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

  1.  @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
  2. 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
  3.  @thegamingchef3304  Great Britain. But why do you think that is a relevant question?
    2
  4. The main reason Germany failed was their lack of a navy.
    2
  5. Later in the war, but not in 1940. Or, at least, not in naval warfare when the opposition is the Luftwaffe.
    2
  6. Or Montgolfier balloons.
    2
  7. Or, more likely, under it.
    2
  8.  @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
  9. 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
  10. You must, or you wouldn't have posted.
    2
  11. 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
  12.  @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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15.  @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
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22. 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
  23. 'Over zealous?' That is an interesting term for what the nazis actually did.
    2
  24. Was invading most of Europe really the best way to achieve it?
    2
  25. How, exactly?
    2
  26. 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
  27. If you are indeed Italian, perhaps you might give a little more attention to the performance of the Italian military in WW2?
    2
  28. 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
  29.  @naturelover6114  In North Africa, Italy, & Burma, yes. But there were no Indian troops in Britain in 1939 or 1940.
    2
  30. 'a few French troops' Actually over 120,000.
    2
  31. 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
  32.  @jimdavies6764  The Allies did not invade Norway first. If you are willing to delude yourself about that, it explains your other delusions.
    2
  33. 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
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36. Actually, no the RAF wasn't. British aircraft production was exceeding that of Germany from June 1940 onwards.
    2
  37. 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
  38.  @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
  39. So? Allowing the British army to be evacuated was the best means of persuading Britain to surrender? An interesting opinion!
    2
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Not really. The French navy which didn't want to surrender had already moved the ships to ports under British control.
    2
  44.  @francishuddy9462  Actually 'Erich Raeder.'
    2
  45.  @thewildpun  Many British officers at the time did believe it to be a civil war, and refused to serve in it.
    2
  46. 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
  47.  @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
  48. 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
  49.  @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
  50.  @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