Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "The Blitz; Britain's favourite myth" video.
-
10
-
9
-
6
-
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the theories of Giulio Douhet, an Italian strategise who died in 1930, well before the flaws in his concept became obvious?
Douhet argued that bombing of civilian populations would result in, put simply, mass uprisings against governments, and the installation of new ones who would immediately make peace, at whatever cost. The idea was popular with such people as Goering, Le May, and the British Air Ministry. After all, it provided the raison d'etre for the large bomber fleets they craved.
Moreover, by mid 1940, there had been plenty of proof that hitler was willing to attack civilian targets by means of bombing. Aside from events in Spain, Warsaw was heavily bombed in September, 1939, on several occasions, as was Rotterdam on 14 May, 1940.
To suggest, or even imply, that German bombing of London was merely in response to British bombing of German towns & cities, is questionable at best.
I urge you to read Douhet's 'The Command of the Air' as it provided the (false) premises under which both the German & British (and later the USAAF) were working in WW2.
Indeed, Arthur Harris, to the end of his days, never managed to rid himself of the idea.
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, the RAF sent Lancasters to bomb German cities in 1940, did they? That was clever, as the Lancaster only entered service in early 1942.
The RAF was never remotely near running out of aircraft, as aircraft production in Britain exceeded that of Germany from June 1940 onwards.
Operation Sealion would have gone ahead? Presumably, until the barges, towed at little above walking pace, encountered the Royal Navy's massed destroyer, cruiser, and supporting vessels, forces, as the barges reached the Channel?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So eager was your hitler to avoid war that his forces presumably invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, THe Netherlands and Belgium to prove his peaceful intent? Is that really what you think?
When did hitler make these offers of peace and restoration of borders? Where might the text be read? Which historical archive contains them?
'If I remember correctly, he received and rejected one such offer right before giving his famous "fight them on the beaches" speech. Which, if true, is particularly revolting.' Actually no, you don't remember correctly, even if that is what the neo nazi hymn sheet from which you chant says so.
By the way, Churchill only became Prime Minister in May, 1940, and held no political office at all between 1929 and September, 1939.
You really should try harder, herr obergruppenfuhrer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephfoxwell4620 Perhaps you don't know what a Capital Ship' is? It is a battleship, battlecruiser, or a fleet aircraft carrier. The figures I gave included the RCN & RAN, as I said.
Which ships 'defected' from Norway & Denmark? By September, 1940, there were eight French destroyers under RN control. Part of DF23, and based at Portsmouth & Plymouth.
Britain completed five more battleships in WW2, the King George V class, and six fleet carriers, the first & second group Illustrious class.
Germany in September 1939 had two battleships (the Scharnhorsts), three 'pocket battleships' the Deutschland class, and two long obsolete pre-dreadnoughts, Schleswig-Holstein, and Schlesien. Both built in 1908 and totally out of date.
Italy in 1939 had two modernised battleships, two new 15 inch gunned battleships almost completed, and two older battleships also in the throes of modernisation.
In short, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Why not simply buy a book?
1
-
@stephfoxwell4620 'It matters not if you include or exclude Cruisers as we had 66 of them too.' Yes, it does. Because cruisers, heavy, light, or AA, are not capital ships. Just as destroyers are not capital ships.
I have pointed out more than once that my figures included the Dominion navies of Canada and Australia, Why do you find it so difficult to grasp?
There were indeed Norwegian ships at D-Day. HNoMS Stord & Svenner. Both British built destroyers supplied to the Royal Norwegian Navy. British 'S' class vessels, with Norwegian crews and commissioned by their Norwegian crews in late 1943. Also HNoMS Glaisdale, a British built 'Hunt' class escort destroyer supplied to the Norwegian Navy in June, 1942.
AS a naval historian, I do not seek to play down the Royal Navy. In fact, quite the reverse. But nor do I wish to indulge in the kind of fantasies, hopefully only based upon ignorance, that so inspire you, and which will only result in ridicule.
Your numbers for carriers are also nonsense. At the end of WW2, the RN had nine fleet carriers, assuming that Argus and the repair carrier Unicorn are included. A further four fleets were planned, and four light fleets joined the Pacific Fleet immediately after the end of the war.
There were also 36 American built Escort Carriers, which were returned at the end of the war, as well as 4 British built Escort Carriers. The Escorts were not Fleet vessels, although some did serve with the main fleets from time to time. They were certainly not 'Capital Ships.'
As I said, please buy a book. I would recommend 'British & Empire Warships of WW2' by Lenton & Colledge.
1
-
@stephfoxwell4620 I agree. It isn't a competition, as there is no contest. You are utterly outclassed, and my facts are totally correct.
Have I ever suggested that Germany was not hugely inferior to the largest navy in the world? Especially after the catastrophe the Kriegsmarine experienced during the Norwegian campaign?
'I am making a very clear point.' No, you aren't. When you say, as you did, that the British had 92 capital ships and 340 destroyers, you are posting utter nonsense, and you render any claim you might seek to make meaningless.
The actual numbers I stated are more than adequate to make such an argument, even if they, for no clear reason, annoy you.
Ludicrous hyperbole serves no purpose. Nor does arguing that accurate information is 'sneering and pompous.'
Do some proper reading, or just go away.
1
-
@stephfoxwell4620 'Sorry if figures from the top of my head are a bit broad brush. But they are a good reflection of the overall figures 1939-45.' By 'broad brush' I assume you mean 'made up?' Still.at least you seem to admit your ignorance, such as not actually knowing what a 'Capital Ship' really was.
'Nitpicking?' Correcting 92 to 22, and 340 to 193 is hardly nitpicking. It is simply correcting ludicrously false statements. By the way, I chose September 1939 as an obvious starting point. As I have access to the Royal Navy's Pink Lists, I know the nature and size of the fleet throughout the war. If you would like to know the Fleet strength in August, 1945, you only need to ask. Politely, of course.
'The fact that nobody has agreed with you shows that your efforts to play down the Royal Navy are pointless.' You mean unlike you, with one upvote per post? Didn't you know that upvoting your own comments is rather bad form?
Show me where I have 'played down' the Royal Navy? I have simply tried to educate you in the silly errors you continue to make. Why not simply tefer to any book about the RN in the Second World War for some actual facts?
Actually, as a naval historian with a number of books and articles about the naval war of 1939-1945, I have never come across such an accusation before. Those US writers I have encountered, as well as British writers of a light blue persuasion, generally accuse me (wrongly) of exaggerating the role of the Foyal Navy in the defence of Britain in the early years, and in bringing about the final victory.
Still, fantasise away to your heart's content. Put simply, my information is entirely correct, and your claims are wholly bogus.
Please note that I will not upvote my own post. I do not need to.
1
-
1
-
@stephfoxwell4620 No, you idiot. Anyone reading my posts (seemingly, you haven't) would have been able to understand how consistent and accurate they are. Or, if they weren't sure, they could have checked in moments.
Unlike yours which vary from post to post, and are entirely unsupported by any source.
'Exaggerate the strength of the Nazi Navy, play down the strength of the Royal Navy or merely score points for a more in depth knowledge of detail than most laymen.' I have referred to the Kriegsmarine once, in response to a comment of yours. I have been strictly and precisely accurate about the actual strength of the Royal Navy. I have certainly not 'played down' how strong the RN was. Nor have I indulged in lunatic ravings, which I can happily leave to you.
I do have greater knowledge than most people. It comes from a First in Modern History, a specialism in 20th Century Naval Warfare, and the publishing of a number of books & articles on the subject.
To quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle :-
“My dear Watson," said [Sherlock Holmes], "I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate one's self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one's own powers.”
'Anyone can see that Britain was a bigger power than Germany.
For Germany to wage war on the British Empire was a disaster for Germany. A catastrophic error.' Please show me where I have ever written anything which disagrees with that. Good luck.
My whole purpose in replying to you was to correct your initial ignorant comments about the Royal Navy. That you are unable to accept criticism, or even try to check the facts, says rather a lot about you.
1
-
1