Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Knowledgia" channel.

  1. Whilst the Nationalism being posted on here is quite fascinating, how about a calmer approach? Such as :- A popular view is that "Everybody is happy with the outcome of the war. Americans are happy because they think they won, the Canadians are happy because they know they won and avoided being swallowed up by the United States, and the British are happiest because they've forgotten all about it".
    8
  2.  @god6384  There wasn't any mercy. Von Rundstedt halted the armour to rest & refit if for the second stage of the campaign, and Hitler believed Goering when Goering told him that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket was a 'special job for the Luftwaffe.'
    8
  3.  @homelessjesse9453  Firstly, Japanese interests at the time were far removed from Western Europe, and secondly the 'British Navy' at Hong Kong at the time consisted of three WW1 'S' class destroyers (two of which were withdrawn to Singapore), four elderly river gunboats, and a flotilla of MTBs.
    7
  4.  @Anton-kp3mi  None of which explains why an army which had resisted so gallantly in 1914-1918 collapsed in a few weeks in 1940.
    7
  5. Which paratroops? In September, 1940 the Germans had less than 5,000. Moreover, they only had just over 220 operational transport aircraft. Moreover, how are they to be relieved or even resupplied? By troops carried in unprotected towed barges across a seaway defended by the Royal Navy? Good luck with that.
    7
  6. Sorry, but Belfast wasn't at Dunkirk.
    7
  7.  @homelessjesse9453  I assume you mean the Suez Canal? Which was controlled by the British, who had a major naval base in Alexandria. Likewise, sailing from the Inland Sea, via the Cape, to the Channel. Where does the fuel come from? What is 'mind boggling' is that anyone could possibly think that such an operation was even feasible, still less that the Japanese, with their ambitions firmly set in the Far East, would even take such a foolish gamble. By the way, Tokyo to London, by sea, is 12965 nm, even via the Suez Canal (which couldn't in these circumstances be used). At 10 knots, that would be 54 days at sea. A typical Japanese capital ship of the period, Kongo for example, had a maximum range of 10,000 miles at 14 knots.
    6
  8. Yes. An island, but with a huge and capable navy.
    6
  9. The British Commonwealth & Empire suffered over 2.7 million casualties (killed, wounded, & captured) on the Western Front. Is where these men fought really more relevant to you than that fact?
    6
  10. Isn't it likely to have been rather difficult to open any fronts at all against an island with the largest navy on earth, when you don't have a navy of your own?
    6
  11. Largely because he knew how large the Royal Navy was, in comparison to the almost non existent navy he commanded.
    6
  12. Of course. Hitler was famed for his mercy and his liberal attitudes.
    6
  13. The Kreigsmarine was barely able to assemble an assault force capable of crossing the Channel. How would barges towed in pairs by tugs or barges ever hope to get to Ireland? Barges and large Atlantic rollers are incompatible.
    6
  14. But presumably not for the millions of civilians exterminated by the peace-loving Germans?
    6
  15. Why don't you try being honest? The Germans failed to attempt an invasion in 1940, when the US was neutral and the USSR was Hitler's great friend. By the time the US was dragged in (the US didn't nobly 'get involved' as you appear to imply) Barbarossa had already happened, and an island nation, protected by the largest navy on earth and with the increasingly effective support of a large empire, was hardly going to lose to a nation which, however powerful as a land power, was never remotely capable of launching a seaborne invasion.
    5
  16. The UK & France declared war on Germany because both had military alliances with Poland, of which Hitler had been well aware, that they would declare war if Germany invaded Poland. Germany had already invaded Czechoslovakia without declaration of war. Germany then invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium, all without declaring war. Germany also invaded the Soviet Union, again without declaring war. If the British & French waited for a German declaration of war, they would probably still be waiting when the tanks entered Paris. Generally, the arrival of troops, tanks, and aircraft across a border was taken as a clue to what was intended, with or without the prior arrival of a scrap of paper.
    5
  17.  @homelessjesse9453  This would be the 'Shinano' which was launched on 8 October, 1944, I assume. Might I make so bold as to suggest that such a vessel would have been of limited use in 1940?
    5
  18. It could never have succeeded, but it might have been attempted.
    5
  19.  @djharto4917  Indeed, Britain & France declared war on Germany. After Germany invaded Poland, despite knowing that Poland had military alliances with both. Germany didn't actually declare war on any European country. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium and the Soviet Union were all attacked without the courtesy of a declaration of war, although the arrival of tanks, troops, bombers and, in some cases, einsatzgruppen, could be regarded as clues to German intent. As to 'There is not one shred of evidence in the archives that Hitler was going to invade Britain.' Sorry, but that is total nonsense. As early as 30 June, General Jodl (OKW Chief of Staff) had issued a memorandum discussing a landing. on 2 July Hitler issued a Directive 'The War Against England' stating that 'A landing in England is possible,' on 12 July, Jodl issued a memorandum describing the invasion as 'a river crossing on a broad front,' and on 16 July, Hitler issued Directive 16, which you can look up for yourself. Admiral Raeder discussed OKW's plans with Keitel & Jodl on 22 July, explaining that the navy require 10 days to transport the first wave of 13 divisions across. Hitler ended the meeting by stating that 40 divisions would be required. On 23 July, the army stated that their preparations would be complete by mid-September. On 25 July, after another meeting Raeder asked Hitler for authority to commandeer shipping throughout Germany & Occupied Europe, and was given such authority. Raeder estimated 3500 vessels of all kinds, but mainly coasters, tugs, trawlers, & barges. The barges would require extensive conversion, and, as most were unpowered, needed at least 400 tugs. On 15 August, the decision was made that the attack would take place on 15 September. By then, the Kriegsmarine had assembled 159 coaster transports, 1859 barges, 397 tugs, & 1168 motor boats. There were a number of other meetings between 15 August and the final abandonment of the plan on 12 October, but I won't bore you with facts of which you seem utterly unaware. You might wish to read 'Invasion of England - 1940' by Peter Schenk, for a full, 359 page account of the plan which you claim didn't exist, from the German point of view.
    5
  20.  @jimdavies6764  Simply untrue. The British had an 'Agreement of Mutual Assistance' with Poland, signed on 25 August, 1939, which specifically referred to British support in the event of an attack by Germany on Poland. Read, if you wish, Keith Sword. "British Reactions to the Soviet Occupation of Eastern Poland in September 1939" in The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 81-101. Presumably, you feel that Britain should have remained quiescent, and allowed Germany to conquer all of Europe unchallenged?
    5
  21.  @jimdavies6764  The British & French hoped that their alliances with Poland would be seen as a line in the sand, and that Hitler would grasp the fact. At what point do you consider it might have been appropriate for them to make a stand against nazi Germany, by the way? You seem to believe that the British stance 'led to tens of millions of deaths' rather than the real cause, rampant German military aggression and expansion.
    5
  22.  @deutsch-amerikanisch8281  I don't suppose you could direct us to the texts of these peace offers? No? I thought not. If you seek peace, you approach the British Ambassador in Sweden, Switzerland, or the US. You might even approach FDR. What wouldn't be seen as credible is sending someone on a lone flight to Scotland, in order to leap out somewhere near the country estate of a Scottish aristocrat with no significant relevance to the governance of the UK.
    5
  23. Yes indeed. Get it straight! You might start by saying where the texts of these several offers might be read.
    5
  24. The Germans were barely capable of assembling barges capable of being towed down the Channel. Attempting to cross the North Sea in September in such barges would probably have saved the Royal Navy the trouble of sending out destroyers and light cruisers to sink them.
    5
  25. Brilliant scheme. The minor fact that none of it makes any sense at all shouldn't deter you.
    5
  26. Perhaps because the British in 1940 had the largest navy on earth, and after the mauling the Kriegsmarine surface fleet had received off Norway what was left would have fitted into a medium sized bathtub. The Americans were fortunate in that they had the same Royal Navy to facilitate D-Day. The British and Canadians provided 892 of the 1213 warships, and crewed 3261 of the 4127 landing craft, as well as providing two thirds of the ground troops.
    4
  27. It always puzzles me why people with minimal knowledge of subjects feel able to comment upon them. As my old tutor used to say 'the only things more tedious than people who don't know what they are talking about are people who don't know that they don't know what they are talking about.'
    4
  28.  @KatyushaLauncher  Additionally, the Italian navy was already having enough problems with Cunningham and his Mediterranean Fleet.
    4
  29.  @jimdavies6764  There was no credible question to answer. Britain and France declared war because of an existing treaty with Poland. What point do you think you are trying to make, if any?
    4
  30.  @jimdavies6764  It really doesn't matter what Hitler believed, what matters is what the British & French did, which was to act on their treaty agreements. Didn't Hitler's attacks on Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France represent actions which were really the 'business' of France & Britain?
    4
  31. The last monarch not born in Britain was George II, in 1683.
    4
  32. There were just under 200,000 British troops lifted out of Dunkirk. Around 120,000 French troops were also lifted, but most returned to France to surrender less than 2 weeks later. Ther British also lifted around 190,000 troops from French Atlantic ports in Operation Aerial. By the way, Hitler didn't stop the German armour on the Aa canal, von Rundstedt did, in order to service it before the second phase of the invasion of France, and avoid the risk of a second 'Miracle of the Marne.' Hitler, having been assured by Goering that the elimination of the Dunkirk pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe' chose to believe him, only to discover that the Luftwaffe of 1940 was not very effective against ships. If you think that lines of converted barges towed slowly across the Channel by tugs and trawlers could hope to survive what the Royal Navy had in store for them, think again.
    4
  33. Perhaps you are unaware of Boney's question, 'Can an Elephant fight a Whale?' Or of Mahan's description of the Royal Navy, as relevant in 1940 as it was 140 years earlier, as 'Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the domination of the world.' Try to cross the Channel, in converted canal barges towed by tugs and trawlers and without surface escort, and face annihilation. Sealion was an impossibility, however much Germans still nursing grudges might think otherwise.
    4
  34.  @PeterMaddison2483  There were plenty of ground troops after the end of the French campaign. There was also a stretch of water defended by the biggest navy on earth. As Napoleon said of his own problems with the British, 'Can an Elephant fight a Whale?'
    4
  35. It is true that Hitler regarded the Soviet Union as his true enemy, and he sought to neutralise France and persuade the UK to remain neutral. However, this was largely because, as Boney said many years previously, 'can an Elephant fight a Whale?' If the British chose not to come to terms, he had no realistic means of compelling them. Certainly, build the U-boat fleet, but this takes resources away from the army & air force, and in the end the British & Canadians can (and did) produce sufficient anti-submarine vessels and weapons to counter whatever the Germans could build. Spain was hardly able to provide anything. In 1940, only food supplies from the United States kept Spain from mass starvation, and Franco had been told that these supplies would cease in the event of a military alliance with Germany. In fact, Germany would need to support Spain. Closure of the straits would not have had the effect you seem to think, by the way. For much of the early part of the war, the Med. was a backwater as far as supplies were concerned. These went via the longer but safer Cape route.
    4
  36. How enlightened of your carers to let you use the laptop unsupervised. Still, I suppose it keeps you from playing with anything sharp.
    4
  37.  @thegamingchef3304  'Do you think the Brits and Canadians would be brave enough to storm the beaches of Normandy without America?' Please refer me to where I suggested that. However, neither do I believe that, without the British and Canadians on 6 June, the Americans would have been able to have attempted D-Day either. Bravery doesn't come into the issue. Resources and logistics do. The British & Canadians provided the bulk of the resources. The Royal and Royal Canadian navies swept the mines and kept the crossing lanes clear, provided most of the warships and crews, landed most of the troops, and, when what remained of the kriegsmarine tried to interfere, sank most of their destroyers, torpedo boats, and U-boats. Not to mention, of course, that Sir Bertram Ramsay headed the planning team which made Operation Neptune possible in the first place. Americans at the time were no more special than the British & Commonwealth forces involved, whatever Hollywood might like to suggest.
    3
  38.  @thegamingchef3304  What is this patronising 'son' reference? Try to remain relevant. Who has ever made such a statement? Please provide a source. Oh, and at the time, from an earlier generation of my family, one was serving in Italy, one in Burma, and a third was aboard his freighter in the Barents Sea, where he remains to this day. Please explain why they were any less 'special' than the average US citizen?
    3
  39.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  Actually, that simply isn't true. France had absolutely no intention of ordering a general mobilisation. The Deuxieme Bureau had wrongly informed Gamelin that Germany had sent over 200,000 troops into the Rhineland, when the correct number was around 5,000. Still, if it comforts you to blame the Brits. and the Yanks for French failures, feel free.
    3
  40. You are mistaken. Hitler did not make 'several peace deal offers' to Britain. Only the one, the so-called 'Appeal to Reason' in July 1940, in which the deal offered amounted to 'surrender or be bombed.' Perhaps you might supply a source where these other 'peace deals' may be read? Indeed, Britain and France did declare war on Germany following the German invasion of Poland, as they had said that they would. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Germany only ever declared war on one state, the USA, in the whole of WW2. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, and the Soviet Union were attacked without warning. Perhaps the people of those states were expected to understand that the arrival of German bombers, tanks, and troops represented the German idea of a declaration of war?
    3
  41.  @jimdavies6764  Why not read a book, instead of using Wikipedia? Try for example 'The German Invasion of Norway - April, 1940' or 'The Battle for Norway April- June, 1940, both by a Norwegian historian Geirr Haarr. Then tell me whether German or Allied troops landed first in Norway.
    3
  42. It was an action taken out of strategic necessity, and something both he, and the men who carried it out, undertook with enormous regret.
    3
  43. Shouldn't you be at your special school?
    3
  44.  @garciagar64  Saxons haven't ruled England since 1066. The last English/British ruler not to be born in Britain was George II, in 1683.
    3
  45. Sorry, but almost no historians believe that Hitler allowed the BEF to escape in order to secure an armistice. No such 'historic records' as you claim actually exist. Moreover, if you wish your enemy to come to terms, aren't you likely to have a better chance of achieving that with the bulk of his army in PoW camps, rather than safely out of reach, protected by the largest navy on the planet? Lord Halifax at the time was actively seeking to use Mussolini as an 'independent' arbiter in any peace talks, and had considerable support within the cabinet. However, after Dynamo, his support evaporated. Not that this matters, because Hitler didn't issue the Halt Order, the commander of Army Group A, von Rundstedt, for sound military reasons. His armour had travelled a considerable distance, and needed a period of rest and self maintenance before embarking on the second stage of the French campaign. Von Rundstedt feared, as many German generals did, that there might be a repeat of the WW1 'Miracle of the Marne.' Hitler knew the country around Dunkirk from WW1, and believed it unsuitable for armour. Moreover, the day before the order was given, Goering had assured Hitler that the destruction of the troops in the Pocket, and any evacuation ships, was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
    3
  46. When did you hear that? It was never actually true.
    3
  47.  @chewyukechun350  You think that French ports, even in nazi control, held stocks of parts suitable for Japanese warships, or ammunition compatible with Japanese requirements? The German navy at the time, September, 1940, by the way, consisted of one operational heavy cruiser, three operational light cruisers, and about seven operational destroyers. You seem to have ignored the distances involved, not to mention, put brutally, what was in it for the Japanese, who at the time were far more worried about the US reaction to their expansionist plans than to the results of a far distant European war.
    3
  48.  @chewyukechun350  'Through the neutral Soviet Union via the Arctic Circle.' Oh dear, you really haven't a clue, do you? Sorry, but I stopped reading and gave up on you at that point.
    3
  49. Nothing of the sort is 'commonly understood today.' Were you to read 'Invasion of England - 1940' by Peter Schenk, you would have access to full details of the German invasion plan, which was very real indeed. By mid September, 1940, the Kriegsmarine had assembled 159 coasters, 1859 converted river barges, 397 tugs/trawlers, and almost 1200 motor boats in French & Belgian. The plan involved a first wave of nine divisions, supported by a weak airborne division in the first wave, with a further nine divisions in the second wave, and six divisions in the third wave. The initial assault force involved just over 60,000 men, carried in 894 barges (towed in pairs by 57 transports and 390 tugs) and 300 motor boats. The first wave, in entirety, involved just over 150,000 men. 'Hitler’s ultimate goal and this is recorded history was to bring the RAF to the brink of extinction, then pull back and force the British to a negotiated peace.' You claim that this is 'recorded history?' Where is it 'recorded?' Certainly, the invasion plan presupposed the Luftwaffe having air superiority over the Channel, but bringing the RAF to the brink of extinction was never possible. The worst that could have happened would have been a temporary withdrawal of Fighter Command north of the Thames to rest & re-equip. At the time the British were already outproducing Germany in terms of aircraft, especially fighters. I would agree that the importance of the Battle of Britain was and is exaggerated, largely because of Churchill's speeches at the time, intended to garner support in the United States. Churchill could have said, truthfully, that 'An invasion is not possible. The German fleet is tiny, and Britain has the largest navy on earth,' but the David versus Goliath image was more effective, and, inaccurately, is the image many people have today. The reality, of course, was that the Royal Navy held absolute supremacy in the Channel, and any attempt to invade with the resources at Germany's disposal had no hope of success, but to suggest that no such plan ever existed is simply not in accordance with either the facts or the historical record.
    3
  50. Operation Sealion was intended to be in 1940. What role was the US playing in 1940 again?
    2
  51.  @TheIceman567  Calm down, gentlemen! The Canadian historian C. P. Stacey once remarked that the War of 1812 is ‘an episode in history that makes everybody happy, because everybody interprets it differently’. Americans believe they gave their former mother country a good drumming, Canadians pride themselves in turning back ‘the massed might of the United States’, and ‘the English are happiest of all, because they don’t even know it happened’.
    2
  52. Simply not true. 51st Highland Division (or, to be precise, about half of it) surrendered a week after Dynamo, at St. Valery on the French Atlantic coast after IX Corps of French 10th Army, of which it was a part, surrendered before an evacuation fleet from Portsmouth could enter the harbour.
    2
  53.  @thegamingchef3304  Great Britain. But why do you think that is a relevant question?
    2
  54. The main reason Germany failed was their lack of a navy.
    2
  55. Later in the war, but not in 1940. Or, at least, not in naval warfare when the opposition is the Luftwaffe.
    2
  56. Or Montgolfier balloons.
    2
  57. Or, more likely, under it.
    2
  58.  @justinklinck6575  So, the fact that the British & Canadians were massively outproducing the Germans in warships, and the British alone were outproducing them in aircraft, was irrelevant? Would you care to tell me of any occasion when an assault landing attempted by a force without control of the sea has succeeded?
    2
  59. Only if the French were willing to provide the crews as well. The Germans had nothing like the resources to man the French ships. Even then, the Royal Navy was still significantly superior.
    2
  60. You must, or you wouldn't have posted.
    2
  61. The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
    2
  62.  @Fraichedachs  They didn't think they had stopped. They simply didn't understand the flexibility of Sea Power, because the concept was alien to them. Committing his armour at Dunkirk would have been counter-productive for von Rundstedt, if it was mauled, and as a result meant that the French were able to rally strongly enough to prevent the conquest of the rest of their country. Moreover, Goering had assured Hitler that the destruction of the Allied forces could safely be left to the Luftwaffe. It was, simply, a huge miscalculation.
    2
  63. Would you care to make us aware of your source for this claim? I would be delighted to read the texts of these 43 offers. As would every other historian working in the field today.
    2
  64. Yes, of course. sending almost 2,000 canal barges, 159 merchant ships, 397 tugs, and over 1100 motor boats to Channel ports, arming and modifying the barges to act as rudimentary troop carriers, stripping part of the surface fleet of crews to man the barges & tugs, moving almost thirty divisions into position to produce a first, second, and third wave of troops, and degrading the resources of the Luftwaffe in a futile and irrelevant attack on the Home Counties. All part of a bluff. Of course it was.
    2
  65.  @bernardedwards8461  As the decoy plan wasn't actually a decoy, your comment is invalid. The Soviet Union was certainly Hitler's primary enemy, but surely you are aware of the comments he made about Kaiser Bill for fighting a war on two fronts? Goering was confident that the Luftwaffe would gain control of the air in a matter of weeks. His commanders were not so sanguine about the prospects, but they weren't the ones talking to Hitler. The Kriegsmarine were ordered to produce an invasion plan, and did so. It involved massing large quantities of (actually utterly unsuitable) ships & barges in Channel ports. Had the order been given, the attempt would have been made. That the ramshackle barge trains had minimal chance of crossing the Channel in the face of overwhelming RN supremacy is not the point. Have you actually read the reports of Raeder's conferences with Hitler? As late as 6 September, he was reporting that the vessels for the first wave would be in position by 15 September. If Raeder knew it was a bluff, it seems that he didn't tell Hitler that he knew!
    2
  66.  @bernardedwards8461  You consider it inconceivable that Hitler might lie by making excuses for decisions which led to calamity? Oh well, each to his own. I am sure that Hitler was a man of absolute integrity, who would never lower his standards in this manner. I assume you haven't read 'Operation Sealion - Invasion of England 1940' by Peter Schenk? No? I thought not. Raeder wasn't sacked, by the way. He resigned after the German defeat in the Barents Sea. For a 'not very competent' admiral, Raeder held his position as C-in-C of the German Navy from October, 1928 to January, 1943. If the ships were 'unsuitable' and never going to be used, explain why they were modified and fitted with weapons, and why was the European canal network seriously disrupted for what you seem to believe was nothing more than a whim?
    2
  67.  @bernardedwards8461  When did I say that Barbarossa was a 'whim?' You might, if you choose, explain why cancelling Sealion in October, 1940 had any effect at all on Barbarossa and why, if it was all a bluff, the Luftwaffe was allowed to incur serious losses which would hamper their role in Barbarossa.
    2
  68.  @bernardedwards8461  Barbarossa wasn't delayed because of Sealion, and you still haven't explained why Hitler went to such great inconvenience and expense in the first place. Nor have you presented any source which confirms any part of your argument except a comment by Adolf Galland. German military archives are universal in stating that Sealion was a real intended operation, at least until October, 1940.
    2
  69.  @bernardedwards8461  You have no idea what plans I might or might not have produced. As a naval historian, I know precisely how much chance Sealion had of succeeding, but that doesn't mean that Hitler, with minimal knowledge of sea power and blinded by the boasts from Goering about the wondrous capabilities of the Luftwaffe, might not have made the attempt. Incidentally, instead of making personal attacks, why not refer me to the documents in the German Military Archives at Freiburg which prove that the whole thing was a colossal hoax? Good luck.
    2
  70.  @bernardedwards8461  Where did I say that it wasn't? What I posted was 'Barbarossa wasn't delayed because of Sealion, and you still haven't explained why Hitler went to such great inconvenience and expense in the first place.' You haven't answered my question, of course.
    2
  71.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  So am I. You might perhaps consider buying a book on the subject. Try 'In Command of France; French Foreign Policy and Military Planning, 1933–1940' by Robert Young, for a start. A much better idea than simply making things up.
    2
  72. The Germans had a tiny operational navy, and their assault craft consisted of barges towed by tugs. They had already sent three U-Boats into the Channel late in 1939. All three were promptly sunk by the formidable mine defences. The British had re-equipped quite significantly by September, 1940. They had even felt able to send a troop convoy to North Africa, which included three Armoured Regiments, in August. The Germans had no suitable transport ships, only a few commandeered coasters, and only just over 220 transport aircraft. Without suitable port facilities, they had no means of getting tanks across, even if any of their barges and coasters managed to avoid the RN's defensive patrols, and the large number of warships allocated to anti-invasion defence. Oh, and to preempt your next post, the Luftwaffe, already lacking training in anti-shipping operations, didn't have any torpedo aircraft until 1942.
    2
  73. 'Over zealous?' That is an interesting term for what the nazis actually did.
    2
  74. Was invading most of Europe really the best way to achieve it?
    2
  75. How, exactly?
    2
  76. If Hitler had done that, he would not have been Hitler. As Trevor-Roper wrote long ago, Hitler's true enemy was always the Soviet Union. France was punished, as Hitler saw it, for interfering in European affairs, Britain was to be taught that she should concern herself with her empire and similarly, not interfere, by the true offence of the Soviet Union, in Hitler's mind, was the very existence of the Soviet Union.
    2
  77. If you are indeed Italian, perhaps you might give a little more attention to the performance of the Italian military in WW2?
    2
  78. Not so long as the Royal Navy held total naval supremacy in Home Waters, they weren't. As Lord St. Vincent had said to the House of Lords during the time of invasion threat from Boney, "I do not say they cannot come – I only say they cannot come by sea"
    2
  79.  @naturelover6114  In North Africa, Italy, & Burma, yes. But there were no Indian troops in Britain in 1939 or 1940.
    2
  80. 'a few French troops' Actually over 120,000.
    2
  81. Germany, until after Pearl Harbor, never actually bothered to declare war on anyone, but simply invaded without notice. Ask the Czechs, the Poles, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Dutch, and the Belgians for their views on the matter.
    2
  82.  @jimdavies6764  The Allies did not invade Norway first. If you are willing to delude yourself about that, it explains your other delusions.
    2
  83. The British withdrew their troops, all 13 divisions, because over 100 French & Belgian divisions had either capitulated or collapsed. The Soviets in 1940 had a non-aggression pact with Germany. History clearly is not your strong point?
    2
  84.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  Grossly unfair to old Adolf. Everyone knows that he dedicated his life to his pacifist ideals. As his attempts to bring similar enlightenment to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium, more than adequately demonstrate. I would like to write more on the subject, but my collection of SS daggers is badly in need of a polish.
    2
  85.  @InvertedGigachad  Yes, it is. There are so many bizarre posts appear on sites like this that the fine line between lunacy & sarcasm is not always entirely clear.
    2
  86. Actually, no the RAF wasn't. British aircraft production was exceeding that of Germany from June 1940 onwards.
    2
  87. How? Britain is an island, and was protected by the biggest navy in the world. How does a land power with a tiny navy resolve that conundrum? As Bonaparte said of the same problem 'can an elephant fight a whale?'
    2
  88.  @mighty679  I don't suppose it has occurred to you that Britain had far greater shipbuilding resources, and could outbuild anything the Germans could produce without really breaking sweat, as had happened before WW1. Moreover, German resources were limited; expend them on the navy, and there is less available for the army and air force. You probably aren't aware of this, but the British were already, historically, outproducing the Germans in terms of aircraft from mid 1940 onwards. The Germans were never winning the air battle over the UK. Most of the UK was out of reach of their fighters, without which bombers were almost helpless in daylight, and only able to scatter small bomb loads vaguely over approximate areas. Please do a little reading before posting such ill-informed comments.
    2
  89. So? Allowing the British army to be evacuated was the best means of persuading Britain to surrender? An interesting opinion!
    2
  90. Then why did they commandeer and convert over 2,000 barges, over 1,100 motor boats, over 400 tugs and around 200 freighters? Why did they expend around 2,000 aircraft, and sacrifice some 1,500 aircrew, on something that they never intended to undertake?
    2
  91. Simply not correct. The only credible, documented, peace offer Hitler made was his 'Appeal to Reason' of 19 July, 1940, if saying, effectively, 'surrender or we bomb you' can be so described. Indeed, it can be considered as reprresenting Hitler's belated realisation that, as Britain had demonstrated at Mers el Kebir two weeks earlier, an armistice was not going to happen. If of course you know of an actual, credible, source where these 'many generous' peace proposals may be read, please provide it. Oh, and Hitler didn't issue the Halt Order, Von Rundstedt did, for sound military reasons. The first being that he needed to rest and service his armour before embarking on the second stage of the campaign. Like many other German generals, he feared a repeat of the 'Miracle of the Marne.' Secondly, he knew that the ground around Dunkirk was largely unsuitable for armour, and that his supporting, mainly horse drawn, infantry divisions were beginning to arrive. Hitler was happy to go along with the order of course. He was aware of ground conditions from his WW1 experience, but more importantly, Goering had told him, a day earlier, that the elimination of the surrounded allied troops was, in Goering's words 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' One wonders exactly how many lives would have been lost if Britain had signed a humiliating surrender/armistice along the lines of that imposed on France? Perhaps, had Germany been able fully to implement her policy of mass extermination of certain groups, deportation of large numbers of civilians for exploitation as slave labourers in the fatherland, and subordination of the economies of conquered states to her military needs, the number might have been significantly greater.
    2
  92. Absolute nonsense. Hitler, who had invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, and France, did not want war? He had a remarkable way of demonstrating his pacifism.
    2
  93. Not really. The French navy which didn't want to surrender had already moved the ships to ports under British control.
    2
  94.  @francishuddy9462  Actually 'Erich Raeder.'
    2
  95.  @thewildpun  Many British officers at the time did believe it to be a civil war, and refused to serve in it.
    2
  96. The Germans did attack the Dunkirk pocket, using their Air Force. Goering had told Hitler that the destruction of the pocket was a job for the Luftwaffe, and Hitler believed him.
    2
  97.  @msquaretheoriginal  He was gambling that the British would come to terms, giving him a free hand in Europe. Operation Sealion was always a plan born of desperation when he realised that the gamble had failed.
    2
  98. The French First Army, in the north with the BEF, was the best equipped of the 1940 French armies, and fought gallantly. The French were let down by commanders who thought that the methods of WW1 were still valid.
    2
  99.  @chewyukechun350  Simply not possible. Aside from the distance, what about the lack of resupply and repair facilities? Moreover, ther Japanese could not 'hold off' the Royal Navy, as the Royal Navy was already there.
    2
  100.  @chewyukechun350  What is this RSN? In 1940, by the way the Royal Navy was the largest in the world, with 14 capital ships, 6 carriers, 60+ cruisers, and 166+ destroyers. The US Navy had 15 capital ships, 5 carriers, 37 cruisers and 100 destroyers. The Japanese had 10 battleships, 6 fleet & 6 light carriers, 38 cruisers, and 126 destroyers.
    2
  101. Wouldn't being attacked at Pearl Harbor and then having the Germans declare war on them have made that somewhat difficult?
    2
  102. Indeed. The 13 division of the BEF were evacuated. Possibly because the over 100 divisions of the Belgian & French armies either had collapsed or were in the process of collapsing.
    2
  103.  @remittanceman4685  Correct.
    2
  104.  @iansneddon2956  I wonder if, when the Germans couldn't devise a workable scheme to get troops across the English Channel, Mr. Barry would explain how they could find a way to get troops and aircraft to Ireland. In short, which ships, which aircraft, and what might the Royal Navy think of the attempt. In other words, utterly impossible.
    2
  105. The Germans had a small number of merchanised armoured and infantry divisions, but the vast majority of the German army used the horse. Indeed, a typical German WW2 infantry division in 1940 was barely distinguishable from one of 1916.
    2
  106.  @iroscoe  Indeed. I have seen his rants on other sites, although I have not worked out what all these references to 'leaking' are meant to mean. I suppose that, when your nation failed as badly as France did in 1940, it is a so much easier to blame everyone else. I am surprised he didn't lambast Luxembourg for not doing more to defend France, however!
    2
  107. Think about it yourself. How would they invade, without any assault ships, and with a tiny fleet, across a seaway defended by the largest navy in the world?
    2
  108. At the time of Dunkirk, the Soviet Union was had close, friendly, relationships with Germany. There was a possibility that, had most of the BEF been captured, a British Government led by Halifax might have accepted a humiliating, French style, armistice. Of course it was a turning point. Events 12 months later could not have been foreseen.
    2
  109.  @sam1111979  The Toulon scuttling proves nothing. The war situation in November 1942 was far different than that of July, 1940. Moreover, the Armistice imposed by Germany required that the French fleet return to Atlantic ports, where it would be placed under German supervision.
    2
  110.  @davidpryle3935  What do you think was happening in North Africa, and subsequently in Italy, in 1942 & 1943.
    2
  111. Perhaps because American, British, & Canadian servicemen gave their lives to liberate France?
    2
  112.  @Anton-kp3mi  The resistance could not have been anything more than a nuisance without the knowledge that regular, well-equipped, forces were on the way. It might perhaps be considered unfortunate that many of the French victims of the holocaust were actually rounded up with the assistance of French collaborators and French local government officers. Incidentally, the Allied High Command did not believe that the bombing was ineffective, although I agree that they over-estimated how effective it could be.
    2
  113. The last of the BEF were not actually evacuated until 25 June. 51 Highland were lost when the French force to which they were attached surrendered. Had they not done so, Admiral James' evacuation fleet was waiting offshore to lift them out.
    2
  114. But the result of the action was to make the incoming French government aware of the probable consequences if the French fleet was used in an attempt to support a German landing. Much more importantly, it convinced FDR that the advice being given to him by Joseph Kennedy was wrong, and that the British were not about to come to terms.
    2
  115.  @herrmannwerrmann3854  Most kind of you. I know precisely how much credibility to give to an article headed 'Hitler – the forgotten candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize,' which uses David Irving & William Joyce as sources, which claims that Poland attacked Germany, and which claims that 'Churchill wanted war. Churchill was a war criminal. Churchill did not want peace. He wanted the war to go on as long as possible,' when Churchill didn't even hold a government position of any sort between 1929 & September, 1939, when he joined the cabinet of a country already at war. Even ploughing through this demented nonsense, the only actual alleged peace proposal is a reference to Hitler's supposed 'Appeal to Reason' made after the British attack at Mers el Kebir made it obvious even to him that they were not going to fall in with his needs and agree an armistice. Even then, the Appeal, which basically said 'surrender or we bomb you' was less of a peace proposal than a threat. The other eleven to which you referred simply do not exist.
    2
  116. Unfair. Just because an army is defeated does not indicate cowardice.
    2
  117. The so-called 'Shingle Street' incident tells a similar tale. However, the reality at Shingle Street seems to have been that troops based in the area had looted empty homes, and the government imposed restrictions on any reporting, which led to the subsequent urban myth. Personally, I would have expected that, had any sort of German attack of this sort been attempted and defeated, the last thing the British government would have done would have been to seek to hush it up.
    1
  118. Invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, and France might be considered an unusual way of trying to avoid war.
    1
  119. So, you have airborne drops on Southern England, Wales, & Scotland? In May 1940, the Germans had 4500 trained paratroopers, and lost around a third during the campaign in the Low Countries. Moreover, by September, 1940, they had only just over 220 transport aircraft. How would you propose getting these non-existent paratroopers across. At the very least, Wales & Scotland are far beyond the range of fighter cover, and Ju52s were even more vulnerable than Ju87s without serious protection. 'Dropping a few Airborne divisions in a small locale' Except, as I have said, the Germans had no such resource. Their only airborne division was at less than 1/3rd strength. 'Naval Blockade?' With what? The German surface fleet at the time consisted of one heavy cruiser, three light cruisers, seven destroyers, a similar number of smaller, escort type destroyers, and about a dozen minesweepers. The RN had over 100 destroyers and light cruisers in Home Waters, backed up by the Home Fleet of battleships, battlecruisers, and heavy cruisers. You might as well suggest that the Belgian army should have invaded Germany in May! 'It would certainly bode very badly for the British once the Germans got across the channel.' The operative word here is 'once.' The Admiralty had put plans in place which were designed to ensure that this never happened, and the Germans, in the end, were wise enough not to put them to the test.
    1
  120. Why would they have wanted Hitler to attack Poland, when the terms of their alliance meant that this would require a declaration of war? The alliance was intended to be a line in the sand, to halt further German expansion, and thus prevent a general European, not precipitate one.
    1
  121.  @tadeuszczernia5422  No. From start to finish, Hitler's true enemy was the Soviet Union. Read what Trevor-Roper wrote in his book. The attack on France was intended to prevent her interfering with his eastern ambitions.
    1
  122.  @tadeuszczernia5422  As I said, read what Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote. The German attack on France was intended to ensure that Germany would not need to fight on two fronts. Hitler had condemned Kaiser Bill for this. However, his hopes for a one front war collapsed when Britain refused to play ball. It was a gamble, and it failed.
    1
  123. Actually, the British bombed Berlin in response to German bombs landing on London the night before.
    1
  124.  @Brian-om2hh  I know. However, I expect Churchill didn't.
    1
  125. How did the French and British persuade Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, and then persuade Hitler to declare war on the US? What was this peace with Britain that you imagine the Germans offered? At best, a humiliating surrender/armistice akin to that accepted by France, along the lines of Hitler's 'Appeal to Reason' which basically said 'surrender or we bomb you.'
    1
  126. Actually, the Admiralty had been assembling a register of small vessels of between 30 & 100 feet in length since 14 May, for potential use as Harbour Defence Ships.
    1
  127.  ERWIN DUBOIS  Would you include as 'Cowards' the British, Canadian, & American servicemen who died to liberate France in 1944-5 after France fell apart in a couple of weeks in 1940?
    1
  128.  ERWIN DUBOIS  Why should you think it significant that a small number of French units took part in the liberation of France?
    1
  129.  ERWIN DUBOIS  What you describe as a 'diatribe' most normal people see as simple facts. Would you have been happier if the Allies had left France in German hands? Eventually, wouldn't the French puppet administration have run out of slave labourers to send to the fatherland?
    1
  130.  ERWIN DUBOIS  So, in your world there were more troops in the 10 French Divisions than in the 20 British Divisions which were active in Europe at the end of the European war?
    1
  131. The US didn't show much inclination to join the war against nazism until dragged into it by the Japanese & Germans at the end of 1941. Who was going to stage the 'violent coup?' The right wing elements, never more than a tiny minority, had declined into irrelevance after September, 1939. The most notorious, Mosley, was interned in May, 1940.
    1
  132. Indeed, the French 1st Army fought very gallantly. Which doesn't really explain the performance of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th & 9th armies.
    1
  133.  @theflyingpig6361  Of course. Isn't your enemy more likely to come to terms if you have 300,000 troops in a prison camp, than if his troops have been miraculously lifted out of harm's way?
    1
  134. George Orwell, hardly a raving reactionary once wrote 'The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.' The vast majority of people in the UK are, I believe, proud of their country, but the so-called 'opinion formers' who dominate the BBC & public life have a different agenda.
    1
  135. The BEF and around 120,000 French troops were not 'evacuated via various means but especially the small boats, mainly fishermen from SE England.' The vast majority were evacuated by the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine.
    1
  136. My money has always been on Montgolfier balloons.
    1
  137. It would be really peachy were you to choose to substantiate your claim 'The genocide of billions by English' by providing accredited sources and evidence. You can't? Oh, what a surprise!
    1
  138. Because it isn't true, perhaps? Immediately after WW1, British governments regarded Germany as a bulwark against the westward expansion of Communism.
    1
  139.  @FiveNineO  When did Germany try to negotiate peace multiple times? The Western Allies viewed the Soviet Union as the lesser of two evils, and allied with them on the grounds that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' Similarly, the Allies didn't help the Soviet Union to take over half of Europe. Rather, they prevented them taking over all of it. Hess was never released because he was convicted of war crimes.
    1
  140.  @FiveNineO  I have tried to find a source for the alleged German peace offers, without success. I am in good company, as no other credible historian has either. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but Britain & France did not go to war to save Poland. The alliance, with the threat of a declaration of war, was intended to be a line in the sand, which would prevent further German aggression, and thus avoid a general European war. 'The war had barely started at this point.' Really? Tell that to the countries occupied by Germany in early 1941. You are right that Hess wasn't convicted of war crimes, but he was found guilty on two counts: crimes against peace (planning and preparing a war of aggression), and conspiracy with other German leaders to commit crimes. He was never released because Spandau was located in West Berlin, and its existence gave the Soviets a foothold in that sector of the city. Hence, the Soviets repeatedly vetoed it. In fact, the British made 11 unilateral appeals for Hess to be freed. The Americans and French supported them in a further nine. The Soviets always refused to consider the case.
    1
  141.  @FiveNineO  Traditional British foreign policy has always been to maintain a balance of power in Europe, hence the wars at regular intervals against France up to Waterloo. When the British weren't actively fighting people like Louis XIV or Bonaparte, they would at least finance people who did! That rather changed with the unification of Germany in the 1870s, when the British began to see Germany as the greater potential threat. The Entente Cordiale with France was seen as a means of ensuring that Germany did not come to dominance in Europe. After the carnage of WW1, both Britain & France were willing, with massive support among their populations, to seek to appease Germany in order to encourage her to tone down her territorial ambitions, and avoid a general European war. Of course, we all know how that ended!
    1
  142.  @justinklinck6575  'They would have found a way, man.' Would they? Odd, then, that they didn't, don't you think?
    1
  143.  @justinklinck6575  After Barbarossa, the Soviets and the British/Empire were going to win, however long it took. The likelihood is that the Soviet Union would have occupied much more of western Europe.
    1
  144.  @justinklinck6575  'You would have lost if not for the U.S.' Was what you said in your first post. I observe that you are now diverting from that comment.
    1
  145.  @Hshs726sjyz  No. The Royal Navy saved Britain in 1940. The Soviet Union, however important a role it may have played from late 1941, was in 1940 Hitler's best pal, supplying him with the raw materials needed to continue his campaign. You even say that yourself later in your post. 'I guess if Germany wouldn't have had attacked the Soviets with time if they built up their navy and airforce they could surely have invaded Britain.' Hardly, British & Canadian shipbuilding resources were vastly greater than those available to Germany, and the British were outproducing Germany in aircraft, and particularly in fighter aircraft, from as early as mid 1940.
    1
  146. Why would Hitler possibly want to let the British escape? Answer, he didn't. Von Rundstedt issued the halt order, and Goering had already told Hitler that the Luftwaffe would destroy the Dunkirk pocket.,
    1
  147.  @b.baggins8893  The Germans missed their opportunity because of the land-centred understanding their commanders had of warfare. To von Rundstedt and his peers, an army with it's back to the sea was trapped, and could be finished off at leisure. To the British, with centuries of understanding of the role of sea power. An army on the coast had a wide-open escape route, courtesy of the Royal Navy.
    1
  148. 'Hitler offered to withdraw from Poland if they could have Danzig and other pre-WW1 German lands back.' Really? Documentary source for such an offer, please.
    1
  149.  @johnphillips4776  What did he do, and what did you think he wanted to do?
    1
  150.  @johnphillips4776  The 1943 famine in Bengal was brought about by a combination of the arrival of refugees, hoarding by profiteers, inability to import food supplies from Japanese occupied areas, the Bengal Administration keeping the facts secret from London, and the refusal of Franklin Roosevelt to release shipping space. Once the facts became known to the government in London, the distribution of food relief was handed over to the Anglo-Indian army, and grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. The worst charge that could be laid against Churchill is that he ought to have known about the situation. After all, there wasn't much going on in the world in 1943, was there? Are you seriously naive enough to believe that Churchill would have engineered a famine in India at a time when 2.5 million Indians, all volunteers by the way, were serving in the Allied forces? Perhaps you simply believe all the propaganda spoon fed to you? The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran was a pre-emptive measure, intended to protect oil supplies. At the time, Iran was ostensibly neutral, but in reality pro-German. People like you, pontificating sagely at a distance of 80 years, may not like the idea, but nations in wartime will take whatever measures they deem necessary in order to survive. What 'plan' to starve Kenyans?
    1
  151.  @johnphillips4776  No one would deny Britain's expansionist past. I would, however, ask for evidence of this 'backstabbing nations and attacking others in major wars they've started,' especially since, with only ever having a small army, Britain was never in a position to start a war with any major land power in any case. 'Genocide?' Where and when?
    1
  152. No. Von Rundstedt halted the army, not Hitler, in order to prepare it for the next stage of the campaign. Goering had already told Hitler that the elimination of the trapped Allied troops was 'A special job for the Luftwaffe.'
    1
  153.  @johnmcbluenose  Documentaries on Dunkirk won't mention 51HD because at the time they were detached and serving in the Maginot Line. It just happened to be their turn, as other BEF divisions had been there previously. 51HD retreated across France, as part of a French Corps, and Admiral James (C-in-C, Portsmouth) sent 67 merchant ships and 140 smaller vessels to lift them from St. Valery. The lift was abandoned due to fog on the first night, and the French Corp Commander surrendered before a second attempt could be made, although 2137 British & 1184 French troops were lifted from the beaches at Veules. That happened a week after Dunkirk had ended, by the way. Churchill did not order that they be left behind. The reality was that they were unable to re-join the BEF. In total, a further 191,870 British troops were lifted from west coast French ports, ending on 25 June, by the way.
    1
  154. We know exactly why the Halt Order was issued, actually by Von Rundstedt, not by Hitler. Von Rundstedt wanted to have his armour rested and serviced in order to undertake the second stage of the campaign, fearing the danger of a second 'Miracle of the Marne.' As a traditional Continental soldier, he assumed that an army with its back to the sea was trapped. He saw the sea as a barrier, unlike the British, who saw it as an open door, given their naval supremacy at the time. Hitler agreed with him. He knew from his time there in WW1 that the area around Dunkirk was poor tank country, he knew that the slower moving German Infantry Divisions were beginning to arrive, and Goering had assured him that the elimination of the Allied forces in Dunkirk was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' There is no mystery. It amazes me that some people seek to create conspiracy theories out of the routine.
    1
  155. 'The English had even begged for Frederick the Great to rule over them!' Where ever did you get that remarkable idea? Incidentally, no-one 'spared' the 'English.' Von Rundstedt stopped his armour to enable it to prepare for the second stage of the invasion of France. The (horse drawn) German infantry was beginning to arrive, the land around Dunkirk was poor tank country, and Goering had already assured Hitler that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket was a 'special job for the Luftwaffe.' How exactly could the U.S. with, in 1940, a tiny army, enter any arena?
    1
  156. You don't think that imprisoning the BEF in PoW camps might have had a more impressive effect on British morale? Incidentally, Hitler didn't let anyone go, he was simply foolish enough to believe promises made to him by Goering.
    1
  157.  ALAIN TERIEUR  Military casualties :- France 217,600. UK 383,600. United States 416,800. I wouldn't normally indulge in the kind of callous corpse counting indulged in by people like you. I wonder how many of the British, American, & Canadian deaths in WW2 happened when they were liberating your country after you failed to defend it in 1940? I wonder if the total of French civilian deaths includes those deported to death camps, or sent to Germany as slave labour?
    1
  158. 'Giving?' Hardly. The Soviets had already occupied Poland.
    1
  159. The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
    1
  160.  @lmyrski8385  The treaty was an attempt to draw a line in the sand, and to prevent a general European war, by telling Hitler that, should he invade Poland, he would be obliged to fight a war against two major European powers. Far from seeking war with Germany, Britain and France went far, some would argue too far, in their attempts to avoid one. To be frank about it, Britain and France did not go to war to defend Poland. Poland was simply incidental in the issue. Both honoured their treaty obligations by going to war, even though Britain as a sea power had only a tiny army, and the much larger French army was not ready for anything other than defensive actions at least initially.
    1
  161.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  The British & Americans sought to maintain a balance of power in Europe. What possible reason might they have had to replace one over-mighty militaristic nation with, potentially, another? Moreover, how is this relevant to 1936?
    1
  162.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  You do seem to struggle with facts. The Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919, when Germany did not have a totalitarian regime. In 1936, when Germany had a totalitarian regime, France refused to act when it re-occupied the Rhineland. Have you sought the book I recommended, or do you simply prefer to imagine things?
    1
  163.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  France did occupy the Ruhr, between 1923 & 1925. This act destroyed the German economy, producing hyper-inflation and was a key factor in the rise of extremism in Germany. The Dawes Plan led to French withdrawal, and marked the beginning of the redevelopment of the German steel industry. Something else you might perhaps read about. Once again, read the book. France had the opportunity to intervene when Germany re-occupied the Rhineland in 1936, but chose not to act.
    1
  164.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  You have been wrong since the beginning if you think that. France had the opportunity to act, but chose not to act. How do you think the UK & the US 'prevented' them? By embargoing cheese and wine imports from France, perhaps? France in 1936 had the biggest army in Europe. Reoccupying the Rhineland was a huge bluff on Hitler's part, and the French government fell for it.
    1
  165.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  Retaliate against what? The Germans had illegally re-occupied the Rhineland. It was the French who would have been 'retaliating' and as they were reacting to an illegal German act, world opinion would, even if reluctantly, have supported them. Germany at the time had nowhere near the resources to resist France. Their main battle tank, the Panzer III only began to be tested in 1936-7, and only went into production in May 1937. France had already over 100 Somua S35s in service by then, together with a number of Char B1s. Perhaps the very fact of France's suffering in WW1 should have inspired the French government to react, instead of supinely sitting still and allowing Hitler to conclude that aggression always succeeds.
    1
  166.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  I have been sure for some time that I have been replying to a wall. You keep saying, like some sort of demented Mynah bird, that the US & British prevented France from occupying the Ruhr. France did occupy the Ruhr in 1923. No one prevented that, and it made a major contribution to the growth of extremist groups in post WW1 Germany. Congratulations, France! Are you writing about the 1923 occupation of the Ruhr by France, or the German reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936? You don't seem entirely clear. In neither case, by the way, did the US & UK prevent France taking (or, in 1936, force her not to take) action.
    1
  167.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  'UK's politics of appeasement.?' You mean the appeasement policy begun by France & Britain from 1938? It did not even exist at the time of the re-occupation of the Rhineland, as this was the first overtly threatening act Hitler had made.
    1
  168.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  Did it? What did Baldwin do in 1935 which could justify your claim?
    1
  169.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  As you don't seem able to answer any of my questions in a rational manner, perhaps you should give up posting. You said Baldwin started appeasement, but you can't give any examples of this 'policy' to back up your claim.
    1
  170.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  Indeed he did. In 1936. What has that to do with your claim that 'it (appeasement) started with Baldwin in 1935 actually?' As France's reaction had been to complain to the League of Nations, but nothing more, what other response could he have been expected to make? Moreover, The British War Secretary Alfred Duff Cooper told the German Ambassador Leopold von Hoesch on 8 March: "Though the British people were prepared to fight for France in the event of a German incursion into French territory, they would not resort to arms on account of the recent occupation of the Rhineland." The French government therefore knew that France would receive British support in the event of German aggression. Was France at the time really incapable of acting effectively against 5,000 lightly armed & equipped German troops?
    1
  171.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  In 1936, the French regular army was 320,000 strong, with a large number of modern tanks, and, if necessary, the ability to call up large numbers of reservists. German had only re-introduced conscription a year earlier, and was aiming to build an army of up to 300,000 men in time. Germany, in addition, had a small number of light tanks, of Marks I & II. Germany sent very few troops into the Rhineland, some 5,000 at most. Are you really saying that the French regular army could not cope with 5,000 Germans? As to your apparent conviction that France was incapable of acting independently without the British holding her hand, what sort of support do you think Britain, with a tiny peacetime army, could have given on land? Air support, and the security to French communications with her colonies that the largest navy on earth offered, but, as the French General Staff knew, even if you don't, Britain was not a land power, and only briefly became one in 1916-18 because of the fear of German victory in WW1. You don't seem to know much, except for your conviction that, whenever something went wrong, it wasn't the fault of France. I won't bother replying again, as you appear to be beyond education.
    1
  172.  @gauth7313  My last comment here was around a year ago. What are you trying to reply to, assuming that, of course, you actually know yourself.
    1
  173.  @gauth7313  It doesn't trouble me at all. It puzzles me now though, that you seem unable to explain which comment I made irritates you so.
    1
  174.  @gauth7313  Oh, you mean where I wrote :- 'In Command of France; French Foreign Policy and Military Planning, 1933–1940' by Robert Young' I suppose? I see the problem here. I have read it, whereas you haven't. Do you even know who Robert J.Young is? Or that his works are the result of extensive archival research? I am sorry that you feel the need to attack me because I have referred to the writings of an acknowledged and respected historian, whereas you seem to have restricted your efforts to browsing the internet, but I will not rise to your jingoistic bait, and will not reply to you further.
    1
  175.  @gauth7313  Go away and read the book, mon brave. I won't be replying again, by the way.
    1
  176. Not quite. English/British foreign policy was traditionally to prevent any one European power from becoming supreme in Europe. More specifically, to prevent any single power from controlling the whole of the Channel coast. Britain has always, at least since the 17th century, been a trading nation looking outward, rather than a European nation looking inward. As Charles de Gaulle remarked, given the choice, Britain will always choose the sea.
    1
  177. Yes indeed. It is always better to fight a war on two fronts than on one. See Kaiser Bill for details!
    1
  178. The Western Allies had been assured that there would be free and independent elections in Poland after the end of the European war. Unfortunately, they did not have the same interpretation of the phrase 'free and independent' that Uncle Joe did.
    1
  179. Except the Germans were totally unaware of the British network of Shadow Factories, which enabled the British to outbuild the Germans in aircraft frome June 1940 onwards. Moreover, the main defence against any invasion attempt, the Royal Navy, held total supremacy in home waters throughout.
    1
  180.  @marks_sparks1  de Valera called on the German embassy in Dublin, on 2 May, 1945, to express his condolences on the death of Hitler. At least, according to the Irish Times.
    1
  181.  @helilivesmatter1075  The Irish Times.
    1
  182.  @helilivesmatter1075  Irrelevant - You asked someone else for a source. I provided it. I don't recall many world leaders sending condolences when Pol Pot died.
    1
  183.  @helilivesmatter1075  Can you seriously claim not to understand the difference between FDR and Adolf Hitler?
    1
  184. No, they don't. The Germans used, I believe, four A13 tanks, one Matilda mark II converted to a mobile AT gun, and a small number of trucks and bren carriers. The vast majority of British equipment was made useless by wrecking the engines.
    1
  185. Why was the Anglo-French pledge idiotic? It was as an attempt to prevent further aggression by Germany. Certainly, Hitler didn't want war with Britain, largely because an invasion was never a realistic possibility, but are you really suggesting that Britain & France should simply have remained supine? There was a much easier way of avoiding war with Britain, which was not to have invaded Poland.
    1
  186.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  Do stop quoting a source as tainted as Hesse.
    1
  187. Not for over two years, and only then when attacked.
    1
  188.  @jbloun911  I must have misread the books. I always thought that the Germans invaded Belgium in 1914 & Poland in 1939. How could I have got it so wrong? Could you explain this 'saving' thing? That isn't in any of the books either.
    1
  189.  @jbloun911  Common Sense? Britain was never in danger of invasion. Perhaps you might explain how a country with a tiny navy was ever going to invade an island protected by the largest navy on earth. By the time the US was dragged, unwillingly, into WW2 even the remote threat of invasion had long passed. Perhaps you could explain how the US saved anyone in 1940? Certainly, Churchill sought US support. Who wouldn't seek the support of the biggest manufacturing economy in the world? In WW1, by the way, Germany in 1917 was already on the verge of revolution and collapse as the civilian population was on the verge of starvation as a result of the Northern Blockade, and the fact that what food was available was reserved by Hindenburg for the military. Perhaps you should read about the 'Turnip Winter?' Finally, which books, and what 'common sense?' Presumably your version of it, which doesn't accord with the facts.
    1
  190.  @jbloun911  When did I say that Churchill 'begged' for anything? He sought US support. He certainly didn't need US support to defeat any invasion, and to be frank didn't receive any in any case. Most history books actually acknowledge that the defeat of Hitler, on land, was more due to the Soviet army than to the Western Allies. They also acknowledge that the assault landings in the west ( Torch, Husky, Overlord, etc.) were largely British led, and that the US became the dominant partner in the last seven or so months of the war only. Have you actually read any books on the subject? By the way, have you heard of Operation U-Go, which resulted in 60,000 Japanese dead, and over 100,000 casualties, and was acknowledged by them as their heaviest defeat in a single battle to the end of 1944? I thought not, as it was in Burma. Finally, 'and get off our internet.' Your internet? Who invented the damned thing? Tim Berners-Lee. Born in London.
    1
  191.  @jbloun911  Fortunately, I know a number of America based historians, and from my conversations with them I appreciate that someone like you is far from representative of the United States as a whole. If you did, the rest of the civilised world needs to learn Mandarin, and quickly. You do, however, represent a common trend among the less well informed, in that you seem to think that abuse is a valid substitute for debate. 再见 Zàijiàn
    1
  192.  @jbloun911  'China is owned by Wall Street'. 'Ay, think so still, till experience change thy mind.' Doctor Faustus, by Christopher Marlowe. You actually think that the interests of Wall Street and the national interests of the United States have any common ground? How charmingly naive! Who is this 'we' by the way? Do you actually think that you have any influence on the way the United States is run? Are you the one to blame for the last few Presidents?
    1
  193. Hello Hermann. I thought you were dead? Isn't that exactly what you told Hitler the day before the halt order was issued. As you told him, wasn't the elimination of the Dunkirk pocket 'A special job for the Luftwaffe?'
    1
  194. Why? What did 'America' actually do to prevent a German invasion of the UK?
    1
  195. In June 1940, Genial Uncle Joe was best mates with Adolf, and was supplying him with the raw materials required to maintain his war machine.
    1
  196. So, you think that the best way to persuade your enemy to make peace is to allow his only field army in Europe to be evacuated to an island defended by the largest navy on earth, rather than to capture his army, and hold it in PoW camps? An interesting idea, but one entirely unhindered by logic, I suggest.
    1
  197. Which is what might well have happened had Halifax had his way, as he seriously hoped to use Mussolini as a 'Neutral Arbiter.'
    1
  198. I recall a comment made by a naval officer at the time. Hearing of the reference to the 'miracle,' he said, 'if it was a miracle, it was a miracle painted dark gray, and just over 300 feet long.' A RN destroyer of the period was around 320 feet long. There were 41 of them involved in the evacuation.
    1
  199.  @berniefynn6623  You mean, apart from the 1 cruiser, 41 destroyers, 5 sloops, corvettes and gunboats, 36 minesweepers, 77 trawlers and drifters, and 20 Special Service Vessels,, MTBs, MGBs and boarding vessels, I suppose? Not to mention the large number of Merchant Navy transports, or the comandeered Dutch Skoots, or the small boats, almost all of which were crewed by RN personnel?
    1
  200.  @berniefynn6623  Is all you know based on that ridiculous movie 'Dunkirk' of a couple of years ago? In point of fact, destroyers brought back 102,843 men, the cruiser 1856, the sloops etc. 8755, the minesweepers 48,472, trawlers & drifters 28,709, special service vessels etc., 9355. Skoots carried 22,698, personnel ships 96,606, and the 'Little Ships' 6029. The Little ships were used to ferry troops from the beaches to the larger ships offshore. The myth, and the movie, are both inaccurate. You should read the Naval Staff History, or any other of the many excellent and detailed accounts.
    1
  201.  @berniefynn6623  That is why the Little Ships were sent, to ferry troops from the beaches to the transport ships. Moreover, the vast majority of troops were lifted from the East Mole, which larger ships could and did use. In point of fact, around 240,000 from the Mole, and around 98,000 from the beaches.
    1
  202.  @berniefynn6623  Operation Dynamo began on 26 May at 1857, and ended on 4 June, at 1423. The panzers were actually stopped, by General Von Rundstedt, for a very good reason. He wished to have them serviced in order to commence the next stage of the campaign, before the French army might be able to stage a second 'Miracle of the Marne.' Goering, by the way, had already assured Hitler that the destruction of the trapped allied force was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
    1
  203.  @berniefynn6623  Simply not correct. Rundstedt gave the order, and Hitler agreed with it. Rundstedt, as a traditional European soldier, regarded an army with it's back to the sea as trapped. The British, with their understanding of combined operations going back over 200 years, viewed the sea as a large highway. The weather varied. On 27 May, the Luftwaffe carried out 12 major attacks, dropping 15,000 HE and 30,000 incendiary bombs. 28 May was overcast, restricting aircraft operations, 29 was fine in the afternoon. 30 May was a foggy and rainy day, with aircraft unable to operate, 31 was bright and clear from late morning, as was 1 June & 2 June. Aircraft operations were only seriously restricted on two days.
    1
  204.  @berniefynn6623  Nonsense again. RUNDSTEDT GAVE THE ORDER. It is recorded in the war diary of Army Group A. German air attacks on the harbour at Dunkirk began on 24 May, following Goering's assurances to Hitler on 23 May. Where do 'fighters' come into this at all?
    1
  205. Without a proper navy? How?
    1
  206. He would still have been waiting.
    1
  207. Chivalry? Oh, please. Von Runstedt halted the armour in order to prepare for the second stage of the campaign. He really did not wish to be recorded in history as the German general who allowed the French to stage a second 'Miracle of the Marne.'
    1
  208. Not really a naval battle, as the Germans at the time didn't have a navy. More likely a desperate scramble by the Kriegsmarine to get as many of their towed barges back to their ports as quickly as possible once it became obvious that the vaunted Luftwaffe could not protect them. The problem there being that RN destroyers and cruisers were easily capable of 28 knots and more. The barge tugs might manage 5 knots.
    1
  209. At the time of Sealion, the Soviet Union and Genial Uncle Joe were Adolf's best pals, supplying him with all sorts of nice raw materials for his war effort. Your comment, therefore, is irrelevant.
    1
  210.  @toolatehello3345  Another Sealion 'would have.' This time one who doesn't know any details about the pilots who actually made up Fighter Command, and knows even less about the size and capability of the 1940 Royal Navy.
    1
  211.  @toolatehello3345  Britain was on the point of losing? In June 1941? Oh dear?
    1
  212. Precisely. Goering assured Hitler that the elimination of the surrounded troops in the pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' Fortunately, he did not ask his Luftwaffe commanders about the prospect first.
    1
  213. I don't know how many times it needs writing, but 'HITLER DIDN'T STOP THE ARMOUR ON THE AA CANAL! Von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, however, did, in order to service and rest it before beginning the next stage of the campaign. Rundstedt, like several of his colleagues, feared a repetition of the 'Miracle of the Marne.' Moreover, as a traditional German commander, he regarded an army backed against the sea as trapped, because he simply did not appreciate the flexibility that Sea Power gave to the allies. Add to that the knowledge that the area around Dunkirk was difficult tank country, and the slower moving German infantry divisions were beginning to arrive, and the decision was a logical one. All this, by the way, is fully documented in the War Diary of Army Group A. Hitler, of course, knew what the ground around Dunkirk was like from his experiences there in WW1, but more importantly had been assured by Goering that the elimination of the trapped Allied forces was 'A special job for the Luftwaffe.' As to the absurd idea that Hitler let the BEF escape to encourage the British to come to terms, simply ask yourself this question :- Were the British more likely to sign a peace treaty if: 1). Their entire field army was caged in German PoW camps? or, 2). Their entire field army, together with around 120,000 French troops, had just been lifted to safety?
    1
  214. Unlikely. The American Revolution came about because the British government believed that the colonists should pay some of the costs of the Seven Years' War ( The French & Indian War) whereas colonial leaders (mainly, I believe, with English ancestry. Tom Paine, who wrote 'Common Sense' was born in Thetford, Norfolk, for example) argued that the Colonies should have representation in Parliament if they were to be taxed. There was some merit in both arguments, and had the British had a more competent Prime Minister than Lord North (to give American readers some idea, he was probably even more inept than the appalling Theresa May, of unlamented memory!) then a compromise could probably have been reached.
    1
  215. Hitler didn't give the Halt Order, von Rundstedt did. He wished his armour to have a brief period of rest and maintenance before the second stage of the campaign began, as he, and several other senior officers, feared a second Miracle of the Marne. Goering, on the day before the Halt Order, had told Hitler that the elimination of the Dunkirk pocket was a job for the Luftwaffe, and Hitler believed him. Churchill (who suggested the Gallipoli operation as an alternative to the unfolding carnage on the Western Front, but neither authorised it nor planned it by the way) held a number of government positions until 1929. Could you explain the reasoning which leads you to believe that Britain was more likely to come to terms with the bulk of the British army back in Britain behind the impenetrable shield of the Royal Navy than she would have been if the same army had been incarcerated in PoW camps?
    1
  216. 27 March, 1940? Very good. Just as accurate as the rest of your comment.
    1
  217. They were not 'left abandoned.' Firstly, half of the Division was evacuated, the so-called 'Ark Force.' Secondly, the RN's Portsmouth Command sent a large evacuation fleet to St. Valery, but fog in the Channel prevented the lift attempt, which was re-scheduled for 24 hours later. Thirdly, the commander of IX Corps of French 10th Army, of which 51st Highland Division was a part, chose to surrender before the attempt could be made. Fourthly, the evacuation fleet still managed to pick up just over 2,000 men from Veules.
    1
  218. The Halt Order was issued by Von Rundstedt, not by Hitler, in order to service the armour and rest the crews before embarking on the second part of the French Campaign. Like many other senior commanders, he was concerned that the French might stage a repeat of the WW1 'Miracle of the Marne.' As a conventionally trained and educated German senior officer, he considered an army surrounded and backed against the sea to be trapped, whereas the British, with centuries of experience of naval power, saw the sea as a wide open highway. Moreover, as both Von Rundstedt and Hitler knew, the area around Dunkirk was difficult country for armour, and the (horse drawn) German infantry divisions, much better suited to it, were beginning to arrive. Finally, Goering had told Hitler that the elimination of the surrounded allied forces as, as he put it, 'A special job for the Luftwaffe,' and Hitler believed him. Consequently, the utter failure of the Luftwaffe to live up to Hermann's boasts, and the evacuation of 336,000 allied troops. Hitler was giving no-one 'a chance.' He simply made a wrong decision, and totally miscalculated the capabilities of the Royal and Merchant Navies.
    1
  219. Hitler declared war on the US, not vice versa.
    1
  220. As an invasion of Britain was never a realistic possibility, it is hardly surprising that it wasn't attempted.
    1
  221.  @supersasquatch  Perhaps, then, you would care to explain how a nation with a tiny navy was hoping successfully to invade an island nation defended by the largest navy on earth? 'Hard' is a considerable understatement.
    1
  222.  @supersasquatch  Good idea. That is only some 996,500 more paratroops than the Germans had at the time.
    1
  223.  @supersasquatch  I suspect you aren't being serious. Either that or you are a total ignoramus. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
    1
  224.  @supersasquatch  Carrying two or three men each? You are either an idiot, a troll, or a comedian.
    1
  225.  @supersasquatch  Mon dieu! You are serious! Perhaps you might explain how these transport aircraft, which didn't exist anyway at the time, would land in the dark, and what would stop the airfield defences shooting these non-existent aircraft, and their passengers, to pieces when they did?
    1
  226.  @supersasquatch  Congratulations! I have read a number of totally hare-brained suggestions for Sealion, but yours is in a class apart for idiocy.
    1
  227.  @supersasquatch  No harder, and no more possible, than an attempt by the Belgian army to capture Berlin in 1940.
    1
  228.  @supersasquatch  'Secure Ireland first.' Why not go the whole hog and conquer Canada & the US first with troops landed from imaginary U-boats to prevent them sending supplies to Britain?
    1
  229.  @youraveragescotsman7119  Alas, as I have already suggested, this chap is either a troll, an imbecile, a lunatic, or nine years old! I hardly dare refer to my Montgolfier balloon plan!
    1
  230.  @youraveragescotsman7119  Perhaps the aircraft could fly as slowly as possible, and as near to the ground as possible, and the men could be dropped from the bomb bays, having first been told to run as quickly as possible in the direction of flight? Quickly Watson. The needle!
    1
  231.  @supersasquatch  What is 'emotionalist' about explaining to a fool the total impracticability of his hare-brained ideas? Have you ever discussed them with an adult?
    1
  232.  @supersasquatch  Completely irrelevant to Sealion, and in any case, no-one 'let' Dynamo happen. Von Rundstedt halted the armour so that it could rest & refit for the second stage of the invasion of France, in order to avoid the risk of a repeat of the Miracle of the Marne, and Goering had told Hitler that the Luftwaffe alone could destroy the Dunkirk pocket. Hitler, foolishly as it turned out, believed him.
    1
  233. Probably 'hoped' rather than 'thought.'
    1
  234. Tiger tanks did not exist at the time. Troops without means of re-supply, no organised command structure, and whose formations have disintegrated are little more than an armed mob.
    1
  235.  @pauliewalnuts5803  Perhaps you might look at the Soviet army of the later part of the war, and then think again?
    1
  236. So, allowing the British army to get back to Britain, instead of putting most of it in PoW camps, would actually encourage the British to come to terms? What convoluted thought processes lead you to that conclusion?
    1
  237.  @NitishKumar-jm7ec  The Luftwaffe attacked the Dunkirk pocket more or less continuously, apart from in bad weather, throughout Dynamo. The fact that they hadn't been trained in anti-shipping operations resulted in their failure. No one told them to stand down.
    1
  238.  @NitishKumar-jm7ec  But Hitler didn't halt the tanks. Von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, did. He wished to have them serviced before beginning the second stage of the campaign, and was worried about the danger of a second Miracle of the Marne. You can add to that the fact that the land around Dunkirk is poor tank country. Moreover, like most German commanders, he viewed a surrounded army backed against the sea as trapped, because he had no real grasp of sea power. The British, with their history of naval superiority, saw the sea not as a trap but as a wide open door. So it proved to be. Oh, and no, the Luftwaffe didn't arrive too late. They were simply not up to the task given to them.
    1
  239.  @NitishKumar-jm7ec  The chase, as you call it, had ended. The allies were trapped, as von Rundstedt saw it, in a pocket. The need now was to ensure that the armour was ready for the next phase of the campaign. The first Luftwaffe attacks on Dunkirk began on 25 May, increasing in volume on 26 May. On 27 May there were twelve major attacks, involving 300 bombers dropping 15,000 high explosive & 30,000 incendiary bombs. Operation Dynamo began late on 26 May. You do understand that the main target for the Luftwaffe was actually the evacuation fleet, I suppose?
    1
  240.  @NitishKumar-jm7ec  If you seek to be patronising, you have chosen the wrong target, unless you also have a First in Modern History and have your name on several books and articles on the subject of the naval history of WW2. As someone with access to the British, French, & German archives relating to the period, I don't need to waste time on Wikipedia. I would refer you instead to Lord Gort's Second Despatch, paragraph 39, which confirms the the allied retreat to the Belgian frontier defences took place on 22/23 May. Paragraph 43 confirms that the length of the front held by Franco-British forces on the morning of 26 May was 128 miles, but that the intention was to contract to a perimeter of 58 miles. This decision was made jointly with General Blanchard, who had concluded that the optimistic Weygand Plan was simply unrealistic. Gort, like Blanchard, was aware, or at least suspected, that the Belgian army was about to collapse (Paragraph 45) and on the evening of 26 May gave the responsibility for the establishment of the Dunkirk bridgehead to Lt.-Gen. Adam, commander of 3 Corps. Adam began this task in earnest early on 27 May. On 23 May, by the way, RN warships were still lifting troops from Boulogne, an operation which ended early on 24th. The Luftwaffe on 25 & 26 May had already attacked Dunkirk's port facilities. Significant evacuations only began on 28 May, although a small number had been lifted on 27 May. I would recommend the Naval Staff History, 'The Evacuation From Dunkirk - Operation Dynamo, 26 May - 4 June, 1940.' Full of precise details, and bearing out, in their entirety, my comments.
    1
  241. The plan was produced because hitler demanded one. Directive 16 of 16 July.
    1
  242.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  Tell me how many barges, freighters, tugs, or motor boats were requisitioned in support of them, how many aircraft & crews expended, and how many troops trained, or Senior Officer Planning Conferences convened.
    1
  243.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  Do you make a habit of posting irrelevant quotations at random? Go away, as I now will.
    1
  244. Goering told Hitler that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe' and Hitler was foolish enough to believe him.
    1
  245. The Halt Order was issued by Von Rundstedt, not by Hitler, in order to rest and re-equip his armour for the next stage of the campaign, and because the ground around Dunkirk was not suitable for tanks. The (horse drawn) German infantry divisions, much more suited to the task, were finally beginning to arrive.
    1
  246.  @raymondmanderville505  You don't think that the Luftwaffe didn't try to 'butcher' them, but simply weren't very good at anti-shipping operations?
    1
  247. Don't be so sure. Of the 336,000 men lifted from Dunkirk, around 120,000 were French troops, most of whom returned to France more or less immediately, and the British also lifted 191,000 British troops from west coast French ports in Operation Ariel. As Britain was never in any real danger of invasion, given the total supremacy of the Royal Navy in Home Waters, there is no certainty of any British request for a peace.
    1
  248. Wouldn't there have been more likelihood of the British coming to terms if their army had been held to ransom in PoW camps than if it had been allowed to withdraw across the Channel?
    1
  249.  @bernardodelatorre5243  The question asked was 'Why didn't the Germans attack at Dunkirk?' The fact is, they did. As Goering said to Hitler 'This is a special job for the Luftwaffe.' What has Operation Unthinkable got to do with 1940, and how on earth can you believe that 'Hitler was betrayed by Churchill?'
    1
  250. No. They fought for Poland, using the only remaining European country in arms against Hitler as their base, and as a source of weapons.
    1
  251. Good question. The problem seems to be that the Sealion enthusiasts, with their absolute conviction about what the Luftwaffe 'would have' done, don't actually know anything about the facts, but still, perversely, feel the need to post their nonsense.
    1
  252. I think you will find that he didn't. Clearly, you haven't bothered to 'dig deep' yourself.
    1
  253. Why would Hitler do a deal which would see him dead within five years?
    1
  254. The French First Army did indeed fight very gallantly. The problem is that there were eight French armies in total on the Western Front.
    1
  255. Which Scottish troops were left behind? If you mean 51 Highland Division, they surrendered a week after Dunkirk had ended, on the French Atlantic coast at St. Valery. The had been part of IX Corps of the French 10 Army, and were not near Dunkirk. They were certainly not part of any rearguard. Moreover, half of the division (ArkForce) were successfully evacuated, and the rest might well have been if the commander of IX Corps had not surrendered as a large RN evacuation fleet was preparing to lift the troops out of St. Valery. Try reading 51 Highland Division's website instead of relying on myth. 135,000 Scots soldiers died in WW1, out of 886,000 British casualties on land. 57,000 Scots soldiers died in WW2, out of 384,000 British casualties on land.
    1
  256. No. Dynamo was brilliantly planned by Bertram Ramsay. The American military (and America's allies) were sold out by their President.
    1
  257. 338,226, of which around 120,000 were French.
    1
  258. Would you care to provide evidence of those 'nearly two dozen' peace appeals? I have asked people expressing similar sentiments before, yet they seem curiously unwilling to respond.
    1
  259.  @StevenRhistory  I don't need to do anything, old chap. You are the one making the claim. Now, it seems, you are the one unable to substantiate it. The 'appeal to reason' was actually nothing more than a threat. Effectively, 'surrender or we bomb you.' If came about shortly after Mer-el-Kebir, when it finally dawned on hitler that his gamble that Britain would come to terms, and he had no actual means of invading. The appeal to reason is the only actual statement by hitler that can be substantiated, of course.
    1
  260.  @marcobollo1532  Presumably, you are unaware of the over 120,000 French troops also evacuated at Dunkirk?
    1
  261. If Sealion was really 'not in works' why did the Germans go to a large amount of effort and expense moving troops and barges to France & Belgium in the latter half of 1940?
    1
  262. Perhaps a little reading up on the realities might be of benefit to you.
    1
  263. So, a totally unsubstantiated claim, then?
    1
  264. Indeed, Britain and France did declare war. Germany, however, simply invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium and, later, the Soviet Union, without the courtesy of a formal declaration of war. Usually, the first the people of the invaded nations knew about it was the arrival of German bombers, tanks, troops, and, later, einsatzgruppen. When did Hitler twice propose a 'peace treaty?' Where might the details be read? Unless, of course, you mean the 'Appeal to Reason' which basically said 'surrender or we bomb you?'' However the world might be now, and it is not the result of WW2 & the Cold War, by the way, would you really suggest that a world which saw the mass extermination of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, the physically and mentally disabled, and homosexuals, together with the mass deportation of slave labourers from occupied countries, might have been a better one?
    1
  265. How?
    1
  266.  ALAIN TERIEUR  1500 years of 'victory & domination' is irrelevant where 1940 is concerned.
    1
  267.  ALAIN TERIEUR  How is that relevant to anything? If the subject is the collapse of France in 1940, would discussing, for example, the Battle of Marengo serve any purpose at all?
    1
  268.  ALAIN TERIEUR  Perhaps because the subject of the video is :- 'Why didn't France fight to the end in 1940?' If I were to post on a video about the Battle of Midway, I probably wouldn't discuss the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in my reply. Relevance, perhaps?
    1
  269.  ALAIN TERIEUR  So, presumably you would advocate that history should not be studied at all? Or do you simply not wish to know about the parts you don't like?
    1
  270.  ALAIN TERIEUR  If 'The truth is that no one gives a damn anymore' you seem to be desperately determined to contradict this comment, in that you have been posting relentlessly about 1500 years of French military glory, usually followed by a few gratuitous anti- US insults. As Shakespeare expressed it , you really do 'protest too much, methinks.'
    1
  271. Hurrah! The half-wit returns.
    1
  272. So, the British didn't lift 120,000 French troops out of Dunkirk?
    1
  273.  @pierrefraisse8610  Good to see that the old myth is still alive and well. You should visit the British National Archives at Kew, and ask to see WO/106/1613, the file of documents and signals from the time. The British did, initially, assume that French troops would be evacuated aboard French ships, but this was, admittedly, a wrong assumption, as, by 29 May, French ships had only lifted 1,006 men. Indeed, by the time Dynamo ended, this total had only reached around 22,000. When the British became aware of the situation, their vice CIGS, John Dill, sent orders to Vice Admiral, Dover, Bertram Ramsay, with a copy to the senior British officer in Dunkirk, William Tennant, stating that 'The policy of HM Government is that both British & French troops be given equal opportunities for being evacuated in British ships and boats.' The signal may be read in the archives, and that, despite subsequent claims, is actually what happened.
    1
  274.  @pierrefraisse8610  I doubt the people of the France of 1944 would agree with you, as the Americans, British, and Canadians expended large amounts of blood, treasure, and materials to free them from German occupation.
    1
  275.  @pierrefraisse8610  Simply pointing out a fact or two, mon brave. Something you don't seem able to do, I suggest?
    1
  276.  @pierrefraisse8610  Indeed, but the relevance to Dunkirk is tenuous, or, rather, non existent.
    1
  277.  @pierrefraisse8610  I don't realise that you were 'odd.' I won't bother with you again, but hope that you can get help soon.
    1
  278. You mean that the British were forced to evacuated 219,000 British, and 120,000 French, troops, out of Dunkirk after the rest of around 100 divisions of Belgian and French troops had either capitulated or collapsed? Hardly the spirit of Verdun, was it?
    1
  279. Yes, I know. Propaganda intended to disrupt an alliance. The Germans did something similar to British troops in North Africa, suggesting that US troops in Britain were getting quite 'close' to British womenfolk. Base your opinions on propaganda, and you get a rather doubtful idea of history.
    1
  280.  @FWAKWAKKA  Genial Joe Stalin cared so much about human lives that he extinguished millions of them.
    1
  281. She was part of the RN's covering & patrolling forces, but did not participate in the actual evacuation.
    1
  282. So, how does leaving an undefeated Britain in the rear benefit an attack on the Soviet Union, precisely?
    1
  283.  @UpfulWarrior  Hitler was scathing about Kaiser Bill for trying to fight a war on two fronts. Subsequently, just to prove how bad an idea it was, he tried to fight one on three fronts.
    1
  284. Jackass by name, Jackass by nature, I suppose. Although perhaps it might have been better if the British, and Europeans in general, had left large areas of the planet in the mesolithic or neolithic states of development in which they existed when westerners found them.
    1
  285.  @MrJackassz  Where did I say 'All Europeans?' In any case, are you suggesting that spreading learning, science, medicine, technology, and law to Africa, the New World, and Australasia was bad? Would the natives really have been better if they had remained at a mesolithic or neolithic level, and, by and large, died in their late thirties. Oh dear.The romantic and false image of the noble savage!
    1
  286.  @MrJackassz  As Europeans, whether all Europeans, Europeans in general, or selected Europeans were never involved in genocide, then your rather prejudiced comment is irrelevant in any case. Are you sure that the people on whose behalf you pretend to speak would be as delighted as you suggest to spend their lives wandering around as hunter-gatherers and dying well before the age of 40? Do try to grow up.
    1
  287.  @MrJackassz  I*n point of fact, the only country which 'fought' to become independent for Britain was the United States, which consisted almost entirely of settlers from Britain. The others became independent as the British realised that their time of Empire was ending. Indeed, most of these former colonies, subjected in your imagination to genocide and slavery, retain cordial relationships with their former 'oppressors' to this day. 'Im pretty sure if you asked a regular person if they wanted freedom vs a longer life majority of people on earth would pick Freedom.' If you seriously think that,then you need to get out more. 'You are very delusional and stubborn on what you believe is right, is infact wrong.' Really? where delusional ideas are concerned, I am not in your League.
    1
  288.  @MrJackassz  This post is incoherent. Therefoire I intend to ignore it. Nor, indeed, will I waste further time replying to you.
    1
  289. Good luck towing Rhine barges out into the Atlantic using tugs & trawlers, and then landing on Ireland. As for Scandinavia, the same thing applies, with the added problem of getting the barges and troops to Scandinavia in the first place. In both cases, you would not even have the (largely ineffective) support of the Luftwaffe, and you would have had no hope of getting supplies through. In reality, the Germans never managed to produce a credible plan for getting their troops across the Channel.
    1
  290. Yes, we do. Von Rundstedt halted the German armour to prepare it for the second stage of the invasion of France, before the French might stage a second Miracle of the Marne. Goering had already assured Hitler that the surrounded Allied forces could be destroyed by the Luftwaffe, and Hitler was foolish enough to believe him.
    1
  291.  @bobsakamanos4469  Feel free to show where anything I have written is factually inaccurate.
    1
  292.  @bobsakamanos4469  As I wrote earlier, please feel free to attempt to show where any of the facts I have posted are incorrect. Instead of simply posting tedious insults. 'The battle of Britain airwar has already been explained - i.e. a delaying action and seige. The fake invasion purpose was twofold: - staged for Stalin's benefit, having no real chance of success with towed river barges to bring many divisions of artillery, armour, vehicles, etc across. They also hoped that Britain would sue for peace of course given the previous government's lack of stomach.' It seems that you haven't heard of Guilio Douhet & his theories about air power? In a nutshell, that bombing alone would force the target nation to come to terms. Goering was a fan of the idea, as was the British Air Ministry and the American Le May. Only after it was tried was it found to be erroneous. Feel free to explain how air combat over the Home Counties was a siege in any shape or form. The intention was to secure control over the Channel & the South East of England before an invasion might be attempted. I did not, by the way, suggest that an invasion attempt would succeed, given the overwhelming naval supremacy the Royal Navy held in Home Waters, but that does not support the argument that it was simply a ruse. Oh, and whatever 'lack of stomach' previous governments might have shown (I assume by that you refer to their unwillingness to go to war, which was a popular cause in France & Britain) do you really suggest that old adolf really still thought that after Mers el Kebir, which was a clear demonstration of the intent of the Churchill administration, and even led to adolf's 'Last Appeal to Reason' also known as 'surrender or we bomb you.' 'Adolf also expected his US friends to stay neutral.' Really? Then, again, feel free to explain how declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor, and initiating the second 'Happy Time' was intended to reinforce that expectation.
    1
  293. Actually, IX Corps of the French 10th Army, to which 51st Highland Division was attached, was forming a defensive line along the Somme, and was attacked by the Germans after Dynamo had ended, beginning on 5 June. IX Corps withdrew across France towards Le Havre, and one of 51st's three brigades, 154, was detached to form part of 'Arkforce' intended to keep communications with Le Havre open. Unfortunately, German forces reached the Atlantic coast near St. Valery-en-Caux first, severing these communications. Arkforce was withdrawn through Le Havre, but a large evacuation of the other two brigades, planned by Admiral James for the night of 11-12 June, was prevented by fog, and a second attempt on 12-13 June was abandoned when the commander of IX Corps, General Ihler, surrendered on the morning of 12th, obliging Major-General Fortune to do the same. Some British and French troops (2,137 British & 1,184 French) were lifted from a nearby small port, Veules, but around 6,000 men of 51st HD were captured.
    1
  294. Except, of course, for the fact that von Rundstedt, not Hitler, stopped the armour, for what he believed were sound tactical reasons. Hitler had already been assured by Goering that the elimination of the trapped Allied armies was a job for the Luftwaffe, and chose to believe him.
    1
  295. One wonders why people feel the need to post such nonsense. Aside from the fact that the British didn't 'betray'the French, but evacuated from Dunkirk (taking 120,000 French troops with them) after the Belgian army had capitulated and the French army was in the early stages of collapse, British armour had already been lost at the Battle of Arras, when a counter-attack without much of the promised French support had failed. How would Germany have picked off 'the colonies and relevant resources at will' when the British had the largest navy in the world, and the small German navy had been largely eliminated in the Norwegian campaign?
    1
  296. How exactly would allowing the BEF to escape have convinced the British to come to terms?
    1
  297. But the Soviets had a non aggression pact with Germany in 1940.
    1
  298. Really? What was that then? 'Let us escape, and you will be dead in five years?' Not much of an undertaking, I suggest.
    1
  299. What do you suggest they could have done about Auschwitz?
    1
  300. Von Rundstedt halted the tanks, not Hitler.
    1
  301. Probably because they weren't at Dunkirk, but were fighting a series of actions across France as part of the IX Corps of the French 10th Army, only arriving at St. Valery a week after Dynamo had ended.
    1
  302. Why?
    1
  303. So, if Germany wanted to avoid war, all Hitler needed to do was not invade Poland?
    1
  304.  @HispaniaGothorum  Danzig was a Free City, under the supposed protection of the League of Nations. This was agreed at the Treaty of Versailles, when, actually, both France & the United States wanted Danzig to become part of the State of Poland. In the inter-war period, almost all of Poland's exports went through Danzig. Danzig was not 'stolen.' It was part of the price imposed upon Germany following WW1.
    1
  305.  @HispaniaGothorum  No. The loss of Danzig was a result of losing the war, much like France lost Alsace-Lorraine in 1871, and won it back in 1919.
    1
  306.  @HispaniaGothorum  In the area around Danzig, which was also part of the Free State, the population was almost entirely Polish. The reason the Allies did not declare war is obvious. Realpolitik. Quixotic gestures have no place in such decisions.
    1
  307.  @HispaniaGothorum  You seem obsessed with the city, whereas I am writing about the 'Free State.' I do not feel the need to post insults either by the way; I will leave that to you. Just to correct you, the city was 98% German, but the villages around it, almost 200 of them, were more or less entirely Polish. Why was Poland an 'excuse' to declare war? Poland was an independent state, with alliances with both Britain and France, which was invaded by nazi Germany. It really is quite simple. If Germany didn't want war, then why not just not invade Poland? The Allies had made enough concessions during the appeasement period. For how much longer would you have had them continue to feed the Tiger? Please try to remain courteous, by the way. So much more civilised.
    1
  308.  @HispaniaGothorum  The Allies went to war because Germany invaded Poland. Poland was an independent country. You seem to believe that aggression and military expansion is entirely right and proper when the Germans do it. What has the anschluss and the re-occupation of the Sudetenland got to do with the issue? 'Your “realpolitik” is the typical excuse for when you don’t have arguments.' Of course I have arguments. Realpolitik is the argument.
    1
  309. There appears to be more than one idiot on this site. The 13 divisions of the BEF did, in your terms, 'run away,' after the over 100 divisions of the Belgian and French armies had collapsed. The British took over 120,000 troops with them, and began landing new forces in Cherbourg until General Weygand, no less, told them that France was finished.
    1
  310.  @brianmacc1934  Not quite. The Royal Navy certainly began gathering resources from 20 May, in the event of evacuation being necessary, but on 22 May, 1940, the British were intending to support the French 1st Army in any attempt to break out and regain contact with the main French forces. This, the 'Weygand Plan' had initially been ordered by Gamelin, but was cancelled by Weygand, and then belatedly re-ordered, by which time German infantry had caught up with their armoured spearheads. Moreover, the plan was known to General Billotte, commander of 1st Army, but not to Gort, and Billotte himself died in a car crash on 23 May. His successor, Blanchard, took over on the same day, but failed to co-ordinate with his subordinate, Gort, leaving Gort with little or no idea of what he was expected to attempt. Gort actually made the decision late on 25 May, when he diverted his 5th Division from an attack on Douai to his North-Eastern flank, in order to oppose an attack by Army Group B's 6th Army. The 50th Division was sent in support, and the two divisions fought the successful and largely forgotten Battle of the Ypres-Comines Canal, which held back 6th Army until 28 May. Had Gort let 5th Division join the Weygand attack, the probability is that 6th Army would have made any evacuation at all from Dunkirk impossible. You might read a detailed explanation in 'The Journal of Army Historical Research,' Vol. 92, Number 372, pages 326 - 336, written by Charles More, or the recent book by the same author, 'The Road to Dunkirk - The BEF and the Battle of the Ypres-Comines Canal, 1940' of 2019.
    1
  311.  @brianmacc1934  Oh, I apologise. I thought you actually knew more about the facts than you do, and thus wasted my time giving you a more detailed reply than you deserved. The fact is that the pre-war allied planning for a war against Germany basically followed what had happened in WW1, in that the French would initially be responsible for most of the fighting on land, whilst the British would gradually take more responsibility as their land forces were built up by conscription and by the arrival of troops from the Commonwealth & Empire. Whilst this was going on, the Royal Navy (the largest on earth at the time) would re-impose the blockade on Germany which had been so successful in WW1. The British were not a significant military power on land, but had a small, totally mechanised army of around 13 divisions based in the UK. This force would support the best French forces in the north in support of Belgium, but there was no possibility of this force alone challenging the over 100 divisions deployed by the Germans, as should be obvious even to you. What 'Dunkirk Fable?' You mean the one where the Royal Navy, ordered to evacuate 40,000 'specialist' troops, successfully evacuated 338,000, of which over 120,000 were French? That fable? The evacuation was, and is, never portrayed in Britain as anything other than a defeat. Even Churchill said that 'wars are not won by evacuations,' but the success of the RN ensured that it was 'merely' a defeat, and not a catastrophe. Similarly, there was no attempt to 'degrade' the French. The British sought to keep France in the fight, and even began landing fresh troops in Cherbourg, until Weygand told them that the French army was no longer able to offer 'organized resistance.' Oh dear. There I go again. Wasting my time explaining facts to someone who is fairly obviously too prejudiced and too ill-informed to be able to accept them.
    1
  312.  @brianmacc1934  As I wrote, I assumed you had more knowledge, and more intelligence, than it appears you actually possess. I apologise, and will leave you happy & content in your ignorance.
    1
  313. I don't know how many times it needs writing, but 'HITLER DIDN'T STOP THE ARMOUR ON THE AA CANAL! Von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, however, did, in order to service and rest it before beginning the next stage of the campaign. Rundstedt, like several of his colleagues, feared a repetition of the 'Miracle of the Marne.' Moreover, as a traditional German commander, he regarded an army backed against the sea as trapped, because he simply did not appreciate the flexibility that Sea Power gave to the allies. Add to that the knowledge that the area around Dunkirk was difficult tank country, and the slower moving German infantry divisions were beginning to arrive, and the decision was a logical one. All this, by the way, is fully documented in the War Diary of Army Group A. Hitler, of course, knew what the ground around Dunkirk was like from his experiences there in WW1, but more importantly had been assured by Goering that the elimination of the trapped Allied forces was 'A special job for the Luftwaffe.' As to the absurd idea that Hitler let the BEF escape to encourage the British to come to terms, simply ask yourself this question :- Were the British more likely to sign a peace treaty if: 1). Their entire field army was caged in German PoW camps? or, 2). Their entire field army, together with around 120,000 French troops, had just been lifted to safety?
    1
  314.  @MrDaiseymay  If someone has to have been present in order to comment on anything which happened in history, then that rather causes difficulties for anything prior to around 1950. That is why people tend to refer to sources from the time, such as the document I referred to earlier, the War Diary of Army Group A, which survived the war and can be examined by anyone interested enough to discover what actually happened. In point of fact, those who have made the effort would confirm my statement, if asked. Furthermore, I quite enjoy educating the less well informed, even if, like you, they generally get somewhat choleric as a result.
    1
  315.  @antoinemozart243  Sorry, but Goering gave his assurance to Hitler, 'This is a special job for the Luftwaffe.' on 23 May. Operation Dynamo commenced at 1857 on 26 May.
    1
  316.  @antoinemozart243  But you wrote :- 'The intervention of Goering came too late , the British had begun the evacuation' which is simply not true.
    1
  317. Boney also said, when referring to the French army and the Royal Navy, 'Can an Elephant fight a whale?'
    1
  318.  @alvarezabonce  Indeed, but the embargo waas in an attempt to bring a halt to japanese military expansion.
    1
  319. That is an interesting idea. Question :- What is the best way to persuade your enemy to surrender? Answer :- Let his entire field army escape to safety across an impregnable defensive moat. Do you really think so?
    1
  320.  @joseluisrosales4104  Which western countries? Hitler had invaded them all.
    1
  321.  @garciagar64  I am perplexed. What is the relevance of any of that to my answer?
    1
  322.  @garciagar64  You suggest old Adolf didn't know about the invasion of Poland until it had happened? Did he oversleep that morning or something?
    1
  323. Absurd.
    1
  324.  ROBERT LUX  Presumably, you believe that France might perhaps have been better off remaining under German occupation? Yes, a lot of French civilians died, but have you thought for a moment of the numbers of American, British, and Canadian servicemen who gave their lives liberating France?
    1
  325.  ROBERT LUX  'Pathetic nut case' Please don't be so hard on yourself. The right to freedom of expression is what so many of an earlier generation gave their lives to guarantee.
    1
  326.  ROBERT LUX  Actually, the British asked that captured Luftwaffe pilots be shipped to British PoW camps, as the Dutch did with captured German paratroopers. The French government refused.
    1
  327.  ROBERT LUX  When did I actually state any actual statistics concerning losses in WW2? The only reference I can recall making was to the American, British, & Canadian losses rescuing France from occupation. In point of fact, French MILITARY losses were 210,000. British MILITARY losses were 383,700, and US MILITARY losses 407,300.
    1
  328.  ROBERT LUX  Actually, Canadian losses were 0.37% of the total Canadian population. Has Canada now to be added to the list of countries who liberated yours 80 years ago, and must now be insulted for their efforts?
    1
  329.  ROBERT LUX  Who said that the 'English' (actually, the British) were better soldiers than those of anyone else? The French should also thank the Channel. It, and the Royal Navy, made possible the liberation of France, after France had failed to defend herself in 1940.
    1
  330.  ROBERT LUX  Indeed it would make an interesting subject. It has, however, no relevance to the collapse of France in 1940. You do seem to be flapping around aimlessly, mon brave.
    1
  331. There was an impending Presidential election in the United States, and there was no great enthusiasm within the US for involvement in a 'European' war. The likeliest time for an invasion was late September, 1940. By the time the election took place, US electors might already have read of the bloody destruction of the German towed barges by the Royal Navy, had the barges been foolish enough to set sail.
    1
  332. The results could have been serious. All those sunken barges might have caused considerable problems when the Channel Tunnel was being constructed.
    1
  333. Because von Rundstedt, who issued the order, wanted his armour rested and serviced in order to begin the second stage of the campaign, and feared a repeat 'Miracle of the Marne' and because Goering had assured Hitler that the Allied forces in the Dunkirk pocket could be eliminated by the Luftwaffe alone.
    1
  334. 'William Joyce?' Is he really the best you can manage?
    1
  335. 'How else to explain how nearly 330,000 troops, cornered and with their backs to the sea, were able to escape certain disaster and go on to fight another day.?' The Royal & Merchant Navies, perhaps?
    1
  336. A 'fleet of Small Boats' didn't. The Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine did. The small boats ferried troops from the beaches to the large ships offshore.
    1
  337.  ALAIN TERIEUR  Military heritage doesn't mean a thing. The issue here is 1940.
    1
  338.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  So, only 90,000 French citizens deported to be exterminated is something to be proud of? An interesting idea.
    1
  339. How does allowing your enemy's army to escape encourage them to come to terms?
    1
  340. There weren't any. There were a small number of Moslem mule handlers, almost all of whom were evacuated.
    1
  341. Hitler didn't stop the tanks, Von Rundstedt did. Hitler had already been told by Goering that the elimination of the trapped allied force was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' If you really seek to make peace, do you :- 1). Make diplomatic approaches through British embassies in Spain, Sweden, or Switzerland. Possibly even approach the United States to act as a mediator. Or: 2). Let someone bail out of an aircraft over Scotland, in the hope that he might find the estate of a wealthy minor Scottish aristocrat, who might possibly have a tenuous connection with someone in the British government?
    1
  342. Absolutely! What a good idea. Fight a war on two fronts. Did you ever read Mein Kampf, where Hitler poured masses of vitriol on old Kaiser Bill for doing exactly the same?
    1
  343. The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
    1
  344. Really? How? Using the 4,500 paratroopers which were all the Germans had left after their losses in Norway and the Netherlands? Carried in the 220 surviving transport aircraft which were all that were left in service in September 1940?
    1
  345. Precisely. Von Rundstedt wanted to rest & service his armour before beginning the second phase of the campaign, as he feared a repeat of the Miracle of the Marne. The area around Dunkirk was difficult for tanks, and Goering had already assured Hitler that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket was a 'Special Job for the Luftwaffe.'
    1
  346. So? You believe that Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway all actually allowed themselves to be conquered and occupied, and Britain incurred vast costs in blood and treasure, as part of a Baldrick-like 'Cunning Plan.'
    1
  347. Churchill only came back into government after Britain had already declared war, and only became PM nine months later. How did anyone bribe him to get Britain into a war which had already started? Time Travel??
    1
  348. How was it so easy for a nation with a tiny navy & no assault ships at all to invade an island defended by the largest navy on earth? Answers on a postcard please to A. Hitler, with a copy to N. Bonaparte.
    1
  349. I am not sure how Chamberlain saved any lives at Dunkirk. Churchill was not in any government office between 1929 & 1939, and was very much a peripheral figure, with his warnings about Germany, at a time when appeasement was hugely popular in Britain & France.
    1
  350.  @joshuamorrison8332  I haven't repeated anything at all. Where do you think I have agreed with you? What facts so we agree upon?
    1
  351.  @joshuamorrison8332  Churchill did not become Prime Minister until May, 1940. Appeasement had ended well before that. Chamberlain played no part in what happened at Dunkirk, and I know precisely why the tanks were stopped on the Aa Canal. They obeyed Von Rundstedt's orders, as he wished to have them ready for the second stage of the campaign, and to ensure that the French could not pull off a repeat of the Miracle of the Marne.
    1
  352.  @joshuamorrison8332  Please don't get so tediously aggressive. Didn't you write :- 'Chamberlain's desire for peace, while much derided in the history books, probably saved countless lives at Dunkirk,' Or have you forgotten? I didn't say you said Chamberlain played an active role. I simply said that he was irrelevant. There is no doubt at all about the Halt Order. It may be read in the War Diary of Army Group A, which was captured in 1945 and is readily available. Indeed, Hitler could have over-ridden it, but because of a number of factors, he chose to let it stand. These factors included :- 1). The need to service & repair the armour to prepare it for stage 2. 2). Hitler's knowledge from his time there in WW1 that the area was poor tank country. 3). The imminent arrival of the German infantry divisions, more suited to the task. 4). His (erroneous) assumption that an army backed against the sea was trapped. But, most of all, Goering's assurance to him, the day before the order was given, that the destruction of the surrounded allied forces was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
    1
  353. It didn't work, then. Largely because there were very few U-boats at Dunkirk. Largely because the Channel was unsuited to the operations of WW2 submersibles.
    1
  354. 'As for the British, they let France pay the price for the land war without giving it much support.' Much as the French let, or would have let, the British pay the price for the sea war without giving it much support. That was the accepted trade-off between the two allies. Mr. Phillips rather exposes the weakness of his argument when he compares the number of divisions in the BEF in 1940 with those of 1918. When the BEF went to France in 1914, it consisted of only six infantry divisions and one cavalry division. In WW2 the forces sent by the British were gradually to be increased by conscription, and by the arrival of additional divisions from Canada, India, Australia, and New Zealand, as had happened in WW1. Allied strategy assumed a defensive posture at the beginning, which would become more offensive as these extra resources arrived. Obviously, because of the 1940 collapse, this was never possible. I am surprised Mr. Phillips is unaware of this. Assuming, of course, that he is actually unaware, rather than simply avoiding the fact.
    1
  355. German efforts to produce 'Wonder Weapons' only really began in 1942, when the war situation began to turn against them.
    1
  356.  @annoyingbstard9407  No. I don't 'imagine they designed them the day before they came into mass production?' The first design for what became the V1 was sketched out by Lusser & Gosslau on 27 February, 1942. The technology for what became the V2 had only been available from late 1941. Hitler, by the way, dismissed the concept as 'an artillery shell with a longer range and much higher cost,' at the time. Certainly, a number of theoretical ideas, leading in some cases to tests of prototypes existed before those dates, but nothing in the way of government sponsorship or finance was provided. Jet engines were not part of the 'wonder weapon' concept. More than one nation had been working on them, as a normal line of aircraft engine development. Similarly, several nations were working on nuclear weapons, Britain especially being well in advance of Germany. The German programme was, by the way, hamstrung by the involvement of anti-semitic prejudice, which led to a bias against theoretical physics, especially quantum mechanics.
    1
  357.  @annoyingbstard9407  I don't say so. I simply refer to the facts.
    1
  358. You need to inhabit the world of the Sealion 'Would haves.' Those people who constantly assert what the Luftwaffe 'would have' done to the poor old Royal Navy Never mind that the two largest navies on the planet, one of which had been planning and executing assault landings for around 200 years, took around two years to assemble the resources, and produce the plan, to carry our a successful landing in Normandy. The mighty Germans 'would have,' with no navy, a few aircraft largely untrained in anti-shipping techniques, and a few hundred towed canal barges, have planned and carried out a successful invasion in around 2-3 months. Please don't put these people off; they are enormously entertaining!
    1
  359. The Luftwaffe had had no training in anti-shipping operations at the time, and had just failed badly at Dunkirk. In fact, even after being so trained, they sank a total of 31 RN destroyers in the whole of the war. The RN had 64 destroyers within five hours' steaming of Dover. Luftwaffe fighters taking on Spitfires wouldn't stop the Royal Navy attacking and destroying the German river barges.
    1
  360.  @danishkfd  They had had their rest between late June and early September. What they didn't have was any means of getting their troops past the Royal Navy anti-invasion forces.
    1
  361. I take it that you haven't heard of the 'Reconstituted BEF' or General Weygand's comment to General Brooke that the French Army was 'no longer capable of organised resistance?'
    1
  362. I don't think Hitler cared much about slaughter, but more realistically most of the surrounded troops were likely to have surrendered. The probability is that, like most of his generals, Hitler regarded a surrounded army backed against the sea as trapped, whereas, by contrast, the British, with hundreds of years of sea power behind them, saw the sea as a large open highway.
    1
  363. No, they weren't. The RN sent evacuation ships to St. Nazaire, but fog prevented a lift on the first night, and the French corps with which 51HD was serving surrendered the following morning. That, by the way, was well after Dunkirk had ended in any case.
    1
  364. I urge you either to read, or at least ask someone to read to you, one of the many books which cover the details of German planning in 1940, and describe the extent to which they were commandeering freighters, barges, and tugs in order to produce a workable operation. I can recommend a few to help you out of your ignorance, if it would help?
    1
  365.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  As I have already written, little strange person, I read the book, years ago, and am fully aware of how unreliable it is. Goodbye.
    1
  366.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  The British never claimed any invincibility, only that any possibility of invasion of invasion had been prevented. Please don't quote from a source as tainted as Hesse, as it hardly reflects credit upon you.
    1
  367. Yes, they did. The Kriegsmarine had produced a plan, and had by September 1940 had assembled around 2,000 barges, 0ver 500 transports and tugs, and over 1100 motor boats, in French & Belgian ports. There is a fully detailed explanation in 'Invasion of England 1940,' by Peter Schenk. The fact that the plan had minimal hope of success in view of the overwhelming supremacy of the Royal Navy in Home Waters is a separate issue.
    1
  368. The alliance between Britain/France and Poland was quite specific. The allies undertook to declare war on Germany if Germany invaded Poland, but made no similar commitment where the Soviet Union was concerned. At the time of the declaration of war, Germany & the USSR had a non-aggression pact. Are you seriously suggesting that the events of June 1941 were predictable in September, 1939?
    1
  369.  @martinlarios8669  I am not 'implying' anything. I am simply stated what the terms of the alliance actually said.
    1
  370.  @iroscoe  No, it is a lot stupid. You can imagine the discussions between Hitler and his staff. 'How can we persuade the British to come to terms?' 'I know, let their entire army be evacuated back to Britain. That will teach them!'
    1
  371. The sinking of a few hundred German barges and tugs, and the death or capture of seventy thousand or so German troops might have resulted in Germany acting more cautiously thereafter, certainly.
    1
  372. The British armour had already been lost at the Battle of Arras, when a counter attack was attempted without much of the promised French support. Vehicles & artillery, both French & British, were destroyed at the last minute, immediately prior to evacuation.
    1
  373. Unfortunately, there seems to be a number of people who have convinced themselves that the Germany of WW2 was capable of achieving anything it chose and, therefore, because no invasion attempt took place, that must have been because the Germans never intended to try. If they had, of course, these people 'just know' that it would have succeeded. In general terms, the less someone knows about the facts, the more sure of this they are.
    1
  374. Hitler, since coming to power, had reoccupied the Rhineland and incorporated Austria into Germany. He then, without declaring war on anyone, invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Of course Britain & France declared war, in accordance with their agreements with Poland. This was, some would say belatedly, a line in the sand, and Hitler ignored it. By 1940, the world was quite clear how seriously Hitler took peace treaties. France was in the process of finding out. As to Britain being humiliated, hardly. The RN was more or less untouched, and had just organised the evacuation of over 300,000 allied troops from Dunkirk. Hitler, by the way, did not 'allow' the British to escape. Von Rundstedt stopped the armour in order to prepare it for the second stage of the invasion of France. Finally, if you see Germany as a military super power, compare the size of what, after Norway, was left of the tiny Kriegsmarine with the resources available to the Royal Navy, and then try to explain precisely how any sort of invasion was even remotely conceivable. If the Germans did not want war, they made a rather poor effort of showing it, don't you think?
    1
  375. Utter nonsense. There were, I believe, four companies of Indians with the BEF, in charge of mule transport units. None saw combat because they were not combat units, and almost all were successfully evacuated. If you want to write about the important role of Indian troops in North Africa, Italy, and Burma, then fair enough, but posting the kind of stupid comment you have done here simply exposes you, and their memory, to ridicule.
    1
  376. Not possible. Look at the distance involved, and the lack of repair/resupply facilities, to give two examples of the problems involved. Then ask a simpler question. WHY? The Japanese had ambitions to expand their possessions in the Far East, by taking over areas rich in oil, rubber, and minerals, and were coming under increasing pressure from US sanctions. Their concern in 1940 was the possibility of military action by the United States. Sacrificing much of their fleet in support of Germany in a European war, even had it been possible, would effectively have ended further expansion plans. In short, what was in it for Japan?
    1
  377. In terms of military casualties as a percentage of national population, the figure for Britain was higher than any allied nation except the Soviet Union. Obviously, you didn't know that, of course.
    1
  378.  @joonamikkonen_  Sorry, but it is simple statement of fact :- United Kingdom :- Population in 1941:- 48,216,000. Military deaths by 1945, 383,700 = 0.795% United States :- Population in 1941 :- 133,417,000. Military deaths by 1945, 407,300 = 0.305% France :- Population in 1941 :- 40,400,000. Military deaths by 1945, 210,000 = 0.519% Incidentally, my post referred to statistics which may be confirmed on any site. Where in it did I suggest that the French were 'incompetent?' The only comment so far attacking any particular nation has been yours.
    1
  379.  @joonamikkonen_  If you include French colonies, then the total population increases to 111,524, 472, as of 1939. The figures I quoted earlier of french military deaths, included French colonial soldiers. If you choose to base the % on the French empire as a whole, then the figure becomes 0.188% Poland, by the way : Population 34,849,000, Deaths 240,000 = 0.688%
    1
  380. Nonsense. He is still alive in the secret nazi moon base. I believe that Princess Diana and Elvis Presley live in adjoining domes.
    1
  381. You must understand that many Americans don't differentiate between England & Britain. Mind you, many Britons refer to America when they mean the US of A, as well.
    1
  382. PHL's answer is nonsense. The British & French had been planning their campaign for some time. Most of France was protected by the Maginot line, but this did not extend into Belgium. In the event of a German attack, the best French units, supported by the small but fully mechanised BEF, would move to support Belgium. The assumption was that a WW1 style western front would re-establish itself, the British and Commonwealth contribution would gradually increase with conscription and the arrival of Dominion & Empire troops, whilst the RN would establish a naval blockade of Germany along the lines of the one which starved her into submission in WW1. Unfortunately, the French High Command made wrong assumptions about the Ardennes. There was never the remotest possibility that the war would be fought on British soil, and the British did not 'ask' the French to declare war following the invasion of Poland. The French had a military alliance with Poland already in place.
    1
  383. They did.
    1
  384. For the same reason that everyone else disarmed. It isn't possible to maintain the kind of huge forces required in wartime during peacetime. Moreover, German rearmament only began after 1933.
    1
  385. What were these 'generous terms? Where might the texts of these many offers be read?
    1
  386. The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
    1
  387. Didn't the British also evacuate around 120,000 French troops?
    1
  388.  @jean-luchochart6960  Indeed, French boats did take part. 108 of them. They lifted 22,160 men. 45 Belgian boats lifted 3464 men, Two Dutch boats lifted 214 men, and one Norwegian freighter 3500 men. 689 British vessels lifted 308,888 men.
    1
  389.  @jean-luchochart6960  I only work in terms of history as it was, rather than as it might have been in some alternative reality.
    1
  390.  @jean-luchochart6960  As best I can recall, I haven't been critical of anyone. I have simply presented a series of facts. The reality was that both the British and French expected WW2 to follow a similar pattern to WW1, in that the British would run the war at sea, and would re-impose the blockade which had strangled Germany in WW1, whilst the French took the bulk of the (defensive) land war in the early stages, until the British & Commonwealth/Empire were able to accept more of the burden as overseas troops arrived in France, and conscription kicked in in the UK. At this point, the Allies would be able to pursue a more aggressive approach. Of course, events evolved rather differently.
    1
  391. That was why Britain seized French ships in British ports and Alexandria, and attacked the French squadron in Mers el Kebir. Not so much the possibility of the Germans taking over the ships, but the real fear that a collaborationalist French government would commit it in support of Germany.
    1
  392.  @micksmith106  Rommel wasn't at home. He was commanding 7th Panzer Division. Von Rundstedt (not Hitler) held back Army Group A's armour to have it rested and serviced before beginning the second stage of the campaign. He, like many other German generals, feared that the French might stage a second Miracle of the Marne. Hitler had been assured by Goering that the Allied forces in the Dunkirk pocket could be overwhelmed by the Luftwaffe, and he was foolish enough to believe him. The German command may well have believed that the Allied forces were trapped and going nowhere. But there again, the German command didn't understand the flexibility that sea power provided.
    1
  393.  @micksmith106  Rommel was celebrating his wife's birthday in 1944, not to the best of my knowledge on 24 May, 1940. Moreover, he was a junior Divisional commander at the time, with little input into the decisions of Field Marshals and fuhrers. The hitler of 1944 was far different from the hitler of 1940. He was at Von Rundstedt's HQ on 24 May, 1940, and agreed with von Rundstedt's decision, and his reasons for it, but he did not initiate the Halt Order.
    1
  394.  @micksmith106  The War Diary of Army Group A still exists, and it confirms that von Rundstedt gave the order.
    1
  395.  @micksmith106  The US National Archives has the War Diaries of German Army Groups from WW2. German military archives are kept at the Bundesarchiv in Freiburg.
    1
  396. An odd sort of a 'bluff.' By September, 1940, there were over 1800 converted barges, over 150 small merchant ships, almost 400 tugs, and over 1100 motor boats concentrated in Channel ports. A number of older warships had been stripped of their crews to man the invasion fleet, and 24 Divisions were concentrated in France to form the three waves of the invasion force. Certainly, Hitler was never enthusiastic about making the attempt, largely because of the overwhelming supremacy of the Royal Navy in Home Waters, but because Sealion wasn't attempted shouldn't be taken as proof that it was simply a 'bluff.'
    1
  397.  @noidea5984  How were the Western Allies to make any meaningful contribution towards the defeat of Germany on land without landing in France? The landing in the South was successful because the bulk of the German forces in France were opposing Overlord. At the time of Dragoon, the Germans had 10 divisions in Southern France, none of which were front line fighting ones.
    1
  398.  @noidea5984  When did I suggest that they should have landed in Germany? Don't post nonsense. The first objective was to defeat Germany. Liberation of France was an inevitable consequence. Dragoon was indeed intended to benefit the main action on Normandy. The point I was making was that Dragoon was not, as you claimed, the major part of ther liberation of France, but successful only because the vast bulk of German forces had been drawn into Normandy.
    1
  399.  @omegacentauri73  The Matilda II was a heavily armoured, slow moving, tank intended to operate in support of infantry. That is a definition of an Infantry tank. A Matilda II weighed 25 tons. The contemporary Cruiser Tank, the A10, weighed 15 tons, and the Mk VIb light tank weighed 5 tons.
    1
  400. If the British withdrawal was a secret, how is it that Gort & Blanchard met on the morning of Sunday, 26 May, decided that Weygand's planned counter-attack was unrealistic, and both determined to withdraw their forces behind the line of the Lys? Incidentally, when Belgium capitulated, it was a British division which blocked the hole left in the allied line. The British, by the way, didn't deploy all of their air force, but they did deploy more than they originally intended.
    1
  401.  @fantomasvsfantomas2288  How does allowing the British army to be evacuated from Dunkirk ' blackmail the British into some kind of agreement ?'
    1
  402. Actually, the question is why over 100 French & Belgian divisions collapsed so dramatically.
    1
  403.  @gaaava  Celebrating deliverance & final victory. More than France could do.
    1
  404.  @gaaava  Certainly. When have I said anything different? However, D-Day wouldn't have happened without the Royal Navy, and although final victory was achieved by the Americans, the Soviets, and the British, the French had a minimal role in it.
    1
  405. Nonsense. Dunkirk has never been claimed to have been a victory. It simply turned a catastrophe into a mere defeat.
    1
  406. If you want to discuss peace, you contact the British ambassador in Switzerland, Sweden, or the US. You might even approach FDR as a neutral arbitrator. What you would not do is have someone fly solo to Scotland, and then jump out of the aircraft in the approximate vicinity of the home of an obscure Scottish aristocrat who had no role in government.
    1
  407. The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
    1
  408.  @Karl_Burton  There is nothing to think about, as Mr. Corran is correct. Seriously, if you want your enemy to come to terms, is allowing their entire army to be evacuated really the best method of bringing it about?
    1
  409.  @Karl_Burton  They represented the entire regular field army in the United Kingdom at that time. Slaughter wasn't necessary in any case. Capturing them and holding them in PoW camps might have served the same purpose. Allowing them to escape was never an option, which is why it wasn't allowed.
    1
  410. The German Navy was able to contribute little or nothing to attempts to hinder Dynamo. At the time, there were a handful of operational submarines, and the surface fleet had been badly mauled during the Norwegian campaign. Von Rundstedt, not hitler, actually halted the tanks, for sensible military reasons. They required servicing prior to beginning the second phase of the campaign, which Rundstedt sought to commence as quickly as possible to avoid a second 'Miracle of the Marne,' the terrain around Dunkirk was not suited to tank warfare, and the (horse drawn) German infantry divisions were beginning to arrive. Add to that Goering's promise to hitler that the elimination of the allied forces in the Dunkirk area was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe,' and the reasons for the halt on the Aa canal made perfect sense at the time.
    1
  411. If the BEF, or most of it, had been captured, then Lord Halifax might well have prevailed in Cabinet and the British Government agreed to humiliating talks using Mussolini as an 'independent' arbiter. After the success of Dynamo, Lord Halifax rapidly became a busted flush.
    1
  412. He did nothing of the sort. I don't suppose you could provide a credible source where the dates and details of these proposals might be read?
    1
  413.  @herrmannwerrmann3854  Dr. Friedrich Stieve is your source? That just about says all that needs to be said. Moreover, a series of 'Give me what I want and I won't demand any more' statements, almost all issued before September, 1939, are neither relevant nor credible.
    1
  414. @UCQK93iTtyDw3DW1-SUm2jsg Firstly, I am not an RAF veteran. Why do you think I am? Secondly, I will accept any credible sources, but the one you have presented is not. Thirdly, I have a First in Modern History, specialising in WW2 at sea, and have a number of published articles and books to my name, particularly on the 1940-1941 period. Do go away.
    1
  415.  @herrmannwerrmann3854  When you run out of arguments, please don't post meaningless drivel as a substitute.
    1
  416. I believe that they had two patrol vessels in 1939, and acquired six MTBs from Thornycroft. I have read that one of the MTBs, M2, even made two unauthorised trips to Dunkirk during the evacuation, with a Thornycroft crew helped by Irish volunteers, but I haven't come across independent confirmation of this.
    1
  417.  @abellseaman4114  Indeed, most of the 120,000 or so French troops did return to France. You presumably haven't heard of the Apology convoy, of three armoured regiments supported by field, anti-tank, and anti-aircraft artillery regiments, which sailed on 22 August, 1940, and helped bring about the defeat of the Italian army in North Africa.
    1
  418. Rubbish. The British sent their entire field army, including a number of half-trained Territorial Divisions, to support France. The British were a sea power, with the largest navy in the world. As a result they were not a major land power, but relied on the experience & professionalism of the French, who were. From pre-war meetings the French high command knew precisely what to expect from Britain, which was a small but well equipped and entirely mechanised field army, which would be reinforced over time by conscription and by the arrival of troops from the Commonwealth & Empire. Basically, a repeat of WW1. Don't try to blame the British for the collapse of France. Of the nationalities you list, the Scots are British, and very small numbers of individuals from the others joined the British, usually as pilots. You missed the substantial Canadian contribution, which included a division of troops in 1940.
    1
  419. Hitler knew how difficult the territory around Dunkirk was for tanks from his experiences there in WW1, and had been persuaded by Goering that the Luftwaffe alone could destroy the Dunkirk pocket.
    1
  420.  @frankgesuele6298  Or, as von Rundstedt and other 'experts' feared, by wasting time and armour against the Dunkirk pocket, a second 'Miracle of the Marne' could have resulted.
    1
  421.  @frankgesuele6298  Only if it was a successful gamble. The assumption that France was certain to collapse can only be applied with the benefit of hindsight.
    1
  422.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  What stampede? When Gort & Blanchard agreed a plan to withdraw behind the line of the Lys on 26 May? When the British moved a division to seal the gap in the allied line when Belgium surrendered? When the British lifted 120,000 French troops out of Dunkirk? That stampede?
    1
  423.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  But it didn't need to be fought on French soil, if only the French High Command had not chosen to believe that the Ardennes was impenetrable.
    1
  424.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  This explains the collapse of the French military how, exactly? Especially as it has a tenuous relevance where the facts are concerned.
    1
  425.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  142 German divisions were opposed by 135 Allied divisions. The Allies were fighting a defensive action, and had well prepared defensive positions. The numerical disparity doesn't really have much credibility.
    1
  426.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  'Russians were crushed?' Whose troops were those in the middle of Berlin in May 1945 then? I fail to see the relevance of your post in any case.
    1
  427.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  I am trying to determine how that is relevant to the collapse of France in 1940.
    1
  428.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  If that was the French view, why not simply had over governance of the country to the Germans in 1939?
    1
  429.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  Very good. As my old Uni. Tutor used to say, 'When someone resorts to insults, they are admitting that they have lost the debate' Looks like old Professor Foot was right.
    1