Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Knowledgia"
channel.
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
@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
-
@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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
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
-
2