Battle of Britain: Failure

[Scorpiоn]

They just couldn't grasp what Yamamoto knew. They could expect 6 months of inimpeded progress. After that they would be in troubl. And that's exactly how it happened.

That was one of the few moments when reading about history, that my jaw actually dropped.  He predicted six months, and in six months, Midway!

[Professor Brensec]

[quote]
That was one of the few moments when reading about history, that my jaw actually dropped.

[Scorpiоn]

There's a lot of options here, so I don't think discussing battle and peace plans will do us any more good.  One last thing I'd like to clear up though, is I know the British morale would be very strong at first, but how would it have fared in an invasion?

[Hagar]

One last thing I'd like to clear up though, is I know the British morale would be very strong at first, but how would it have fared in an invasion?

This would depend on the period the invasion took place. In early 1940, when the risk of it actually happening seemed greatest, general morale was very low. The BEF had just had just been pushed out of France. By some miracle (which I never understood) 385,000 troops, more than 100,000 of them French, were allowed to escape from Dunkirk.* This is why the Battle of Britain has such significance to Britain. The young RAF fighter pilots in their Spitfires & Hurricanes were seen as the only defence against a certain invasion & possible defeat.

Not all Brits agreed with the war & I believe it was only having a strong leader (Churchill) that brought us through those dark days. I also believe that taking the country would not have been so easy. You must remember that Britain was fighting for her very existence. The British are well-known for their stubborn backs-to the-wall spirit & never knowing when they're beaten. When it affects you personally you fight back with every means at your disposal. This might be very difficult for anyone living a country never threatened with invasion by a foreign power to understand.

*PS. What happened at Dunkirk indicates to me that Hitler never seriously intended invading Britain. I'm sure he would have preferred a peace treaty.

[Delta_]

I also believe that taking the country would not have been so easy. You must remember that Britain was fighting for her very existence. The British are well-known for their stubborn backs-to the-wall spirit & never knowing when they're beaten. When it affects you personally you fight back with every means at your disposal. This might be very difficult for anyone living a country never threatened with invasion by a foreign power to understand.

Rather like Russians then, just not communist.
Woo hoo for victorious Britain in WW1 and WW2.

[Hagar]

Woo hoo for victorious Britain in WW1 and WW2.

A hollow victory indeed & achieved at great cost. WWI was called "The War To End ALL Wars". If only that were true. Why does nobody learn from history?

Read these statistics on WWI & weep. It's an estimate only as nobody will ever know for sure. Millions dead or terribly wounded & for what?

Country Dead Wounded Missing Total
Australia 58,150 152,170 - 210,320
Austria-Hungary 922,000 3,600,000 855,283 5,377,283
Belgium 44,000 450,000 - 494,000
Britain 658,700 2,032,150 359,150 3,050,000
Bulgaria 87,500 152,390 27,029 266,919
Canada 56,500 149,700 - 206,200
France 1,359,000 4,200,000 361,650 5,920,650
Germany 1,600,000 4,065,000 103,000 5,768,000
Greece 5,000 21,000 1,000 27,000
India 43,200 65,175 5,875 114,250
Italy 689,000 959,100 - 1,424,660
Japan 300 907 3 1,210
Montenegro 3,000 10,000 7,000 20,000
New Zealand 16,130 40,750 - 56,880
Portugal 7,222 13,751 12,318 33,291
Romania 335,706 120,000 80,000 535,706
Russia 1,700,000 5,000,000 - 6,700,000
Serbia 45,000 133,148 152,958 331,106
Turkey 250,000 400,000 - 650,000
USA 58,480 189,955 14,290 262,725
Totals 7,996,888 21,755,196 1,979,556 31,508,200

[ATI_7500]

whow!  :o
but nothing compared to the slaughters of WW2...

[Hagar]

[quote]whow!

[Woodlouse2002]

What can be said? War is hell.

[Scorpiоn]

Phoo. That's a downer.  The problem with stuff like that is it's just so hard to actually comprehend how many people that is.

On the topic of Britain, I think morale is what might make me have German/British peace.  I don't want Germany to suffer big setbacks (in the plot) till they and Japan invade Russia, except a completely fascist Europe (save Switzerland and Sweden) would be quite awesome (dictionary definition).

[Professor Brensec]

*PS. What happened at Dunkirk indicates to me that Hitler never seriously intended invading Britain. I'm sure he would have preferred a peace treaty.

Surprisingly, yesterday I saw an account of the BoB, from the German perspective. It was much the same, facts and figure etc. They had German pilots being interviewed etc.
Although there was one difference. They dealt very much with the question of Hitler's invasion plans (or lack thereof).
They interviewed German (marines), one of which said that the 'barges' they were training with, were primarily 'Rhine and Seine river barges' with the front cut off and a ramp installed. He said they lost more in the Channel during rehearsals (or so-called rehearsals) that not. They would never had made the trip to England (short as it was, given the ferosity of the Channel at times).

The general feeling was that Hitler never intended to invade. The 'prepararions' that took place on the coast of France were just for show, in the hope that the British would be 'scared' into a 'peace agreement'.

There was no effort whatsoever to cammoflage anything, and one marine said that he was instructed not to use code when transmitting 'requisitions' for equipment and stores! He also said that more than half the 'barges' never had motors fitted, they were the type they use to pull along with horses on the shore!

I've always maintained that Hitler never intended to invade, and I've also maintained Germany never had the craft to mount an effective invasion.
Although I am aware of the inaccuracies of these Doco's (Hagar), I believe that this particular account would be nearer the truth than not.

P.S. Many more soldiers (Army, navy, Airmen) died in WWI than in WWII. The 'rough' worldwide figures for all dead are WWI - 35, WWII 50 million.
As Hagar's figures indicate, the vast majority of deaths in WWII were civilain. Due to three major factors that didn't exist 'en masse' in WWI:

1. Atrocities (mainly German, and Japanese, and sadly also Russians in revenge on germans or their own).
2. Bombing (mainly by the US - in Germany and Japan)
3. Starvation and Disease (mainly in Europe and Chine, but Japan in the latter part).

Although the Trench warfare of WWI was horrific for the Army troops, the civilian populations in most countries were relatively OK - I said relatively!  ;D

[Smoke2much]

2. Bombing (mainly by the US - in Germany and Japan)

The bombing of civillian targets in Germany was almost entirley carried out by RAF Bomber command.

The USAAF took huge losses ensuring that German production was damaged during the day and we brought terror to the night.  40,000 were killed in Hamburg in one night by the heavies of bomber command.

WW2 brought in the despicable trend of waging war on the civillian population to such an organised extent.  Thi had always happened but was usually restricted to a small combat zone.  The combat zone in WW2 was the entire globe and thus all suffered.

Hagars figures show the extent of mans' inhumanity to man

[ATI_7500]

The USAAF took huge losses ensuring that German production was damaged during the day and we brought terror to the night.  40,000 were killed in Hamburg in one night by the heavies of bomber command.

plus 30,000 in dresden....and many,many more...

[Delta_]

I guess that is why we are still friend and allies now, we fought and died together, it was a pity so many had to die.

[Professor Brensec]

Too true, Smoke. About the RAF, I mean. I wasn't apportioning blame or pointing the bone, just explaining the 3 major reasons for the 'hugely vast' difference in civilian casulaties in the two wars.  :'(

I do still think that, given the raids flown by the US over Germany during the day and especially their individual effort in Japan (they would have to be virtually the only contributors to 'civilian deaths by bombing' in Japan - albeit purely out of necessity at the time, in my view), I still feel my qualification of "mainly by the US in Germany and Japan" would still have to be fact. That is if the term "mainly" means "majority" as in more than 50% in total.
But then I may be incorrect, but i would be interested to see estimates of the Civilian casualties in both Germany (by day and by night - if they existed.....) and Japan.

Once again, my purpose here, as before, was simply to demonstrate the reason for the inordinate amount of civilian casulaties during WWII, as opposed to WWI.
I firmy belive that most did only what they thought was right and necessaqry at the time and the motivations should not find their way to these pages.