Another wonderful obit

Those in the South, probably yes.

 

And suffered as a result. btw, about a year after WWI began the
British fielded 29 divisions. That many in the BEF in 1940 could have
tipped the balance.

They (i.e. Britain) most certainly did 'gear up for WW2'. Have a look
at British military spending from 1936 onwards.

I do

Not utterly anachronistic. Cavalry (well, mounted infantry really) was
used to good effect on the Eastern front during WWII

If the channel hadn't been there the British army would have been a
whole lot bigger (and the navy smaller)

Good thing too.

Yes they would, since British production couldn't match demand or
funding by 1938/9.

Well, Germany, France, Italy and Britain were all re-arming at this
time so what was your point ?

Cheers,

John

 

With the population of the Channel Islands during WWII as exhibit A

This said all isn't black and white. My grandfather was a die-hard
Petainist (he even looked like Petain) but this had little to do with
fear of the Germans (he was a WWI hero). He had a blocking on a bridge
removed... minutes before the "Das Reich" division showed up (and
demonstrated how mean it could get in Tulle and Oradour the same and
next day). One of his brothers was a truer "collabo" (and had his wife
murdered by the Resistance). My father did give a hand to the
resistance, but the way he talks about these actions does not show them
as particularly glorious. So, it's war, and I doubt any of us could bet
on how we would behave. And anyway it's the winner who decides who the
heroes were.

 

Under 5% at the latest presidential election...

 

There certainly was greater deference to authority then, but at the
same time there was a great deal of entrenched resistance to the
German aggression - remember virtually every family had been affected
by the Great War, then only 20 years distant - however whether that
would have translated into widespread armed resistance, it's
impossible to say. There is certainly a good deal of myth about it
all - Calder's "Myth of the Blitz" is very good on this but I think
there was a good deal of "Captain Mainwaring syndrome" about, at least
in 1940.

 

I think the CI are something of a special case - in a tiny closed
community there was not the same opportunity for anonymity or hiding
in the crowds and the presence of the Germans was far more high
profile than it would have been in, say London, or some remore
Yorkshire village. That doesn't excuse anything, but it might make it
more understandable.

 

Almost 18% in 2002.

So, in 2002 almost 18% of people who bothered to vote were happy to
elect a man who has since been found guilty of holocaust denial.
That's not really a good thing to have on your cv no matter how you
look at it and it does make me wonder what it would take for the
remaining 5% to ditch the ****.

 

A lot depended upon where you lived in those times. My Mother, who
spent the first half of the war in London and the second in the west
country recalls that her working class attitudes differed quite
considerably from those of her differently oppressed country comrades.
Undoubtedly the townies would have fought back but then they were
familiar with the horror stories from the mainland as children and knew
well what would happen to the Trade Unionists as well so were highly
motivated.

 

I'm sure that's right, though countrymen were certainly ready to
fight. My grandfather was a Lincolnshire farmer and thus reserved
occupation (and a bit too old at 31) but he was in the Home Guard, on
top of the busy life of a farmer. One Million men joined the LDV
between May and August 1940 so there was certainly a widepread will to
fight. There was also a local unit of the then top secret Home Guard
Auxiliary "resistance" locally.

 

It certainly got fairly tough in the CI, especially toward the end of
the war, when the Allies simply cut them off and came back later.
For some inkling of what it was like, dig out "One Man's War", by Frank
Stroobant.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."

 

We didn't have conscription in peacetime. Nobody wanted war. And, let me
remind you, it takes *years* to build up a big army. And you aren't
going to build an army of 100 divisions *without* a war. It also takes
*years* to build up an effective wartime production economy. So that
point of yours is useless.

See above.

Wrong again. The RAF won the BofB by a whisker, and *should* have lost.
The RN? Yes, it's arguable that without air cover, it could have
prevented successful landings, but only arguable.

You need customers. And the UK didn't have the money to buy masses and
masses of weapons, especially as war was by no means certain until early
1938. In 1938 most people still thought it was 'peace in our time'.

And the UK was *not* a belligerent until 1939, so it *was* allowed to
buy arms before then. Idiot.

Nope. Read back.

 

I really, really doubt that, given that Blitzkrieg was such a new and
fearsomely effective development.

 

I never said otherwise. Building an army bigger than 12 divisions
after a 4 year re-armament period and nine months of war, however,
*was* possible and should have been done.

Oh, I don't know, according to my calendar 1936 (when re-armament
started) to 1940 *was* years.

Says who ? Propagandists maybe or people with a rather odd definition
of "lost".

The Luftwaffe's primary aim was the destruction of Fighter Command, a
task they never came close to achieving and one which they never stood
a chance of achieving given the attitude of the RAF leadership which
was to fight until they sustained a certain level of casualties and
then pull back to airfields out of range of Luftwaffe fighters ready
for a surge south should an invasion occur.

"without air cover" is irrelevant historically since the RAF wasn't
going to allow itself to be put in a position where they would be
unable to provide at least some air cover in the event of an invasion.

Even without air cover, the RN light forces weren't in much danger
from air attack since the Luftwaffe was pretty poor at anti-shipping
even in daylight. At night they weren't a threat at all.

Yes, they did. Perhaps you should investigate "Cash and Carry" which
preceeded "Lend Lease"

"People" may have thought that but the level of re-armament spending
shows that the government didn't.

That's not what the UK government thought at the time. They were
expecting to be a belligerent imminently from late 1937 onwards so
there was no point in ordering (and paying for) arms that weren't
going to be delivered.

Technically, yes but in reality, no.

Cheers,

John

 

It was new and fearsomely effective against weak opponents (like
second-rate French divisions) but consider that the only German
divisions really engaged in Blitzkrieg (in the sense of speed) were
the Panzer divisions and there were only 9 of those. The rest of the
army moved at walking pace so a prompt response by a well coordinated
and mobile force (like the BEF) could have de-railed the Germans.

The weak attack at Arras caused some concern to the Germans. A
stronger attack could have delayed the German advance enough for the
Allied troops heading north (who included the cream of the French
Army) to have time to sort themselves out and attack south-east.

The French campaign wasn't the walkover many people believe, there
were several points where a relatively small increase in the strength
of the Allied forces could have tipped the balance.

Cheers,

John

 

Indeed. Conscription was to be avoided because it took people away from
their daytime jobs (and hence the ecomony suffered).

As I said in my other response - Germany *partly* got round that by
having a highly-tained (and combat experienced) cadre specifically
tasked with troop-training just before (and during) the start of the
war. One of the reasons why the Wehrmacht lost so much effectiveness
after the Russian campaign is that most of this training cadre died
during that campaign.

Thank goodness the switched from hitting air bases to bombing towns..
Not nice for the towns but it enabled the RAF to recover.

It would have taken the Germans longer to get across the channel (they
would have to build better troop transports for one thing - the
converted barges they were using were pretty useless in anything other
than a calm sea!) but they would have got there eventually. And (as the
British and Japanese proved) ships without air cover were horribly
vulnerable. Who cares if you lose a flight of torpedo bombers if they
take out a battleship/cruiser/destroyer doing so?

This is the other thing - we look back in hindsight knowing the exact
times that things kicked off. They didn't have the luxury of knowing
what was going to happen and when.
So if Britain *had* built up a massive army and the war hadn't happened
Britain would have gone bankrupt and no longer been able to afford an
army at all!

Indeed. Which is why all the equipment in the BEF was home-sourced. In
some cases almost dating back to WW1.

And in one crucial case (tanks) about 10 years behind Germany in the
development curve.

Phil.

 

That's what the Polish "Cavalry" was. They weren't intended to fight
from horseback, although they did on occasion when they were
surprised.

Because that was a bad way to use them.

Where they were very successful, especially during the winter when
they were more mobile than the Germans. I'm not sure about the "small"
bit though. Battalion-sized sorties behind German lines weren't
uncommon and I've a feeling brigade-sized sorties also occurred (have
to check though)

I think you're missing the point that "no Channel" would alter
British, and European, history so dramatically that you can't make any
predictions based on what happened historically.

Which treaty ? In the case of Germany and the Treaty of Versailles,
yes, most definitely.

The mere existence of the Luftwaffe violated the Treaty of Versailles

Yes, which is why I didn't suggest it. I referred to WWI army sizes
for a reason, there was no conscription prior to WWI but if the rate
of Army build up seen in WWI had been repeated in WWII the BEF would
have been much larger.

If you mean they got around the Treaty of Versailles, then, no, they
didn't. They ignored the Treaty (which stipulated an Army of 100,000)

Britain also had a cadre of skilled soldiers and could have got a
larger army quickly (though it wouldn't have been as large as the
German Army, obviously)

Cheers,

John

 

Historians. If Hitler hadn't switched tactics away from targeting
airfield to targeting cities the RAF would have ceased to operate as a
viable airforce. At the time of the strategy-switch they were (from
memory) down to less than 48-hours worth of capability.

Utter rubbish.

Utter rubbish. The RAF was all-but wiped out as a viable force before
the switch to bombing cities.

They had never tried it before. But they had allies (Japan and Italy)
who either knew how to do it (Japan) or had done it to them with great
success (Italy). In fact the Japanese learned about it by watching the
British attack on the Italian Grand Fleet..

At the start of the war - no. But *if* the Luftwaffe had had air
superiority over the channel it would have been a very different story.

But it was specifically *targetted* spending. In particular it was
spending on the RAF. Army spending was minimal.

Source? And you can't be counted as a belligerent until you formally
declare war..

Phil

 

To aviators well-trained in naval attacks. Thankfully the Luftwaffe
only had 1 squadron of those.

Er, first you need a functioning aerial torpedo. The Luftwaffe didn't
have one of those in 1940. Second you have to hit said destroyer which
is manoeuvring at 30 kts which is not easy.

"Indeed" the British could buy arms so they didn't ? Are you agreeing
with TOG or disagreeing ?

The British tanks were roughly on a par with the Germans in terms of
the material but lacking in terms of organisation and tactics.

Cheers,

John

 

Nope. That's not right at all. It may have ceased operating from the
southern airfields but it certainly wouldn't have ceased to operate.

What is this "capability" measured by ?

They may have been 48-hours away from deciding to withdraw from the
southern airfields (but I doubt it) but since the number of planes
roughly rose throughout the battle "capability" can't be "number of
planes" and they weren't out of pilots, so what was it ?

Care to elaborate ? If it wasn't, what was it ? Sightseeing over
southern England ?

Have you actually read any reference books on the BoB ?

Not before Nov 1940 they didn't.

By Nov 1940 it was academic since the BoB was over, as was the threat
of invasion for 1940 and by 1941 Germany had other things on her mind
and Fighter Command was in pretty good shape.

I was talking about "if the Luftwaffe had air superiority" so no, it
wouldn't be a different story.

Yes, I believe I mentioned that up thread a bit.

Those history books that discuss the political situation in Europe
from 1930 onwards. I can dig out a list tonight if you like.

Which Britain thought she might have to do after Germany re-occupied
the Rhineland thereby apparently showing that she wasn't afraid of
military confrontation (she was but Britain and France didn't
realise),

Cheers,

John