Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "The Armchair Historian"
channel.
-
69
-
16
-
16
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
It is quite common for defeated generals to place the blame on the shoulders of someone no longer around to argue. The tanks on the Aa canal were halted by von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, in order to make them ready for the second stage of the invasion of France. There were a number of reasons, including Rundstedt's fear of a second 'Miracle of the Marne' the unsuitability of the terrain around Dunkirk for armour, the impending arrival of the (horse drawn) German infantry divisions, the fact that, in Rundstedt's mind, the allied troops in the pocket were 'trapped,' ( like most European generals, he saw the sea as a barrier, whereas the British saw it as a highway), and the fact that Goering had already persuaded Hitler that the elimination of the Dunkirk pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Peter Nonsense. Bismarck was, admittedly, hard to sink, but not difficult to cripple. Rodney destroyed most of her main armament and her bridge and internal communications within 20 minutes of engaging. After that, her sinking was not a battle, it was an execution.
Tirpitz was destroyed by heavy bombs, dropped from high altitude, because she was an inconvenient 'Fleet in Being' which never actually emerged from hiding. The bomb, by the way, had not been designed specifically to destroy Tirpitz. Hood was, by 1941, an elderly warship with the armour of a WW1 battleship. She was certainly not superior to modern British & US Battleships.
The last Japanese capital ship built in Britain was the Kongo, actually a battlecruiser constructed in 1912. After that, the Japanese built their own battleships, and Kongo herself was totally reconstructed between the wars. When did the Japanese sink the entire Russian navy, by the way? If you mean Tsushima, that was in 1905.
As to 'any battleships that the US produced could easily be destroyed with a well placed hit from a salvo.' Well, the US, like the British, built their post WW1 battleships with the vastly superior ( to incremental, anyway) all or nothing armour system. At Guadalcanal, South Dakota sustained 27 hits, yet remained in action. I can't comment on the effect your indestructible German ships would have had on British battleships, as no British battleship was hit by one in WW2. Before you quibble, Hood was a battlecruiser.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tomk3732 If you are referring to wars between Britain and France, the policy of England, and later Britain, in the post-medieval period was consistent throughout, in that it was an attempt, generally successful, to prevent France from securing the whole of the European Channel coast, and becoming the overwhelmingly dominant power on the European mainland.
The wars of the period, usually involving most European powers, were responses to French expansionism, not attempts to conquer France.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@francisebbecke2727 The point of taking the BEF captive is obvious. Allowing it to escape (as, of course, he didn't) would have had a profound effect in Britain. Lord Halifax was a very influential figure, and his argument that Mussolini should be invited to act as a 'neutral' arbiter in armistice negotiations had considerable support.
Had the BEF been captured, it is doubtful that the political establishment in the UK would have rallied behind Churchill, as it did. Churchill was able to portray Dynamo as a miracle, which converted a catastrophe into a mere setback. Moreover, he could, more pragmatically, point to the success of the Royal Navy, and claim (correctly) that an invasion of Britain by a country with no navy to speak of, in the face of the largest navy on earth, was impossible, and that the British Commonwealth and Empire was able to fight on, if necessary for years, if necessary, alone.
Your argument makes no sense. If Hitler wanted the British to come to terms, then allowing their army to escape was precisely the wrong way to bring this about. Of course, at the time Hitler could not possibly have been aware of how inept the Luftwaffe was at hitting naval targets.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Simply not true. The famous 'Halt Order' was issued by von Rundstedt. It can still be read in the Army Group war diary, should you so choose. Goering had already told Hitler that the annihilation of the Dunkirk pocket was a 'special job for the Luftwaffe' which, of course, then proceeded to demonstrate a remarkable inability to hit ships, even when slow moving or even anchored.
The decision to evacuate was only made by the British War Office on 25 May, and the evacuation was completed on 4 June, the last lift being of French troops, of whom around 139,000 were lifted, so please explain how the troops could possibly have been on the beaches for two weeks.
What is your source for 'British officers ripped of their badges as they were being shot at by the squaddies?' Presumably, it is made up, like the rest of your post.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tot0m You haven't heard of the Battle of Arras then? Oh well. You don't know about the air support the British did provide. The problem was that, however many squadrons the British sent, the French asked for more.
You don't know how many ships of each nationality were at Dunkirk. Oh well. British, of all types, from cruisers to small vessels, 764. French of all types from destroyers to MFVs, 120, Belgian 45 trawlers, Polish, 1 destroyer, Norwegian, 1 freighter, Dutch, 1 yacht and 1 (British manned) motor boat. The agreement was that French ships would evacuate French troops, and British ships British troops. When it became clear that there were not enough French ships, the British began taking French troops as well. The rearguard, by the way, included both British & French troops. The British subsequently attempted to land troops in Cherbourg, only to be told by General Weygand that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance.
As to France and Belgian being puppets to British diplomacy since 1934, in point of fact France was the dominant military power in the Anglo-French alliance, and Belgian sought to remain neutral, for all the good it did the Belgians. France was the driving force behind the support for Poland.
As to the attacks on the French fleet. The British government had no idea how the new, collaborationist, government in France might behave, and had no intention of risking allowing the French fleet to support a German invasion attempt. What subsequently happened in late 1942, when the outlook for the war was markedly different, was irrelevant to what might have happened in Summer 1940.
Please do some reading instead of simply posting blind prejudice, for heaven's sake!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Peter Exactly where do you get your nonsense from? Admiral Scheer was, in effect, a heavy cruiser. Capable of 26 knots, with 6 x 11 inch guns, and an armoured belt of 2.4 - 3.1 inches. By comparison, the North Carolinas were capable of 28 knots, had 9 x 16 inch guns, and belts of 12 inches. The King George Vs were capable of 27.5 knots, had 10 x 14 inch guns, and belts of 14 inches. Please explain why Scheer was superior to either.
Of the four 'proper' German battleships, Bismarck was sunk by surface gunfire, Scharnhorst was sunk by surface gunfire, Gneisenau was crippled by mines, further damaged by bombing in port, and then scuttled, and Tirpitz stayed at the end of a fjord until sunk by bombing, largely because she was hidden so far out of sight that warships couldn't get near her.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rosesprog1722 Whether Hitler expressed admiration for the British Empire on not is utterly irrelevant. The reality is that, if he wanted the British to agree to an armistice, he was more likely to achieve this aim with the BEF in prison camps than safely evacuated.
As it appears you don't know what the 'Miracle of the Marne' in WW1 was, I won't bother explaining it. You do understand that von Rundstedt was waiting for German infantry, almost entirely horse drawn, to catch up and, if necessary, complete the defeat of the allied troops in the pocket, I suppose?
You might believe that the final conquest of France was inevitable, with the benefit of hindsight, Von Rundstedt, and, indeed, many German generals at the time, did not have this advantage. Von Rundstedt, like every other German commander, was a land animal, and saw an army with back to the sea as trapped. The British, by contrast, saw the sea as a broad highway. In his mind, there was no need to waste his armoured vehicles in such an action.
2
-
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda.
2
-
That must explain why there were no British troops in North Africa, Tunisia, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Burma or Malaya then, as well as no British ships in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, the Arctic, and the Pacific then?
2
-
@tomk3732 Oh well. It is clear you have no idea about what Operation Peking was about. Read up on the Romanian Bridgehead. It was hoped by the Polish government, or, more precisely, by Smigly- Rydz, that Polish forces could hold out in the southeast of the country, near the common border with Romania, until relieved by a Franco-British offensive. Munitions and arms could be delivered from the west via Romanian ports and railways. The Polish Navy would then be able to escort the ships delivering the supplies to Romanian ports. There was never going to be British military support for Poland, other than by air or at sea. How could there be, when the British army was only ten divisions in all. Moreover, the Polish government were well aware of this. You would need to ask a French historian why their 100+ divisions failed to act. The Polish destroyers which took part in Operation Peking became part of the Royal Navy when their own country ceased to exist, just as Polish airmen and soldiers became part of the RAF & the British army, but if you believe that their primary ambition when they arrived in Britain was to defend Britain you are sadly deluded. They fought throughout for Poland, and with, of course, justification. The British, by continuing to resist, gave them the opportunity (and the weapons) to do this.
Incidentally, you wrote initially that 'Before operation MG Polish commander told his British superiors that this is madness.' You are wrong, because he said that about an earlier plan, Operation Comet, and the same comments had been expressed already by several British commanders. He was, in fact, much less critical of Market-Garden. You really should take no notice of 'A Bridge Too Far,' as much of it is inaccurate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did your grandfather have any views on the failure of the French High Command to defend the 'impassible' Ardennes, allowing the best French units, and the BEF, to be cut off? Did he express any opinion on what the 10 divisions of the BEF were supposed to do when the 100+ divisions of the French army were collapsing in disarray? Presumably, the manner in which the Royal, Merchant, and French, navies evacuated 338,000 men, whilst under heavy air attack much of the time, is demonstrative of their 'cowardice?' As for the Germans treating the French better than the British, odd that. I don't recall the British deporting thousands of Frenchmen to Britain to work as slave labour. Perhaps the history books missed that bit?
The British evacuated over 100,000 French troops from Dunkirk, and were landing a new, 'reconstituted BEF' in Cherbourg under General Brooke, until Brooke was told by General Weygand that the French army was 'no longer able to offer organised resistance,' when they met on 14 June.
Finally, it would presumably be inappropriate to refer to the thousands of Britons, Americans, and Canadians who gave their lives to give the French their own country back?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There was a Syrian Brown Bear called Wojtek which was acquired by the Poles in Iran, and remained with them until the end of the war, allegedly helping to carry boxes of 25 pounder shells to their field guns at Cassino.
After the war, he arrived with the Polish 22nd Artillery Supply Company in Scotland (having by then attained the rank of corporal) and was handed over to Edinburgh Zoo after 'demob.' He subsequently lived a long, uneventful, life, until 1963, when he died at the age of 21, weighing 35 stones, and reaching over six feet tall.
There are numerous memorials to him, including one in the Imperial War Museum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just out of interest, are you aware that, commencing April 1917, there had been 'acts of collective indiscipline' (i.e., Strikes) in 68 of the 112 French divisions on the Western Front, following the catastrophe of the Nivelle Offensive. For a time, until Petain restored order, the only army defending France was that of the British Empire.
In 1940, a French & British rearguard made possible the evacuation of 338,000 men from Dunkirk, over 100,000 of whom were French, and when the British attempted to land a 'Reconstituted BEF' in Cherbourg, they were told by General Weygand that the French army was no longer capable of 'organised resistance.'
By the way, how many casualties did your enemies, the United States, Britain, & Canada, sustain in freeing your country from German occupation in 1944?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sichere You can post as many documentaries as you like, but they won't bring St. Valery en Caux any nearer to Dunkirk. Simply check it on any map of France. Dieppe is 229 kms from Dunkirk, and St. Valery en Caux is 34 kms further along the coast from Dieppe.
Even if you had mistaken en Caux for the 'other' St. Valery, sur Somme, that is 151 km, or 93 miles from Dunkirk. On 3 June, 51st Highland was at Abbeville, well south of Boulogne and nowhere near Dunkirk.
The rest of your post, with references to shootings, etc., is simply nonsense. Why not just read the 51st Highland Division website for yourself?
1
-
@sichere What has 'Crow Flying' distance, right or wrong, got to do with anything? By road, Abbeville was, and is 153 kms., from Dunkirk using the modern A16 or D941, or 189 kms. on the A25. If Abbeville is less than 60 miles from Dunkirk, and St. Valery is also less than 60 miles from Dunkirk, how is it that St. Valery is 101 kms. south west (i.e., in the opposite direction from Dunkirk) of Abbeville?
51st were under the command of the IX Corps of the French 10th Army, and retreated with them across France via Varennes, Abbeville, and Erondelle, arriving at St. Valery late on 10 June. Read any book on the campaign; the facts are stated in all. The initial hope had been that Dieppe could be used for the evacuation. Part of the division, Arkforce, was placed in a defensive position at Fecamp, by the way, and avoided encirclement as a result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Simply not true. The full text of the British Ultimatum was as follows:
"It is impossible for us, your comrades up to now, to allow your fine ships to fall into the power of the German enemy. We are determined to fight on until the end, and if we win, as we think we shall, we shall never forget that France was our Ally, that our interests are the same as hers, and that our common enemy is Germany.
Should we conquer we solemnly declare that we shall restore the greatness and territory of France. For this purpose we must make sure that the best ships of the French Navy are not used against us by the common foe. In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives;
(a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans.
(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.
If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.
(c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies — Martinique for instance — where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.
If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.
Finally, failing the above, I have the orders from His Majesty’s Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German hands."
Unfortunately for his crews and his reputation, Admiral Gensoul chose not to pass the full text on the his government.
m. Pierre. Either you simply have not read the ultimatum in full before, or you are a liar. I would prefer to believe the former.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonesalex565 Between 27 May and 4 June, there were 41 British destroyers involved in the Dunkirk evacuation. How many were sunk by your 'stookers' which you believe could 'put a bomb down a gun turret' (whatever that means), in total, four. The Luftwaffe in 1940 was a tactical air force, trained in providing air support for ground troops in a land campaign. They had had no training at all in anti-shipping operations, and were, consequently, poor at the task. Their own commander, Oskar Dinort, wrote of the difficulties of hitting ships at sea, following an attack on 25 May when he led 40 aircraft from his Stuka-Geschwader 2 in an attack on a British naval squadron off Calais. He recorded that his aircraft dived from 12000 feet, but the reflection of the sun on the sea, and the violent course changes made by the warships, resulted in his own bomb exploding 300 feet from his target. None of his accompanying aircraft were any more successful, leading Dinort to conclude that they lacked the necessary expertise to achieve consistent success. His commander, Wolfram von Richthofen, in charge of Fliegerkorps VIII, subsequently told his own superiors that the Luftwaffe was not well enough trained to be able to provide adequate protection for the towed barges that were intended to carry out operation Sealion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonesalex565 You seem to have resorted to raving. You haven't explained what purpose was served by sending almost 200,000 troops to Scotland, largely because they weren't. Would you like to provide your source for your ludicrous claim?
There was no lie spun about the evacuation. Churchill called the events 'a colossal military disaster' and said ' "we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations" in the House of Commons on 4 June, 1940. tHE 'Miracle' element was that the Royal & Merchant navies, in the face of (fortunately, ineptly inaccurate) Luftwaffe bombing, managed to lift more than ten times the number of troops thought possible when the evacuation began.
I notice that you still seem to rely on TV rather than archives for your information. Isn't it odd, then, that that what you describe as 'only 20 years old' actually appeared in books by historians dating back to the late 1940s and 1950s? The various descriptions of the events have always been consaistent.
I have a copy of the Official Royal Navy Staff History of Operation 'Dynamo' which has full details of every vessel involved and every event which took place throughout Dynamo. Would you like me to list a whole host of academic works, both British, French, & German, on the subject, all of which tell a consistent tale throughout? I am sure you wouldn't. Finally, what 'archives' were sealed by Theresa May?
1
-
@jonesalex565 ' You're suggesting that it's always been widely known and publicly acknowledged that the Germans let us go at Dunkirk?'
You were the one who suggested that, if I recall correctly. I know no credible historian who would argue that for a moment, largely because there is no evidence at all to support it. The best you will find are the usual suspects, fantasising nazi boys and anti-British Americans, and not even many of them.
You spoke to people who were sent there? Oh good. I spoke to people who weren't. What is your source for your claim? What War Office records? Where were the men sent? Again, WHY? You are utterly unable to give any rational reason.
How is it possible to look something up if no-one knows what it is?
As to Churchill, don't you know? The answer is none of the above, as you really should know. The statements were made to the House of Commons at the time, were published in Hansard, the House of Commons record of proceedings, and appeared in the newspapers which, then as now, have access to Hansard.
1
-
@jonesalex565 Of course the BEF weren't let go. I have been trying to get you to grasp this fact for some time, but you seem to be determined to align yourself with the neo-nazis and Limey haters who, without a scintilla of proof, insist upon chanting this nonsense like demented parakeets. I do admit, however, that your fantasy about the Scottish gulags for the Dunkirk failures is certainly a novel one!
Where have I said that the Germans ran out of fuel? I have explained the reasons for the German failure, basically the von Rundstedt Halt order, the failure of the Luftwaffe, the skill of Admiral Ramsay's evacuation planning, and the resistance of the rearguard.
Please present a source which demonstrates that orders were given by German High Command to let the British escape, and, when you haven't been able to do that, explain precisely why they would have benefitted in any way by letting it happen.
I don't have to prove anything. The facts, and the history, are entirely on my side.
You do seem to have some very odd problems, for which you have my sympathy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonesalex565 So, no explanation of the reasons for the exile of the BEF to Scotland, or indeed answers to any of my other questions. No reference to any contemporary German, French, or British documents either. Just your conversation with a sapper. Presumably, if this man went to Scotland, then you simply assume that the other nearly 200,000 did as well, despite what the regimental diaries from the time all say.
You refer to :-
Running out of petrol
Shiney water
2 weeks of sudden miscommunication with Hitler
without explaining what you think you mean. Perhaps you might enlighten people? Or there again, perhaps not!
Incidentally, if the British thought that they had been 'let go' why did they immediately begin landing a Second REF in Cherbourg, and only withdrew it after General Weygand, on 14 June, told the commander, Alan Brooke, that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance? Were they really so confident that the amiable Germans would let them go a second time?
What 'debates' are these, to which you refer? I know of no such arguments being put forward by any credible historian working in this area, and I correspond regularly with many, now that regular face to face conversation is not possible. I admit that I do not normally read the extremist nonsense which appears from time to time (like yours, with no supporting evidence at all) from the neo-nazis and hitler lovers, but if you would care to recommend a recent presentation 'proving' that the British were 'let go' I would be happy to read it. Like you, I know that I will be waiting for a long time for such a document.
What is the relevance of Hess to Dunkirk, by the way?
Although I doubt it, I would be happy to believe that other people are reading this, although your amusing refusal to answer any question put to you might have deterred a few.
1
-
@jonesalex565 You clearly cannot remember your earlier posts. You said that 200,000 men were sent to Scotland, although it now seems to have increased to 300,000. I said that, after a brief period of leave, all clearly documented in Regimental diaries, the men rejoined their regiments. I don't doubt that a number of Scots. went to Scotland, just as the Welsh went to Wales, or the Lancastrians to Lancashire, during their leave period, but to argue that they were all sent to Scotland as you seem to is simply ludicrous, and there is no evidence to support it.
Yes, as I said earlier, the men I interviewed were surprised to find that they were regarded as heroes, when they had expected to be vilified, but there is no evidence to suggest a systematic effort to keep them away from the press. Unless you can produce some, and of course, as with the rest of your posts, you cannot. Just as you said Churchill's reference to evacuation did not appear in the newspapers, until I showed you that it did.
'Why did we invade again? Why don't you answer that?' If you mean the Second BEF, which wasn't an invasion, I didn't answer because I hadn't been asked. I suspect that you had never previously heard of the Second BEF. However, the reason was to show continued support for France, in the hope that France would continue to resist. When Weygand told Brooke of the hopelessness of the French situation, the force was withdrawn.
The rest of your nonsense (two weeks on beaches, Luftwaffe bombers deliberately missing, (even though around 200 German aircraft were destroyed during Dynamo) irrelevant references to Hess & now to Sicily, and strange, meaningless references to 'shiny water' are unworthy of response.
1
-
@jonesalex565 Where is your source for your comment about the sappers? Oh, of course, you don't have one.
The only Allied invasion of France was in 1944. I have told you the reason for the 2nd BEF. Unfortunately, you seem unable to grasp it.
I have never come across any reference by any German serviceman to the suggestion that they were not permitted to finish off the Dunkirk pocket, no suggestion that Hitler ever gave orders that the British should be allowed to escape.
Nor, indeed, is there any such suggestion by any German historian that I have read, and I have read many. odd, that, don't you think?
I notice that you haven't commented on the research and conclusions I posted earlier from Herr Epkenhans. I wonder why that might be?
You are either seriously disturbed, a raving nazi fanatic, or simply astonishingly stupid. I will let anyone who has the misfortune to read your silliness decide for him/her self.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArjayMartin 'I'm not a historian though.' Anyone reading your posts would, I am sure, have deduced that some time ago.
Himmler flew to the UK to try to broker peace? Good heavens, I never knew that. Moreover, neither did the British!
The rest of your post is irrelevant gibberish, except for your reference to David Irving. He was never, as you claim, ' the darling of the industry,' He was briefly regarded as something as an expert on German military archives, but was never seen as anything more than a maverick, with excessively favourable opinions about anything German.
Still, as you aren't an historian, you wouldn't know that, of course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArjayMartin Seriously, if you must post large chunks from wikipedia, at least take the reference numbers to other books out! Have you read Buchanan? I did, around ten years ago. The most notable thing about him is his failure to refer to any primary sources, and to use what I will generously refer to as 'half truths.'
As to this ' In Buchanan's view, the "final offer" made by the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop to the British Ambassador Sir Neville Henderson on the night of August 30, 1939 was not a ploy, as many historians argued, but a genuine German offer to avoid the war.' There was a much easier way to have avoided the Anglo-French declaration of war on 3 September, 1939, which was for Germany not to have invaded Poland on 1 September, 1939. Have you not considered that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tot0m 'You seems to deny that French, Belgian and British officer were in very bad terms on may/june 1940.' When have I ever expressed such a view?
'You seems to deny that British command didn't trust French army were able to perform, so they preferred to flee without referring to french command, and make french and belgian armies in worse position to defend.' When have I ever expressed such a view? Moreover, when, historically, did this happen? When Belgium capitulated, the British 3rd Division was obliged to plug a 20 mile gap between the BEF and French forces by conducting a 25 mile night march of 13000 men, which they did on 27/28 May, in order to link up with French forces at Nieuport. Was that fleeing without telling the French?
'You seems to deny that french troops and french officiers mostly wanted to try to defend while british troops and officers mostly abandonned their lines, or doesnt wanted to concert with french command.' When have I said that?
'You seems to be trash against french command who asked for more help.' I have simply stated what actually happened. I don't think anything in my earlier comment can be regarded as 'trashing.'
'On what purpose ? You didn't even gave fact, you just deny facts without proof. So that I bet you maybe english patriot, keen on propaganda and myth about glorious british army.' You facts seem to consist of vague nonsense such as claiming that the British ran away, or were willing to fight to the last Frenchman, or abandoned their allies at Dunkirk. None of these 'facts' of yours have any connection with what actually happened. Where I have made counter-arguments, I have provided supporting evidence.
Comments about what 'The British' thought (or, despite your claims, actually didn't think) in the 1920s & 1930s are irrelevant. In March, 1933, Churchill said in Parliament : "there are a good many people who have said to themselves, as I have been saying for several years: “Thank God for the French Army”.
'And so do the British, they doesnt wanted any casualties to defend french soil anymore like in ww1.' Of course they didn't, but they were willing to send a 'Reconstituted BEF' under Alan Brooke, to Cherbourg, and were willing to continue the fight, until General Weygand told him that the French army was no longer able to provide organised resistance.
By the way, there were 78000 British troops killed, wounded, or captured during the campaign in France, excluding losses among naval personnel. What was that about fighting to the last Frenchman again?
Seriously, if you aren't able to post credible arguments, supported by evidence, but insist instead on chanting outdated nationalistic prejudices, then why do you bother?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adelaidesngan604 Nonsense. 14 French destroyers and torpedo boats evacuated 6646 men, 5 despatch vessels 1000, 2 minesweepers 2038, 5 submarine chasers 203, 13 minesweeping trawlers 2665, 7 patrol vessels 2501, 12 cargo ships 2290, 59 trawlers 4814. Total :- 22157.
British ships :- 1 cruiser 1856, 41 destroyers 96197, 6 corvettes 1100, 1 sloop 436, 2 gunboats 3512, 36 minesweepers 46434, 52 trawlers 5396, 61 drifters 12370, 3 AA paddle steamers 4408, 7 MGBs 79, 6 MTBs 20, 3 armed boarding vessels 4848, 40 coasters 22698, 26 yachts 4681, 45 personnel ships 87810, 8 hospital ships 3006, 12 naval motor boats 96, 40 tugs 3164, 13 landing craft 118, 8 motor launches 579, 8 dockyard lighters 418, 7 hopper barges 2166, 8 auxiliary barges 1256, 25 sailing barges 886, 19 life boats 323, 202 'little ships' 5031. Total :- 312668.
Out of interest, one British destroyer, HMS Malcolm, carried only 795 less men than 14 French destroyers and torpedo boats.
Your post rather suggests that you don't even know what the role of the Little Ships even was. Sorry, mon vieux, but you are outclassed. Perhaps you should go away?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hitler didn't 'allow' the troops in the Dunkirk pocket (1/3rd of whom were French, by the way) to escape because the halt order was issued by von Rundstedt. The next phase of the invasion of France was about to begin, and the German armour needed to rest and to service their vehicles. Certainly, Hitler could have countermanded the order, but didn't, firstly because of his WW1 experience, which led him to believe that the Dunkirk area was unsuitable for tanks, and secondly because he had been assured by Goering that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket and the evacuation fleet was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
Seriously, if Hitler wanted to force the British government into an armistice, wouldn't he have been in a better position with the BEF in prison camps, than with it safely on the other side of the Channel, protected by the Royal Navy?
As to Hitler not wanting to go to war with Britain, actually it was more a case of not being able to wage war effectively against Britain, because the Germans, with a tiny navy and an air force untrained in anti-shipping techniques, had no realistic means of bringing such a war to a successful conclusion by getting their army across the Channel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter Well, try this. The Scharnhorsts & Bismarcks had incremental armour, which hadn't been used in American capital ships since the Nevadas, and in British ones since the Nelsons, but had been superceded by the superior All-or-Nothing pattern. The Scharnhorst and Bismarcks had outdated low angle secondary armament, which had been discarded by the US navy since the Washingtons, and in the British navy since the King George Vs, in favour of a dual purpose system.
The Scharnhorsts were desperately undergunned, with a weight of broadside of 6552 lbs. By comparision, the US Washingtons had a broadside weight of 24300 lbs, the British Nelsons 18432 lbs, and the British King George Vs 15900 lbs. Bismarck had a weight of broadside of 14112 lbs, but achieved it by the outdated use of four twin turrets, when the British & Americans were using the three multiple gunned turret design, saving both weight & space.
The Scharnhorsts had 13.8 inch armoured belts, and 4.1 inch decks. The Bismarcks 12.6 inch belts and 4.7 inch decks. The Washingtons, by comparison 12 inch belts & 3.6 inch decks, the Nelsons 14 inch belts and 6.25 inch decks, and the King George Vs 14 inch belts and 6 inch decks. All the Scharnhorsts (32 knots) and the Bismarcks (29 knots) had was speed. The Washingtons (28 knots) and the KGVs (27.5 knots) were slightly slower, and the Nelsons (23 knots) much slower. Thus, the German ships could avoid action, but once forced into it were utterly outclassed. I don't supposed you even know that internal communications in both the Scharnhorsts & the Bismarcks ran between the incremental layers of armour, when resulted in Bismarck losing these, and most of her main armament, within about 20 minutes when engaged on 27 May?
I don't need a 'sense of bullshit entitlement,' just knowledge of the facts. A pity you don't have the same level of understanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis.
The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda. One wonders why, with 2.5 million Indian soldiers fighting for the Allies, those same allies would have sought to generate a famine? However, where revisionist prejudice is concerned, archive documents or common sense are best ignored.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Glynnwilliamson You mean like in early 1942, when the British and Canadians had to send 34 escorts to the American East Coast, because Ernie King chose to ignore British Admiralty warnings and allow American merchant shipping to be slaughtered within sight of the (brightly illuminated) US coast.
Or mid 1942, when there were 12 Escort Groups protecting SC, HX, & ON convoys? Of these, seven (B1 B7) were British, four (C1 C4) Canadian, and one (A3) theoretically American. I say 'theoretically' because it consisted of British & Canadian destroyers, and two US Coastguard cutters. The cutters were soon withdrawn to other duties, and the Group redesignated C5. There were, once the cutters left, no American warships on North Atlantic escort duty. The British & Canadians managed to win the battle all by themselves. The US Navy never really 'arrived' in the North Atlantic.
As to D-Day, the naval plan was drawn up by a team led by Vice-Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay, who was also Naval Forces Commander on 6 June. Of 4127 landing craft, 3261 were British & Canadian crewed. There were 1213 warships at D-Day; 892 were British or Canadian. There were 11600 Allied aircraft; two thirds were RAF, and the combined force was commanded by Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory. Two of every three men who landed on 6 June were British or Canadian, and I leave you to guess who the Ground Forces Commander was. The pre-invasion minesweeping was carried out entirely by British & Canadian sweepers, and the Mulberry artificial harbours, without which the whole thing would have been impossible anyway, were a British invention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1