanca earlier in the war regarding unconditional surrender made this attitude all the more rational.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:24 pm to Darth_Vader
It was easy to turn the German invasion of France into s propaganda victory because it was easy to show German tanks at the English Channel, Brits fleeing on boats and eventually German troops goose stepping by the Eifel Tower.
Sure losses were high, but conquering France and running the English off the continent was s huge victory considering what happened in WW1.
Sure losses were high, but conquering France and running the English off the continent was s huge victory considering what happened in WW1.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:29 pm to Mr Personality
quote:
Cuz I'm all in your head
Gay.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:37 pm to doubleb
quote:
It was easy to turn the German invasion of France into s propaganda victory because it was easy to show German tanks at the English Channel, Brits fleeing on boats and eventually German troops goose stepping by the Eifel Tower.
Sure losses were high, but conquering France and running the English off the continent was s huge victory considering what happened in WW1.
It was absolutely a huge victory. I think the primary myth that lives on today is the notion that the French laid down, which is patently false. The French were outmaneuvered and defeated but they fought. The German execution of the Western offensive in 1940 was simply masterful, bold, and exploitative of French and British weaknesses of strategy. While Poland was the first example of large scale blitzkrieg it was the push into France where commanders like Rommel and Guderian truly cut their teeth with mechanized and combined arms tactics against an equally capable enemy.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:50 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
But one area they did not lag was tank, aircraft, small arms, artillery pieces
They took all the P-39's we could ship to them. Sure as hell, no US pilot wanted to go to war in them.
Posted on 4/25/16 at 8:59 pm to ChewyDante
The French were ferocious in protecting the English rear and they were a large part of the reason so many Brits escaped.
French leadership kept France on the defensive from pre invasion til the end. Troops in the Maginot line just hunkered down holding their line until the end when they no longer mattered. A counterattack here was "open" but French planners never felt they would actually attack Germany.
And yes the German plan was smart and took advantage of the situation and the failure of the Allies to understand the new mobile warfare.
French leadership kept France on the defensive from pre invasion til the end. Troops in the Maginot line just hunkered down holding their line until the end when they no longer mattered. A counterattack here was "open" but French planners never felt they would actually attack Germany.
And yes the German plan was smart and took advantage of the situation and the failure of the Allies to understand the new mobile warfare.
Page 8 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News