Ozymandias
Footballguy
Well, of course. A brief survey through the FFA will confirm that more time and effort are spent in procuring hot wimmins than in anything else.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
World War II (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Operation Sea Lion
Hitler gave the military 30 days to come up with a feasible plan. The fact that there was no plan already on file indicates that the Germans never really had previously considered this idea. There were also no landing craft, and no members of the German army had ever been trained in the art of amphibious warfare (storming a beach, as our army and marines would later learn to do so well.) The projected first wave of 100,000 men would require more than half of all shipping the Germans had for all their needs.
The navy maintained that they would have to land the first two waves two days apart. General Halder snapped, "I might just as well put the troops through a sausage machine!" What he wanted was to land all the troops at once on a wide front, but the Navy believed (rightfully, IMO) they would never make it across the Channel. Eventually the plan called for landing on a more narrow front, with the troops sailing through a corridor provided by minefields and patrolled by subs on either side, with the Luftwaffe providing cover overhead. Whether or not this would have had any chance of working we will never know, because Goering insisted to Hitler that it wasn't necessary. The Luftwaffe could make England surrender all by themselves. Goering believed that strategic bombing from the air could achieve this result- they could pound the Brits into rubble. First they would destroy the R.A.F.- a relatively easy task since Goering calculated he had a 2-1 advantage in planes- and after that, he would take out London.
Goering ignored the fact that the Luftwaffe had been unable to destroy a defenseless Warsaw all by itself, and this was a much more difficult task. Hitler, who was apparently tired of the bickering between army and navy, eagerly told Goering to go ahead and try.
The question needs to be asked here- if Goering had succeeded in destroying the R.A.F., could he have forced England to surrender through air attack alone? The historical answer was clearly no. The United States, with much more air power, could not force either Berlin or Tokyo to surrender simply through strategic bombing alone. Nor were we able to secure a victory in Vietnam through strategic bombing, though we owned the skies over Hanoi for a good deal of the time. Churchill had put fire into Englishmen and now they were full of resolve.
And as it happens, they were prepared as they could be for an invasion. Barrage balloons overhead, antiaircraft guns in position, beaches were barricaded and fortified. Churchill and his military advisors knew they had to stop any invasion on the beaches. The south of England is indefensible, as history has proved. (see Julius Ceasar and William the Conqueror.) Nearly every man and woman now in England were involved somehow in the effort to repel invaders should it be necessary. The famous poet A.P Herbert wrote a verse actually challenging Hitler to come and try:
Napoleon tried. The Dutch were on their way.
A Norman did it, and a Dane or two.
Some sailor-King may follow one fine day;
But not, I think, a low land-rat like you.
There are also rumors that have never been confirmed (at least to my knowledge) that the British were prepared to fill their beaches up with poison gas as a last resort should the Germans gain a foothold. It is believed that the British secretly had stockpiles of Sarin gas available for this purpose, but we will never know if Churchill would have gone that route. FWIW, I think he would have.
But it was not necessary, because Hitler now turned to Goering to win the Battle of Britain for him.
Hitler gave the military 30 days to come up with a feasible plan. The fact that there was no plan already on file indicates that the Germans never really had previously considered this idea. There were also no landing craft, and no members of the German army had ever been trained in the art of amphibious warfare (storming a beach, as our army and marines would later learn to do so well.) The projected first wave of 100,000 men would require more than half of all shipping the Germans had for all their needs.
The navy maintained that they would have to land the first two waves two days apart. General Halder snapped, "I might just as well put the troops through a sausage machine!" What he wanted was to land all the troops at once on a wide front, but the Navy believed (rightfully, IMO) they would never make it across the Channel. Eventually the plan called for landing on a more narrow front, with the troops sailing through a corridor provided by minefields and patrolled by subs on either side, with the Luftwaffe providing cover overhead. Whether or not this would have had any chance of working we will never know, because Goering insisted to Hitler that it wasn't necessary. The Luftwaffe could make England surrender all by themselves. Goering believed that strategic bombing from the air could achieve this result- they could pound the Brits into rubble. First they would destroy the R.A.F.- a relatively easy task since Goering calculated he had a 2-1 advantage in planes- and after that, he would take out London.
Goering ignored the fact that the Luftwaffe had been unable to destroy a defenseless Warsaw all by itself, and this was a much more difficult task. Hitler, who was apparently tired of the bickering between army and navy, eagerly told Goering to go ahead and try.
The question needs to be asked here- if Goering had succeeded in destroying the R.A.F., could he have forced England to surrender through air attack alone? The historical answer was clearly no. The United States, with much more air power, could not force either Berlin or Tokyo to surrender simply through strategic bombing alone. Nor were we able to secure a victory in Vietnam through strategic bombing, though we owned the skies over Hanoi for a good deal of the time. Churchill had put fire into Englishmen and now they were full of resolve.
And as it happens, they were prepared as they could be for an invasion. Barrage balloons overhead, antiaircraft guns in position, beaches were barricaded and fortified. Churchill and his military advisors knew they had to stop any invasion on the beaches. The south of England is indefensible, as history has proved. (see Julius Ceasar and William the Conqueror.) Nearly every man and woman now in England were involved somehow in the effort to repel invaders should it be necessary. The famous poet A.P Herbert wrote a verse actually challenging Hitler to come and try:
Napoleon tried. The Dutch were on their way.
A Norman did it, and a Dane or two.
Some sailor-King may follow one fine day;
But not, I think, a low land-rat like you.
There are also rumors that have never been confirmed (at least to my knowledge) that the British were prepared to fill their beaches up with poison gas as a last resort should the Germans gain a foothold. It is believed that the British secretly had stockpiles of Sarin gas available for this purpose, but we will never know if Churchill would have gone that route. FWIW, I think he would have.
But it was not necessary, because Hitler now turned to Goering to win the Battle of Britain for him.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Battle of Britain Part One
Goering had 2,670 front line aircraft against 1,475 for the RAF. The Messerschmidts were faster and had a higher rate of climb than the Spitfires and Hurricanes, but the latter were more manueverable and better armed. Therefore in equipment it was a standoff. At the beginning of the war, German pilots might have had an experience advantage thanks to the Spanish Civil War, but the British by now had learned much from their time fighting over the skies of France, so this too was a standoff. But in many other ways, the British had a distinct advantage:
1. Goering sent mostly fighters and not bombers in the initial stages, believing he could lure the British fighters into combat and destroy them. This was a tactical error of immense proportions, because his bombers could have destroyed some of the RAF aircraft on the ground.
2. The German aircraft had a flying time of 80 minutes. It took 30 minutes to fly across the Channel, and another 30 minutes to fly home. This gave the Luftwaffe only 20 minutes of combat time before they were forced to retire.
3. The German aircraft were limited to a range of 125 miles. That was less than one tenth of all England. It was relatively easy for the RAF to move their bases inland, and so meet the Germans on their terms. The Luftwaffe was like a dog on a leash.
4. If British flyers were forced to land, they were among friends and quickly returned to battle. Many airplanes were actually recovered and repaired.
5. Most important of all was RDF (Radar). The Chain Home stations were able to track the Luftwaffe so that the British could surprise them in greater numbers at the point of attack.
All of these points helped the RAF. But they had great valor as well. It was not only British pilots; there were also Polish, French, Belgian, Czech, Canadian, and American pilots as well. They fought with an incredible bravery and skill, and defeated the Luftwaffe. Churchill said of them
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few
Even today, in England, if you use the phrase, "The Few", most people recognize you are speaking of the RAF pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain.
But the struggle was just beginning; this battle would have many phases, and Goering was confident that he was winning.
Goering had 2,670 front line aircraft against 1,475 for the RAF. The Messerschmidts were faster and had a higher rate of climb than the Spitfires and Hurricanes, but the latter were more manueverable and better armed. Therefore in equipment it was a standoff. At the beginning of the war, German pilots might have had an experience advantage thanks to the Spanish Civil War, but the British by now had learned much from their time fighting over the skies of France, so this too was a standoff. But in many other ways, the British had a distinct advantage:
1. Goering sent mostly fighters and not bombers in the initial stages, believing he could lure the British fighters into combat and destroy them. This was a tactical error of immense proportions, because his bombers could have destroyed some of the RAF aircraft on the ground.
2. The German aircraft had a flying time of 80 minutes. It took 30 minutes to fly across the Channel, and another 30 minutes to fly home. This gave the Luftwaffe only 20 minutes of combat time before they were forced to retire.
3. The German aircraft were limited to a range of 125 miles. That was less than one tenth of all England. It was relatively easy for the RAF to move their bases inland, and so meet the Germans on their terms. The Luftwaffe was like a dog on a leash.
4. If British flyers were forced to land, they were among friends and quickly returned to battle. Many airplanes were actually recovered and repaired.
5. Most important of all was RDF (Radar). The Chain Home stations were able to track the Luftwaffe so that the British could surprise them in greater numbers at the point of attack.
All of these points helped the RAF. But they had great valor as well. It was not only British pilots; there were also Polish, French, Belgian, Czech, Canadian, and American pilots as well. They fought with an incredible bravery and skill, and defeated the Luftwaffe. Churchill said of them
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few
Even today, in England, if you use the phrase, "The Few", most people recognize you are speaking of the RAF pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain.
But the struggle was just beginning; this battle would have many phases, and Goering was confident that he was winning.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
I am not up to speed on the available technology during this time and this question probably exposes my lack of understanding of military strategy and German capabilities, but why didn't the Germans use transport planes to drop paratroopers and equipment into Britain, Red Dawn style, and use these teams along with air support to take over strategic positions? Why was sending everything in ships across the channel the only option to strategic bombings? Did they not have planes that were capable of transporting armor?
timschochet
Footballguy
Not a bad question at all. Ozymandius or one of the other military experts around here can probably answer this in more detail, but I would say that the success of the paratroopers in Norway, Holland, and Belgium was based on surprise. Otherwise, you simply can't land enough to make a numerical difference. The British strategic points could not have been surprised as they were all well guarded and they were actually expecting this sort of attack. It is true, however, that the Germans did capture the island of Crete in 1941 through mainly paratrooper attacks- that is an amazing battle which shall be narrated later on, but in any case, I think the distances were shorter.
timschochet
Footballguy
Also, I'm fairly sure the answer to this is no. But I'm not 100% sure.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Battle of Britain Part Two
I mentioned earlier that both sides' pilots exaggerated their success, but this was more pointed on the German side. As a result, Goering believed he had pretty much destroyed the RAF, and he moved his attacks inland. Bombers struck at British airfields. Fighters were ordered to make low-level attacks.
And once again the Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses. The airfields were well defended. Aerial cables were set up to defend against the low level attacks, fired by rockets, descending by parachutes. This was referred to as "clothes-lining". Also, the British aircraft were heavily camouflaged, so the bombers did less damage than they thought.
Next Goering started bombing British industry and vital shipping. This was mostly attempted by the Stukas, but here they proved too slow. The Messerschimdts were actually too quick to slow down enough to give them adequate air cover. The RAF discovered that Stukas, once they made their dives, were sitting ducks. And yet again the Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses.
However, at this point the RAF were somewhat desperate. They had simply lost too many planes, and the Luftwaffe just kept coming. Dowding warned Churchill that at the rate they were going the RAF simply could not survive. Churchill responded by ordering a high range bombing of Berlin. It was yet another ruthless gamble by the Prime Minister. The bombing mission was only a few planes and most of these were lost. The majority of bombs missed their targets altogether. But a few fell, damaging a German power plant and killing some civilians, and it's effect on the German people (and on Hitler) was traumatic. Here they thought the war was over, there would only be a cleaning up period before England surrendered, and yet here they were being bombed from the sky! Hitler and Goering had assured them this would never happen. Now the war had been brought home to them.
This had the same effect on Hitler that the Doolittle raid a year and a half later would have on the shocked Japanese- it stunned and enraged him. Goering was already frustrated at his losses and his failure to do enough damage to the RAF. It was mutually decided by both men to terror bomb London- both as revenge and as a means to frighten England into surrendering. If this did not work by itself, they would rely on the UBoats to starve England to death.
With the switch to the terror bombing of the cities, the Battle of Britain had been effectively won by the RAF, though they certainly didn't realize this at the time. But simply because they narrowly avoided invasion, how could they possibly win this war against a foe that occupied all of Europe? At the moment, there was no answer, because the horror of the Blitz had begun.
I mentioned earlier that both sides' pilots exaggerated their success, but this was more pointed on the German side. As a result, Goering believed he had pretty much destroyed the RAF, and he moved his attacks inland. Bombers struck at British airfields. Fighters were ordered to make low-level attacks.
And once again the Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses. The airfields were well defended. Aerial cables were set up to defend against the low level attacks, fired by rockets, descending by parachutes. This was referred to as "clothes-lining". Also, the British aircraft were heavily camouflaged, so the bombers did less damage than they thought.
Next Goering started bombing British industry and vital shipping. This was mostly attempted by the Stukas, but here they proved too slow. The Messerschimdts were actually too quick to slow down enough to give them adequate air cover. The RAF discovered that Stukas, once they made their dives, were sitting ducks. And yet again the Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses.
However, at this point the RAF were somewhat desperate. They had simply lost too many planes, and the Luftwaffe just kept coming. Dowding warned Churchill that at the rate they were going the RAF simply could not survive. Churchill responded by ordering a high range bombing of Berlin. It was yet another ruthless gamble by the Prime Minister. The bombing mission was only a few planes and most of these were lost. The majority of bombs missed their targets altogether. But a few fell, damaging a German power plant and killing some civilians, and it's effect on the German people (and on Hitler) was traumatic. Here they thought the war was over, there would only be a cleaning up period before England surrendered, and yet here they were being bombed from the sky! Hitler and Goering had assured them this would never happen. Now the war had been brought home to them.
This had the same effect on Hitler that the Doolittle raid a year and a half later would have on the shocked Japanese- it stunned and enraged him. Goering was already frustrated at his losses and his failure to do enough damage to the RAF. It was mutually decided by both men to terror bomb London- both as revenge and as a means to frighten England into surrendering. If this did not work by itself, they would rely on the UBoats to starve England to death.
With the switch to the terror bombing of the cities, the Battle of Britain had been effectively won by the RAF, though they certainly didn't realize this at the time. But simply because they narrowly avoided invasion, how could they possibly win this war against a foe that occupied all of Europe? At the moment, there was no answer, because the horror of the Blitz had begun.
Ozymandias
Footballguy
Well yes, the Blitz was horrible. But one of the facts that emerged from the war is that the bombing of cities, although terrible for those who suffered through them, did not destroy morale, and tended to strengthen resolve amongst those who survived.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
It just seems that paratroopers may have allowed them to effectively sabotage the power infrastructure which would have knocked out the British radar system and other key infrastructure. Also once you realize the challenge the Luftwaffe aircraft faced with range, it's difficult to understand how they believed they could maintain a high kill ratio over the RAF and achieve victory through an air campaign alone.
Ozymandias
Footballguy
In the early days of the war, most of the combatant countries did not have extremely powerful bombers and transport aircraft. Paratroopers could be very valuable dropped in front of a coming attack, to disrupt communications and seize and hold strategic targets until the infantry could arrive. But they couldn't mount a full scale invasion. Recognize that Britain had rescued 340,000 soldiers from Dunkirk. They also had soldiers who had not been part of the BEF in France.With all the might and power of the Allies, with 3 years of preparation, with specialized landing craft, with floating docks which had been specially constructed, command of the air and the sea, thousands of tanks and artillery on LST's, pulverizing naval bombardment prior to the landings, the Allies were able to get 175,000 men ashore on D-Day. Even if the Germans had not had the RAF and the Royal Navy to contend with, I doubt they could have put 20,000 troops ashore the first day. They simply did not have the landing craft.BTW, the most widely used German bomber and transport plane during the war was the Heinkel 111. At the beginning of the war, it could carry about 4,000 lbs. Later versions could carry 5,500 lbs. The only long range German Bomber produced in quantity during the war was the Heinkel 177, but the first prototype didn't fly until November 1939, and it didn't enter service until 1942. You're not going to get much equipment on board with a load of 4,000 lbs.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
The Blitz
It lasted for two solid months. They came by day and by night. Up to 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters at one time, or some time as few as a dozen, just to keep the Londoners unnerved. Yet, as Ozymandius noted above, this only strengthened the English resolve. They calmly dug themselves out the ruins and went about their business. And the Luftwaffe continued to suffer losses of aircraft and pilots they could have used later in the war, especially in Russia.
The civilian death count was 41,381 killed. When we get to the battles in the east (for instance, the Siege of Leningrad) this will seem like a VERY small number. But it's 13 times the number of 9/11 casualties, so one can imagine how it unified the British people. They endured, but they were not happy.
I bring up the issue of happiness because I want to relate another side of Churchill's character that disturbed many of his friends, family and acquaintances: all during this, he WAS happy. Later he wrote: "1940 was the best year of my life! What a wonderful time to be alive." Churchill was like Hitler in one essential way: both men believed that war was the natural state of man, and produced the best man had to offer. One reason Englishmen had been so reluctant to put Churchill in charge before this moment is that they knew he wanted war, even though no man had worked harder to prevent it. Churchill relished the fight, and considered war to be romantic.
There is a great scene from The Last Lion I have to pass on at this point in the narrative. During the Blitz, Churchill was in his bunker, when he came across the 8 year old son of one of his secretaries (apparantly not evacuated) playing with an electric train on a railroad track. Churchill studied the boy for a moment, and asked:
"Have you more than one train?"
"Yes, sir!" said the boy.
"Does each train have it's own transistor?" Churchill asked.
"Yes, sir!" came the reply.
"Very good," said Churchill, rubbing his hands together. "Let's have a crash!"
It lasted for two solid months. They came by day and by night. Up to 320 bombers escorted by 600 fighters at one time, or some time as few as a dozen, just to keep the Londoners unnerved. Yet, as Ozymandius noted above, this only strengthened the English resolve. They calmly dug themselves out the ruins and went about their business. And the Luftwaffe continued to suffer losses of aircraft and pilots they could have used later in the war, especially in Russia.
The civilian death count was 41,381 killed. When we get to the battles in the east (for instance, the Siege of Leningrad) this will seem like a VERY small number. But it's 13 times the number of 9/11 casualties, so one can imagine how it unified the British people. They endured, but they were not happy.
I bring up the issue of happiness because I want to relate another side of Churchill's character that disturbed many of his friends, family and acquaintances: all during this, he WAS happy. Later he wrote: "1940 was the best year of my life! What a wonderful time to be alive." Churchill was like Hitler in one essential way: both men believed that war was the natural state of man, and produced the best man had to offer. One reason Englishmen had been so reluctant to put Churchill in charge before this moment is that they knew he wanted war, even though no man had worked harder to prevent it. Churchill relished the fight, and considered war to be romantic.
There is a great scene from The Last Lion I have to pass on at this point in the narrative. During the Blitz, Churchill was in his bunker, when he came across the 8 year old son of one of his secretaries (apparantly not evacuated) playing with an electric train on a railroad track. Churchill studied the boy for a moment, and asked:
"Have you more than one train?"
"Yes, sir!" said the boy.
"Does each train have it's own transistor?" Churchill asked.
"Yes, sir!" came the reply.
"Very good," said Churchill, rubbing his hands together. "Let's have a crash!"
This is the heart of the matter. The key to the Allied landings at Normandy was the Higgins boat and the countless hours of training and rehersals that went on in England and the US on with the troops who would be going ashore. In addition the US had practical experience in amphibious landings both in North Africa and all over the Pacific before D-Day was attempted. If the Germans had tried a blitz landing in late 1940, those few soldiers who crawled ashore out of the surf would have been subdued by Englishmen with pitchforks and shovels.Ozymandias said:
Just by way of comparison, a C-47 (the US transport plane used to drop paratroopers on D-Day (see Band of Brothers)) had a payload of 6,000 lbs and could carry 28 troopers. A B-17 could carry up to 8,000 lbs of bombs.
timschochet
Footballguy
Two Decisions
The defeat of France and the subsequent Battle of Britain caused two world leaders to make momentous decisions which would have a profound effect on the war.
The first was FDR. He had been helping out the British as much as he could, sometimes by breaking the law. He knew that, at the current time, a large chunk of the American people sided with the isolationist movement, so Roosevelt risked much but could not do as much as he liked.
There was no law at the time restricting a President from running for a third term, but no one had ever done it. Roosevelt thought the world situation warranted breaking this decision, and so he decided he would run, much to the chagrin of Republicans everywhere who thought they were finally done with the man.
Side note- Republicans and conservatives who discuss FDR today have a habit of dividing him into two Presidents: the very poor and/or misguided President of 1932- 1940, who actually prolonged the Great Depression and set this country along the path of a welfare state, which we suffer from today, and the very great war president of 1940-1945, who led this nation to victory. I have, in the past, been guilty of this myself. But the truth is, we really can't separate the two. Roosevelt's ability to lead the nation through World War II was in a large part because he had gained the trust of the American people by leading them through the Deptession, whith his optimistic speeches, his "Fireside Chats" and his presence. Because of this, I personally consider FDR to be our third greatest President ever, behind only Lincoln and Washington, but this is of course a highly subjective opinion.
Ironically, FDR's opponent in the 1940 election was Wendell Wilkee, who was not an isolationist and supported aiding England. Despite this, the isolationists were solidly on his side, believing (correctly IMO) that Roosevelt's defeat would signal a victory against internationalism. And as I just wrote, the American people leaned towards isolationism at this time. However, I have argued in the past that in national elections, charisma trumps issues, and there has never been a more charismatic President than FDR. He won by 3 million votes, and Churchill in his memoirs wrote of his "indescribable relief."
The other decision was by Mussolini, and it was one that Hitler shortly would wish had never been made. Undaunted by his troops failure to conquer even a small section of France, Mussolini believed the time had arrived for Italian triumph! He was jealous of Hitler's accomplishments, and figured the weakness of England gave him the chance to show off what the greatness of Rome could achieve. Therefore, he planned not one assault, but two at the same time: he would take over Greece, which had long been an annoying thorn in his side, and his forces in North Africa, which outnumbered the British there 20-1, would sweep them aside, take Egypt and the Suez Canal. Then Italy would be on equal terms with Germany.
Mussolini did not inform Hitler of any of these plans, until the day the German leader received a fateful telegram: "My Fuhrer! We are on the march!"
The defeat of France and the subsequent Battle of Britain caused two world leaders to make momentous decisions which would have a profound effect on the war.
The first was FDR. He had been helping out the British as much as he could, sometimes by breaking the law. He knew that, at the current time, a large chunk of the American people sided with the isolationist movement, so Roosevelt risked much but could not do as much as he liked.
There was no law at the time restricting a President from running for a third term, but no one had ever done it. Roosevelt thought the world situation warranted breaking this decision, and so he decided he would run, much to the chagrin of Republicans everywhere who thought they were finally done with the man.
Side note- Republicans and conservatives who discuss FDR today have a habit of dividing him into two Presidents: the very poor and/or misguided President of 1932- 1940, who actually prolonged the Great Depression and set this country along the path of a welfare state, which we suffer from today, and the very great war president of 1940-1945, who led this nation to victory. I have, in the past, been guilty of this myself. But the truth is, we really can't separate the two. Roosevelt's ability to lead the nation through World War II was in a large part because he had gained the trust of the American people by leading them through the Deptession, whith his optimistic speeches, his "Fireside Chats" and his presence. Because of this, I personally consider FDR to be our third greatest President ever, behind only Lincoln and Washington, but this is of course a highly subjective opinion.
Ironically, FDR's opponent in the 1940 election was Wendell Wilkee, who was not an isolationist and supported aiding England. Despite this, the isolationists were solidly on his side, believing (correctly IMO) that Roosevelt's defeat would signal a victory against internationalism. And as I just wrote, the American people leaned towards isolationism at this time. However, I have argued in the past that in national elections, charisma trumps issues, and there has never been a more charismatic President than FDR. He won by 3 million votes, and Churchill in his memoirs wrote of his "indescribable relief."
The other decision was by Mussolini, and it was one that Hitler shortly would wish had never been made. Undaunted by his troops failure to conquer even a small section of France, Mussolini believed the time had arrived for Italian triumph! He was jealous of Hitler's accomplishments, and figured the weakness of England gave him the chance to show off what the greatness of Rome could achieve. Therefore, he planned not one assault, but two at the same time: he would take over Greece, which had long been an annoying thorn in his side, and his forces in North Africa, which outnumbered the British there 20-1, would sweep them aside, take Egypt and the Suez Canal. Then Italy would be on equal terms with Germany.
Mussolini did not inform Hitler of any of these plans, until the day the German leader received a fateful telegram: "My Fuhrer! We are on the march!"
timschochet
Footballguy
It will end shortly. Churchill is pretty dominant in 1940 and 1941; he is less dominant a figure as the war expands. I admit to a special interest and admiration for Churchill.Tim, your narrative might be a little better without so much hagiography for Churchill. Yes, he was a great man and "saved" England and all that, but come on...
timschochet
Footballguy
DC, just out of curiosity to see how times have changed- what is the payload of modern transport planes (such as C-17)?
Ozymandias
Footballguy
I'm with you, Tim. A great man, at precisely the right moment. Under other circumstances, he might have been a footnote. But right there, right then, he rose to greatness. Great leaders inspire, like Alexander and Napoleon. As they had, Churchill had flaws; but what a man, at what a moment!It will end shortly. Churchill is pretty dominant in 1940 and 1941; he is less dominant a figure as the war expands. I admit to a special interest and admiration for Churchill.Tim, your narrative might be a little better without so much hagiography for Churchill. Yes, he was a great man and "saved" England and all that, but come on...
GamerBoy61
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks. Wow, quite a difference, isn't it?
timschochet
Footballguy
I was going to take my cue from some the history books I have read, which is at the time of just before Pearl Harbor to go back and give a summary of events that led up to it. However, if you want to discuss some of this beforehand, that would be great!
Frostillicus
Footballguy
My grandfather served in Guam and elsewhere in the Pacific. He died before I was old enough to ask him about his time during the war, but my mom told me he refused to ever talk about it. The only thing she remembers is that when he would get really drunk (he struggled with alcohol for a time before quitting cold turkey) he would rant about MacArthur, saying "That ### #### MacArthur! He said he'd be back! He never came back!"I really wish I knew more.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
I'm certainly not the guy for that; I didn't even know it was called the Sino-Japanese war until I wikipedia-ed it just now. But I do think it would be interesting to read about the pacific war in the same timeline as the european, to really get a full perspective on the state of the world as we go along.
Copeman
Footballguy
Copeman
Footballguy
It's ok to admit you were wrong man. It's ok. When I first saw the film I thought it was the same guy too, but after a couple times I realized it wasn't. I've actually had this same discussion in other forums and many thought I was nuts, but a simple google search shows it isn't the same guy. Heck, it's very easy to see it isn't the same guy with that link.That is totally wrong.Not bspwned.Copeman said:
RudiStein
*Not really a bail bondsman
No it isn't.
Copeman
Footballguy
Maybe for the blind.
Ozymandias
Footballguy
Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Your momma wears combat boots.Your momma's fat.Who says so?I do.Cross this line and you'll be in trouble.Who's going to make me.So's your old man.etc.Grow up.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Pretty soon we're gonna have to change the title to "World War III."
:ba-dump-ching:
:ba-dump-ching:
Redwes25
Footballguy
I don't know enough about the War in the east to cover it well - especially the war in China.
RudiStein
*Not really a bail bondsman
I don't get it.Maybe for the blind.
Harry Manback
Footballguy
I always thought it was the same dude too...irony and all that shiz.I don't get it.Maybe for the blind.
Ozymandias
Footballguy
If you want to re-live history, you can hear Churchill's radio speech after Dunkirk, here:I'm with you, Tim. A great man, at precisely the right moment. Under other circumstances, he might have been a footnote. But right there, right then, he rose to greatness. Great leaders inspire, like Alexander and Napoleon. As they had, Churchill had flaws; but what a man, at what a moment!It will end shortly. Churchill is pretty dominant in 1940 and 1941; he is less dominant a figure as the war expands. I admit to a special interest and admiration for Churchill.Tim, your narrative might be a little better without so much hagiography for Churchill. Yes, he was a great man and "saved" England and all that, but come on...
It's about 10 minutes long, but the famous part is the last 2 minutes:
"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if,
which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
The story is told, that after the microphone was cut off, Churchill said: "And we will hit them over the head with beer bottles, which is about all we have left to fight them with".
beer 30
Footballguy
Dude, I was talking about the website, not you. Up until I saw that page I always thought it was the same guy too.Now you and Rudi let it go so tim can get back to work, k?If a 5 second google search constitutes "too much time on my hands", then I suppose I am guilty of that.
RudiStein
*Not really a bail bondsman
Really?Dude, I was talking about the website, not you. Up until I saw that page I always thought it was the same guy too.Now you and Rudi let it go so tim can get back to work, k?If a 5 second google search constitutes "too much time on my hands", then I suppose I am guilty of that.
Copeman
Footballguy
Dude, I was talking about the website, not you. Up until I saw that page I always thought it was the same guy too.Now you and Rudi let it go so tim can get back to work, k?If a 5 second google search constitutes "too much time on my hands", then I suppose I am guilty of that.
timschochet
Footballguy
Right before Pearl Harbor, I'm going to give a detailed narrative on the rise of modern Japan which will touch upon the invasion of China. For this, I will be relying on Delivered From Evil by Robert Mackie and The Rising Sun by John Toland. But unfortunately I don't know enough about this subject to do anything more than touch on it at that time. If anyone else wants to add some details either before or after, please do so.
RudiStein
*Not really a bail bondsman
timschochet
Footballguy
The U-Boats
Goering had boastfully promised Hitler that his air assault would destroy England. Admiral Doenitz, the commander of the U-Boats was far less of a braggart- he was a quietly competent officer who would never have openly made such a boast. But if he had been asked in the fall of 1940, he would have been very confident that the men under his command would be the ones to bring England to it's knees. And he had good reason.
From his new headquarters in occupied France, Doenitz formed his subs into groups called "wolfpacks" of from 8 to 20, and these prowled the North and South Atlantic. Whenever a convoy was sighted, the pack would radio Doenitz and the Admiral would send all the other U-boats in the area to the attack. They would gather at night, raise silently to the surface, slip in among the convoy, and fire their torpedoes. Then they would dive to escape the destroyers. 30 minutes later, they would rise again, using the fires their first torpedoes had caused to light their way. The attacks would continue through the night, and sometimes several nights.
The Admiralty struck back with new tactics. The escorting warships would light the sky with rockets, searchlights, and star shells. This forced the U-Boats beneath the surface where they had to move more slowly. The British developed asdic, which Americans called sonar. They would attempt to hear the "pings" bounced off the hull of the submarines, and this would allow them to trace the sub and fire depth charges.
But the U-Boats mostly succeeded and by the late fall of 1940, they managed to cripple England. Before the fall of France, Britain received about 1.2 million tons of cargo a week by sea. A month later, this was reduced to 750,000 tons. Within the next two months losses exceeded the most critical months of World War I. On October 1st, a wolfpack caught an Atlantic convoy of 34 ships and sank 20 of them. And to make matters worse, England was running out of revunue. They had already spent 4.5 Billion on the war effort, and had 2 billion remaining, though most of it was invested. In short, they were bankrupt, and would have been unable to continue if not for an miraculous reprieve. That reprieve happened, and I will relate it, but first we need to now discuss in detail the Italian adventures in Greece and North Africa.
Goering had boastfully promised Hitler that his air assault would destroy England. Admiral Doenitz, the commander of the U-Boats was far less of a braggart- he was a quietly competent officer who would never have openly made such a boast. But if he had been asked in the fall of 1940, he would have been very confident that the men under his command would be the ones to bring England to it's knees. And he had good reason.
From his new headquarters in occupied France, Doenitz formed his subs into groups called "wolfpacks" of from 8 to 20, and these prowled the North and South Atlantic. Whenever a convoy was sighted, the pack would radio Doenitz and the Admiral would send all the other U-boats in the area to the attack. They would gather at night, raise silently to the surface, slip in among the convoy, and fire their torpedoes. Then they would dive to escape the destroyers. 30 minutes later, they would rise again, using the fires their first torpedoes had caused to light their way. The attacks would continue through the night, and sometimes several nights.
The Admiralty struck back with new tactics. The escorting warships would light the sky with rockets, searchlights, and star shells. This forced the U-Boats beneath the surface where they had to move more slowly. The British developed asdic, which Americans called sonar. They would attempt to hear the "pings" bounced off the hull of the submarines, and this would allow them to trace the sub and fire depth charges.
But the U-Boats mostly succeeded and by the late fall of 1940, they managed to cripple England. Before the fall of France, Britain received about 1.2 million tons of cargo a week by sea. A month later, this was reduced to 750,000 tons. Within the next two months losses exceeded the most critical months of World War I. On October 1st, a wolfpack caught an Atlantic convoy of 34 ships and sank 20 of them. And to make matters worse, England was running out of revunue. They had already spent 4.5 Billion on the war effort, and had 2 billion remaining, though most of it was invested. In short, they were bankrupt, and would have been unable to continue if not for an miraculous reprieve. That reprieve happened, and I will relate it, but first we need to now discuss in detail the Italian adventures in Greece and North Africa.
Redwes25
Footballguy
Soviet-Japanese Border Conflict
In 1938 and 1939 the Soviets and Japan engaged in on an off fightting over the disputed border of Manchuria and the Soviet Union. In 1932 Japan set up a puppet in Manchuria and and basically inherited a border dispute with the Soviet Union which flared into conflict on an off for a couple of years between Japan and the Soviet Union. There were two major conflicts of this border dispute the battle of Lake KHasan and Khalkin-Gol. Lake Khassan was basically a stalmate but Khalkin-Gol was a major soviet victory which I will discuss briefly and its importance for the next couple of years.
Khalkin-Gol began with Japanesse forces occupying a remote area of near the village of Nomonhan. Initial the Japanesse were able to hold the area but General Zhucov was placed in command and ammassed approximately 50,000 troops including about 500 tanks and 400 other armored vehicles. On August 20, 1939 he used the armored forces to race around the Japanesse flanks and the border war was essentially over as the Japan army basically evaporated and Japan suffered over 60k casulties. Japan and Russia then signed an armstrice which lasted until the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945.
The decisive victory shows that while properly lead the Soviets were a force to reckon with but unfortunately so many quality leaders had been killed in the purges. Also, this is the first great victory for Zhucov who would prove himself as one of the great generals of WWII.
However, the biggest impact was that Japan no longer realistically consider war against Russia. The victory can even be pointed to as a primary reason that Japan never aided Hitler's invasion of Russia and Japan began to focus in other areas of Asia for expansion (e.g. Southeast asia and the lightly defended European colonies rather than resource rich Siberia).
In 1938 and 1939 the Soviets and Japan engaged in on an off fightting over the disputed border of Manchuria and the Soviet Union. In 1932 Japan set up a puppet in Manchuria and and basically inherited a border dispute with the Soviet Union which flared into conflict on an off for a couple of years between Japan and the Soviet Union. There were two major conflicts of this border dispute the battle of Lake KHasan and Khalkin-Gol. Lake Khassan was basically a stalmate but Khalkin-Gol was a major soviet victory which I will discuss briefly and its importance for the next couple of years.
Khalkin-Gol began with Japanesse forces occupying a remote area of near the village of Nomonhan. Initial the Japanesse were able to hold the area but General Zhucov was placed in command and ammassed approximately 50,000 troops including about 500 tanks and 400 other armored vehicles. On August 20, 1939 he used the armored forces to race around the Japanesse flanks and the border war was essentially over as the Japan army basically evaporated and Japan suffered over 60k casulties. Japan and Russia then signed an armstrice which lasted until the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945.
The decisive victory shows that while properly lead the Soviets were a force to reckon with but unfortunately so many quality leaders had been killed in the purges. Also, this is the first great victory for Zhucov who would prove himself as one of the great generals of WWII.
However, the biggest impact was that Japan no longer realistically consider war against Russia. The victory can even be pointed to as a primary reason that Japan never aided Hitler's invasion of Russia and Japan began to focus in other areas of Asia for expansion (e.g. Southeast asia and the lightly defended European colonies rather than resource rich Siberia).
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim you gonna touch on the Destoyers for Bases deal of September 1940? 50 four-stacker US Navy destroyers of WWI vintage in exchange for basing rights in British territories in the Atlantic and Caribbean to help protect the approaches to the Panama Canal. This technically was probably a violation of the Neutrality Acts, but nevermind that...
Ozymandias
Footballguy
You're a good straight man. Tim was leading up to this.BTW...You mean the President was exceeding his powers?
How come some of our greatest Presidents, like Lincoln and Roosevelt, exceeded their powers?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I briefly mentioned FDR breaking the law, but I didn't get into it. It's getting to the point where there's just too much going on in the timeline, and because I'm using a few different sources, I'm not keeping track of it all. FDR was looking for anyway to help the British. At first he just gave them some old destroyers, which was never revealed to congress until after the war. Then he tried to trade 50 destroyers for bases. The British were reluctant to give up land holdings. while isolationists mocked FDR for making a deal that would be meaningless when England was knocked out of the war. I'm not sure what became of these bases after the war. Perhaps somebody knows?
timschochet
Footballguy
This is a fascinating question, and the answer is a disturbing one for anyone who believes that a democratic republic is the best form of government. I noticed you didn't mention Woodrow Wilson, who also exceeded his powers in a way similar to Lincoln and George W. Bush. All three men, in time of war, chose to prosecute their wars at the expense of individual liberties. This is very troubling. FDR did not do this (to the best of my knowledge); what he did instead was to become the first President to attempt to usurp war making powers away from Congress and to the executive branch. Other presidents have followed his lead, and as a result we have been involved in undeclared wars all over the globe, Vietnam being the most obvious example. Here is the essential question: can a free democratic republic make the quick decisions that are necessary in wartime? Or is the executive forced to make dictatorial decisions time and again on behalf of the electorate? Honestly, I don't have a good answer.But I do think that when we contemplate the idea of possibly putting the Bush Administration on trial for breaking the law, we really ought to consider the historical examples of Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt.
bentley
Footballguy
Abraham Lincoln down? From the summary of "Tried by War" by James McPherson:
Similar threads
