Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Why Britain wouldn’t just let Hitler go East" video.

You think that Britain, or Britain, the US, and Canada, should have attacked the Soviet Union? How would you have sold that to their populations, after having sold Genial Uncle Joe as a gallant & noble ally for four years?
3
Indeed. Carrying out unprovoked attacks on other nations does tend to annoy them.
3
@MrLewkon As you haven't posted anything with much sense in it so far, that seems about right.
2
What were these peace offers? Where can I read to texts of these many proposals?
2
What did it matter if Churchill 'wanted war?' He wasn't in any government position until after war had been declared, by Chamberlain. The 'token' force was actually the whole of the British regular army in the UK, supplemented by a number of territorial divisions. The German attack on Norway had nothing to do with your fantasy of a naval attack on Germany, but was intended to secure German iron ore supplies from Sweden, which were shipped via Norway in winter, through Norwegian territorial waters.
2
British was never in any danger of invasion, nor of capitulation. Even Hitler finally managed to grasp, as Bonaparte had, that attempting to cross 23 miles of sea defended by the largest navy on earth when you only have a tiny fleet of your own is problematical at best.
1
@MrLewkon Nonsense. Precisely what part of my own history don't I know? I certainly know the part about how the Royal Navy held total supremacy of the waters of the English Channel at the time.
1
@MrLewkon I appreciate that facts mean little or nothing to you, but actually there were 2353 British pilots who took part in the Battle of Britain. There were a further 574 pilots from outside the U.K., of which 328 were from outside the Commonwealth. 145 of these were Polish, and 88 Czech. There were two Polish Squadrons. Certainly, they made a significant contribution, but you are over-stating it to the point of silliness. Just to educate you further, Britain withdraw her forces from France as a result of the French & Belgian armies collapsing. The BEF consisted of 13 divisions only. The Germans had 4500 paratroops in May, 1940, and lost around a third of them during the campaign in the Low Countries. By the end of August, 1940, the Luftwaffe had only just over 220 operational transport aircraft available. Moreover, how long do you expect lightly armed paratroops to survive without reinforcements from ground troops, and where were these to come from, as the Channel was dominated by the Royal Navy? So, no. Your post does not make sense.
1
@MrLewkon I will attempt to keep this simple. Firstly, Britain had a comparatively small population, but maintained the largest navy on earth. Britain was not a major land power, and the policy in 1939-40 was the same as in 1914, in that the French army provided most of the troops on the Western Front, whilst the British & Commonwealth contingent was slowly expanded by conscription in Britain and the arrival of troops from overseas, particularly Canada, Australia, New Zealand, & India. Secondly, overseas pilots, particularly from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, & France, had arrived in Britain with the intention of continuing to fight against the people who had conquered their own nations. Many were already experienced pilots, and, therefore, why shouldn't they have been given the opportunity? You seem to think that Fighter Command was a private, Britons only, Gentleman's Club. It wasn't. Thirdly, of course pilots of Transport, Fighter, & Bomber aircraft, are different. What relevance has this comment to anything. Fourthly, By the time the US became active participants in the war, the danger of invasion, even had it truly ever existed, had long passed. Why don't you simply buy a decent book on the subject of Operation Sealion? I have more interesting things to do than to educate you.
1
@MrLewkon 'Dude?' Are you American? That might explain a lot, although most Americans of my acquaintance do actually seem to learn something about the period before they post. Oh well! Hermann Goering and his Luftwaffe, in the whole of WW2, managed to sink 31 British destroyers, and no British warship larger than a light cruiser. The British began WW2 with 193 destroyers, and ended it with over 400. In September, 1940, they had over 100 in Home Waters. This would, by the way, be the Luftwaffe which had had no training in anti-shipping techniques at the time, had just failed badly to prevent Operation Dynamo or Operation Aerial, and didn't even have a high performance torpedo bomber until mid 1942? That Luftwaffe? 303 Squadron is an entertaining movie, based on historical events, but scripted to support a particular argument. It is not a professionally made documentary. Perhaps that is where you are getting confused? Incidentally, you may note that I have never belittled the role of non-British pilots; I have simply put it into the appropriate wider context, something which seems beyond you. Oddly enough, although it isn't relevant here, I am a full-time historian, with a number of published writings in the field of Naval History. However, I would prefer to deal with the argument, rather than attempt to question the credibility of the individual making it. I will happily leave that to others. I can, however, list a whole host of active historians whose views align with mine. The facts are that Fighter Command was never short of pilots. Indeed, a study of RAF wartime records reveals that many qualified fighter pilots actually never saw combat in 1940, but worked in administrative positions. Moreover, Fighter Command had a policy of rotating their squadrons, which involved relieving squadrons which had seen heavy combat in 11 & 12 Group from the line and sending them to 13 Group (in the North & Scotland) for a period of recuperation, replacing them with fresh or rested squadrons from 13 Group. Moreover, more experienced pilots were removed from front line units and sent to supervise training units, in order to teach recently trained pilots the tricks of the trade. Many of these 'new' pilots came from the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, which ensured that there was never a shortage of trained pilots coming through. By comparison, the Luftwaffe practised no such programme of rotation, and experienced pilots stayed with their units until they were killed or disabled. As I tried to explain earlier, but you clearly missed, Fighter Command regarded the Poles & Czechs as experienced pilots, and as potentially valuable assets. They were initially kept out of front line operations because of doubts about their language skills and their ability to operate within the constraints of Fighter Command's control systems. Once this doubt had been resolved, they became operational. But only, in the case of 303 Squadron, from 30 August, 1940.
1
@MrLewkon What exactly do you mean by 'copy & paste?' I would have thought that someone of your heritage would have known more about the facts of the Battle of Britain, rather than simply chosen to post inaccuracies about the subject, if you were truly interested in the subject. I would be happy to recommend a few books on the subject, as you would certainly benefit from the education.
1
@MrLewkon I appreciate that you may have reading difficulties, but could you perhaps point to any post I have produced which said, or even implied, that the British 'were so great and have defeated the whole third reich alone.' The issue was on the possibility of a successful German invasion attempt, which any competent historian will tell you was never ever more than the remotest of possibilities. I am capable of reaching conclusions based on analysis of documented facts from the archives of the period. You clearly have no such ability. As I said, I would be happy to recommend a few books which might help you out of your ignorance.
1
@MrLewkon As you originally posted this :- 'if the Czech and Polish pilots would not help you today you would speak German' you self-evidently are not 'dealing with people who are professionally involved in this subject people who are qualified across the border.' I'm sure these 'people' would have told you that Britain did not 'get help' from other allied countries. Britain provided a haven for refugees from conquered countries who wished to continue the fight against Germany, and gave them the equipment so to do. Where, by the way, have I ever 'played down' the role of other nations? These experts of whom you speak would also have told you that, by the time of the German declaration of war on the US, the threat of a German invasion of Britain had long gone. The Royal Navy in September, 1940 was, apart from a tiny squadron in the Far East, and the Mediterranean Fleet, entirely concentrated in Home Waters. I am surprised your 'people' didn't tell you that as well.
1
@MrLewkon Odd that you don't actually reply to any of the points I make.
1
@MrLewkon 'As you haven't posted anything with much sense in it so far, that seems about right.' Congratulations on maintaining your consistent performance.
1
@MrLewkon I don't know what you injected before typing your last illiterate post, but it was probably expensive, probably illegal, and certainly dangerous to health.
1
What 'multiple peace offerings?' Where might the texts of these offerings be read? 'Come to terms or we will bomb you' as hitler effectively said in his 'Appeal to Reason' doesn't really qualify.
1
@lati long Aren't you aware that, in the minds of some of the people who post on here, Churchill is to blame for everything since the Black Death, as well as being Jack the Ripper at the age of 14?
1
@aldaron1021 It was published in 1940. The authors were, allegedly, Hitler, Goering, & Stieve. Such credible sources. In point of fact, your Germans had bombed civilians in Spain, Warsaw, & Rotterdam before anyone else had bombed anyone, and the first British raid on Berlin was on the night of 25/26 August, 1940. The first German bombs to fall on London fell on 16 August, with a second attack on 22 August, and a third in the early hours of 25 August. Additional fun fact. There need have been no WW2 had it not been for the annoying German habit of invading neutral countries.
1
@notjasonbrynn Apart from the minor problem that the British had the largest navy on earth, and the German navy was negligible.
1
@notjasonbrynn Indeed they could. However, every ton of steel devoted to naval construction, and every man employed in the shipyards, meant one less of each for the army & air force. Moreover, British shipbuilding capability was vastly greater that that available to the Germans. Just as in WW1, the British (and Canadians) had the capability to outbuild the Germans without really exerting themselves.
1
@notjasonbrynn Non existent. In September, 1940, the Kriegsmarine had 27 front line operational boats, of which 13 were at sea on any one day. By December, there were 10 at sea on any one day, and in January 1941 this number was down to 8. Read 'The U-Boat Offensive, 1918-1945' by V. E. Tarrant, for the facts.
1
No, it wasn't. It was simply a continuation of the traditional English & later British policy to ensure that no single European power gained control of the whole of the Channel coast.
1
Churchill wasn't actually in government between 1929 & September 1939, when he joined the cabinet of a country already at war.
1
@koczisek Perhaps, before being so generous about Georgie boy, you should read about the shambles that was his campaign in Lorraine? I also like your idea of the BEF attacking. Very imaginative, in that, firstly, strategy of the Western Front was dictated by the French General Staff, and secondly in May 1940, the BEF consisted of three corps, totalling 10 divisions, three territorial divisions, which were only partially trained, and a single tank brigade of 50 tanks.
1
@koczisek It is equally common among the vast majority of military historians.
1
Hardly, but he believed that Hitler was the greater evil. After the start of Barbarossa, Churchill said 'If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least one favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.'
1
@mitchverr9330 Looks like this little chap uses obscenities and insults as an alternative to debate. At the Moscow Conference, Churchill described his alleged 'friend' Stalin as 'a peasant whom he knew how to handle.' As you are apparently less educated about Churchill than Mr. Cracker is, and I am simply a dolt, perhaps further conversation with such an individual would not be productive?
1
@johncracker5217 It appears that you failed the entrance examination for charm school, although I suspect that your posts give considerable entertainment to normal people.
1
@johncracker5217 'do you think you can’t be friends with someone who has different politics??' Indeed they can, Tony Benn & Enoch Powell being prime examples. The fact that they can, however, doesn't inevitably mean that they do.
1
How did the British Empire draw Germany into a wider war? In terms of WW2, how did it persuade Germany to invade Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, and the Soviet Union, all without a declaration of war? How did it persuade Germany to declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor?
1