Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "What was the Blitz and could it have won WW2 for Germany?" video.
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@nigeh5326 The technology, in the form of the depth charge, asdic, and HF/DF, already existed. WW2 German boats such as the Type II, VII, & IX, were basically nothing more than developments of late WW1 designs.
Moreover, expansion of the U-boat fleet only really became a serious option after the fall of France. Prior to that, whatever fleet existed was, in effect, trapped in German bases with the only way into the Atlantic the long and dangerous voyage around the north of Scotland, seriously reducing the operational duration of the boats.
In effect, an expansion of the U-boat fleet prior to the war not only warns the British of what to expect, but assumes that in 1938 the Germans already assumed what the strategic situation would be in late 1940.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@robertotamesis1783 Sorry, but you really are wide of the mark. Churchill did not, despite 'Darkest Hour' ask FDR for destroyers. They were actually offered by the US Ambassador to Paris, and the British saw the old four stackers as useful Atlantic escort stop gaps until new construction became available. In short, they were offered, not requested.
The Germans in September 1940 had no landing craft at all, just large numbers of canal barges, hastily converted and to be towed, at just above walking pace, into the Channel by tugs and trawlers. The known presence of the Royal Navy, in large numbers within a few hours of Dover, was a far greater deterrent than the weather, although by mid October that would have become a problem given the lack of seaworthiness of the Barges.
Air lift helicopters in 1943? No, they hadn't. Moreover, in 1943 weren't the Germans rather busy elsewhere?
2
-
@Ballinalower The U-boat offensive was based on the assumption that the calculations of Von Holtzendorff, Kaiser Bill's Chief of Naval Staff in WW1, was still applicable. This determined that, in order to starve Britain into submission, 600,000 tons of British shipping needed to be sunk each month. After, December, 1941, this figure became meaningless, but in any case even prior to Dec. 1941 the monthly tonnage figure rarely exceeded 300,000, and in many months was below 100,000 tons.
The possibility was a remote one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@oldgitsknowstuff The Director was made aware, by Brian Urquhart himself, that he never met Browning, and that there were no photographs of German tanks, but was told by Attenborough that the bulk of the audience would be American, to whom British incompetence would appeal.
For the same reason, the second Bridge at Nijmegen, captured by XXX Corps, was excluded, but a totally fictional scene showing the heroic Robert Redford berating the British for abandoning the Airborne in order to 'drink tea' was put in. Even the American officer this was supposed to depict was offended by the scene, and wrote, without success, to Ryan's widow about it.
2
-
@oldgitsknowstuff It was a Parachute Division, not a Regiment. It was a complex operation, and I agree not everything could be included. So, then, why include invented scenes which did not happen, the first being the meeting between Urquhart & Browning, which did not happen, the second being the tank photos. which did not exist, and the third being that XXX Corps could have reached Arnhem had they not stopped for tea? There are a number of others. I know exactly what a 'brew up' is, by the way.
The tank reference had nothing to do with the vehicles used in the movie. Don't you recall the scene where Urquhart shows Browning pictures of German armour, and Browning dismisses them? Never happened. Neither the meeting nor the photos. Urquhart did have concerns about the operation, but not because of non-existent German tanks, but because he feared that the experienced German commanders in the area would be able to react more quickly than expected.
Instead of simply taking the movie at face value, why not check out the facts?
2
-
2
-
@sailingtoatlantisandliveab2455 Slavery wasn't despite what appears to be your conviction, solely British. Moreover, you will not find a 'colony' where the existing population, or any part of it, was deported as slave labour. The bulk of slaves transported by British ships were acquired from local tribal leaders in West Africa (a handy way of getting rid of the excess population, or of useless mouths captured in battle from other tribes) or from the long established Arab slave traders who had been active in the area for generations. The trade was organised by private companies from most European countries, not by the British or English governments, and the British government, in the form of the Royal Navy, were by far the most active in supressing it after 1833.
Bengal, by the way, had already been conquered by the Mughals in the 16th century, and the collapse of the Mughal Empire left Bengal in a state of virtual anarchy. I presume that you have no objection to one Indian power subjugating another, by the way? Would you, perhaps, like a list of known famines in India in pre-British times, or do these not count in your world view?
I cannot really comment on events in America after the end of the War of Independence, except to ask how they can be relevant to the British Empire. Moreover, it borders on the infantile to seek to apply 21st century values to events over 200 years ago. Why not condemn Antoninus Pius for not introducing a Health Service into the Roman Empire in 140 AD, or Hammurabi for not devising old age pensions in 1800 BC?
In conclusion, has it ever occurred to you that the British Empire, uniquely in history, was the only one voluntarily given up by the 'masters' or, equally uniquely, that most of those former 'colonies' have maintained close relationships with Britain since independence?
Don't both to reply, as I have no such further intention.
2
-
1
-
The Germans never came close. Doenitz worked on a calculation that, in order to bring Britain to terms, 600,000 tons of shipping per month needed to be sunk. By the end of 1941, the Germans on only exceeded 300,000 tons on three occasions. Usually, they were below 200,000 tons. After December, 1941, even 600,000 was a serious underestimation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ballinalower To be honest, that is a really tough one, given all the variables involved. Realistically, I don't believe that the British could have held Burma, but that, as 2,500,000 Indians volunteered for the allies in WW2, I doubt that the Japanese could have taken over India, but would probably have been involved in a protracted and brutal slogging match.
I have never believed that Japan had any real ambitions in India, other than to establish a presence which would disrupt supplies to China, and I have always had doubts about invasions of Australia & New Zealand, given the distances involved, and the comparative lack of the raw materials available there.
The real question, which I really cannot answer, is whether the United States would simply stand by and allow Japan to seize large areas of the Far East, especially after FDR's embargo had put Japan under such pressure in the first place. To be honest, as a naval historian, I don't know enough about US internal politics at the time, but would be interested to read the views of some one (anyone!) who does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@romanclay1913 Please explain, as you seem to believe that you are an 'ideas' person, how sending Hess to meet Hamilton, an individual hardly at the heart of government, was likely to have been more effective in bringing about discussions than approaching the British ambassadors in Spain, Switzerland, or Sweden, or even asking the United States to act as an honest broker?
By the way, if Rudolf wanted to meet the 'arch appeaser' Samuel Hoare, he was flying in the wrong direction, as Hoare was actually one of those ambassadors at the time. Didn't your conspiracy theory mention that? Odd, as I read it in one of several books.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@doejon9424 The Blitz is generally regarded to have ended in mid May, 1941. The US didn't, by the way, 'step in' but was dragged in after Peral Harbor and the German declaration of war.
What did the Blitzkrieg do, exactly? Defeated France, and obliged the British, with their tiny army, to concentrate on their strengths. These being a huge and effective navy, a modern, well equipped air force, the increasing support of the Commonwealth & Empire, and a manufacturing base greater than that of Germany.
1
-
1
-
@doejon9424 'The British were running low on mechanized weapons and soldiers.' Really? so short that, as early as August, 1940, they were able to send a Troop Convoy to reinforce the Western Desert Force in North Africa? The 'Apology' convoy of 22 August.
'They had a supioror Navy despite the German U-boats & destoyers.' Presumably, you mean the U-Boats which never came close to success in the North Atlantic? Or the 10 destroyers which were all the Germans had in September, 1940, when the British had 178, of which over 110 were in Home Waters? Or the 400+ with which the Royal Navy ended the war?
The RAF, which, far from lacking 'raw numbers' was consistently operating greater numbers of aircraft, and producing a strategic bombing arm the size of which the Germans could only ever dream about, from mid 1940 onwards?
Technical advancements? Which? There were many projects, but how many were practicable, or saw battlefield service?
'We can only speculate what advancements Germany would have had from 1945- 1948 / 1950. The would've had the fleet of jet fighters, who knows what kind of tanks, various types of ships, accurate rocket warfare.. industrial military complex at it's finest.' Indeed, you must speculate, because you seem to think that Germany had unlimited and inexhaustible resources. Where would the fuel come from which the jets would use? Tanks such as the Maus or the E100? Lunatic ideas? Ships? The Kriegsmarine had stopped building warships after 1941, because of lack of raw materials and manpower. Instead, they concentrated on the U-Boat as a cheap & desperate expedient, which from May 1943 was a broken force. Accurate rocket warfare? The V2 could, with luck, hit somewhere in the London or Antwerp area. 'Industrial Military Complex?' Oh, please! Germany was a shambles of organisations competing with each other. The Germans never even managed to adopt a total war economy, as the British did almost immediately.
'Aircraft carrier?' One almost completed vessel, with an intended Air Group of modified land based aircraft, including the Bf109, with an undercarriage almost ludicrously unsuited to carrier operations. Life expectancy in the Atlantic? A few days, especially since the protective escorts a carrier needed in WW2 simply did not exist in the German navy.
1
-
@doejon9424 What do you mean by 'run dry?' The only land front after June 1940 was North Africa, and there was never any shortage of vehicles at any time. Conversely the axis, because of the problems in actually getting supplies across the Mediterranean, struggled to maintain the forces they had there, and were generally short of fuel.
'It took the invasion of Normandy to push them back.' What does this even mean? By the time of Normandy, the axis had already been expelled from North Africa, Sicily, and half of Italy, as well as suffering massive defeats in the East. As to D-Day itself, actually, two thirds of the men who landed were British/Canadian, 3261 0f the 4127 landing craft were British crewed, 892 of 1213 warships were British, and two thirds of 11,600 aircraft were RAF.
'And you better believe that the campaign in North Africa would have been shut right down if the bulk of Marines didn't have to deal with Japan & island hoping in the Pacific. They would've been sent over there.' What does this even mean, either. There were precisely seven US divisions involved in North Africa, all in Tunisia after Torch.
The 'thinly spread' RAF was, by the way operating 56 fighter squadrons over Northern France by May, 1941, and by the end of the war operated just under10,000 aircraft.
Whether the Bf 109 was superior to the Spitfire is questionable, but largely irrelevant, as the Luftwaffe failed to win the Battle of Britain.
On a one-to one basis, late war German tanks were generally superior, although very little was superior to the Soviet T34/85. German late war vehicles, however, tended to be over-engineered, mechanically complex, difficult to maintain in battlefield conditions, an slow to manufacture. In fact, the Soviets built just under 49,000 T34/85s, the US a similar number of M4s, whereas the Germans built just under 500 Tiger IIs, just under 1400 Tiger Is, and around 6,000 Panthers.
Finally. Yes the Firefly was an American hull, but the gun which made it so effective against Tigers was the British designed & produced 17 pounder. 2,200 were converted. More than the total number of Tigers of both types built.
You need to do some reading instead of relying on myths and falsehoods.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chernobylcat1791 Douhet was a theorist who, basically, argued that bombing civilians would bring about civil unrest. The population would rise up against their government, and a new government would agree to an armistice. It was, of course, nonsense, in that it didn't work against the British or the Germans when it was actually tried, but the British Air Ministry 'Bomber Barons' Goering, and le May, all believed in the theory.
One area where it did work, albeit unintentionally, was that it obliged the Germans to retain a large proportion of their air force for home defence, and to keep many anti-aircraft guns around their cities when they were desperately needed on the battlefield.
You mistake me. I haven't said that I believe it to be a 'good idea' but I do believe it to have been an inevitable one. If you wish to degrade your enemy's industrial capacity, you must destroy his factories, and the workforce in the factories is civilian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1