Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "War Stories"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@waynepatterson5843 The American defeat at Sidi Bou Zid, between 14 & 17 February, was inflicted by 5th Panzer Army, commanded by Von Arnim. Kasserine, between 19 & 24 February, including Thala, by the way, was the only time, apart from 6 March at Medenine, when defeated by 8th Army, that 10 Panzer was directly commanded by Rommel. By Mareth, 10 Panzer had returned to 5th Panzer Army, Rommel had departed for pastures new, and von Arnim was owner of the poisoned chalice.
If you seriously wish to believe that Rommel established the 'new Panzer Doctrine' by the way, then feel free. Presumably, you haven't heard of Heinz Guderian? It is self-evident that you don't actually know what most German generals actually thought of Rommel's abilities, an example being Von Rundstedt, whose nickname for him was 'Marshal Laddie.' Incidentally, Rommel's book on Panzer Tactics was never completed, and only exists in scattered, manuscript, form. Someone should have told George C. Scott.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Please try to understand. Apart from a small number of aircrew, one Canadian division, two understrength Australian brigades, and around 5,000 New Zealanders, the defence of Britain in 1940 was left almost entirely to the British people,
The Royal Navy was entirely British, apart from a small number of Canadian destroyers, and in September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anthonynicholich9654 If there was no Channel then the whole history of the British Isles, and Europe, would have been entirely different. Precisely because of the Channel, England/Britain evolved as a sea power, with a large navy and a tiny army, which in effect was little more than an Imperial police force or fire brigade, ferried around to trouble spots as and when they occurred, by that navy.
Had there been no Channel, England/Britain, would, perforce, have needed to create and maintain a large army, if only because of the perpetual threat from France. In other words, she would have been far more of a continental power, and far less of a naval power. Much like France, in fact.
I hope that is clear, although your immediate resort to insults rather suggests that it will not be?
'They did not establish air supremacy so what makes you think they would have without the channel being there?' Where did I write that? As your magical removal of the Channel is merely a fantasy, you should expect a rational response, even if you cannot cope with one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Of course Britain (and France) wanted the industrial might of the US as allies. Who wouldn't?
If Germany wanted Britain & France to remain neutral, wasn't invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium, not the most obvious way of demonstrating her peaceful intentions?
'By mid-1940, The Wehrmacht was redeploying troops to Poland for Operation Barbarossa.' Hardly, until September, plans for Sealion were still being progressed.
I don't think any part of the British Empire regarded themselves as 'Slave States.'
Britain & France didn't go to war in 'defence' of Poland. The Treaty with Poland simply said that, if Germany invaded Poland, they would declare war on Germany.
Oh, and an 'iron oar' would sink.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2