Great Britain?

[mjw47]

The simple fact remains that four out of five German soldiers that died in battle were killed by the Russians.

 

Which means that it took the combined might of the UK, USA, South Africa & all the other allies to kill that fifth soldier. that is a remarkable statistic.

 

When you further take into consideration that the Germans killed approximately 20 million Russians, the USSR,s contribution to the eventual outcome of the conflict was immense.

 

Imagine what would have happened if Hitler had maintained the none aggression pact with Russia & concentrated all that manpower & resource into winning the war on the western front.

 

Personally I can see only one outcome.

[tinfoilhat]

The simple fact remains that four out of five German soldiers that died in battle were killed by the Russians.

 

Which means that it took the combined might of the UK, USA, South Africa & all the other allies to kill that fifth soldier. that is a remarkable statistic.

 

When you further take into consideration that the Germans killed approximately 20 million Russians, the USSR,s contribution to the eventual outcome of the conflict was immense.

 

Imagine what would have happened if Hitler had maintained the none aggression pact with Russia & concentrated all that manpower & resource into winning the war on the western front.

 

Personally I can see only one outcome.

 

We'd have been screwed, and I'm not sure the Americans would have got involved had the Battle of Britain gone the other way and we were invaded. It's one thing crossing 21 miles of water to invade, 2000 miles is another thing altogether.

[mjw47]

Harleyman. Don't try to out think Churchill in war strategy? Last month I walked through the Dublin Fusiliers archway on the corner of St Stephens Green in Dublin city centre. It commemorates those Dublin men who fell at Gallipoli.

 

Somehow I doubt that they would have agreed with your assessment of his tactical abilities.

Another man who interfered too much in matters he was incapable in.

 

Difference being Hitler was a dictator Churchill wasn't. Saved by the system!

[Harleyman]

The simple fact remains that four out of five German soldiers that died in battle were killed by the Russians.

 

Which means that it took the combined might of the UK, USA, South Africa & all the other allies to kill that fifth soldier. that is a remarkable statistic.

 

When you further take into consideration that the Germans killed approximately 20 million Russians, the USSR,s contribution to the eventual outcome of the conflict was immense.

 

Imagine what would have happened if Hitler had maintained the none aggression pact with Russia & concentrated all that manpower & resource into winning the war on the western front.

 

Personally I can see only one outcome.

 

Hitler's non aggression pact with Russia was only a temporary delaying tactic in case he had to deal with Britain and France first.

 

Hitler's main agenda was always to expand the Reich into the east. He called it his plan for Liebensraum or living space for his Aryan peoples.

 

In June 1941 when he decided to attack the USSR he had already dismissed any chance of a threat from Britain as negligible.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2013 at 17:23 ----------

 

Harleyman. Don't try to out think Churchill in war strategy? Last month I walked through the Dublin Fusiliers archway on the corner of St Stephens Green in Dublin city centre. It commemorates those Dublin men who fell at Gallipoli.

 

Somehow I doubt that they would have agreed with your assessment of his tactical abilities.

Another man who interfered too much in matters he was incapable in.

 

Difference being Hitler was a dictator Churchill wasn't. Saved by the system!

 

Churchill like any other leader or military man made some errors. I'm not aware that there was ever anyone in that group who didnt screw up at some time but in early 1942 he well knew what the issues were for Britain if the German army prevailed in Russia.

 

Recent documents have surfaced indictaing that Stalin at that time was considering calling a cease fire and ceding Russian territory in exchange for peace

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2013 at 17:33 ----------

 

I must admit we love a parade. Almost every town has a parade around Independence Day, and Memorial Day, then there's the Rose's on New Years Day, Macys from NYC, and of course St. Pats. But the best of all come from Britain when a Royal does something other than totally upset SF, which is rare, and costs every subject in the nation tenpence each.

 

I'll add to that by saying that the Royal Family cost the individual British taxpayer on avergae about one pound a year.

 

This fallacy that they cost the national economy millions is the biggest load of garbage ever put out

 

In tourism alone they bring in several millions

[mjw47]

Harleyman. I appreciate that Hitler wanted to expand east but there was no need to do so at that point was there? Fight one battle at a time is not a bad plan.

Had he concentrated on ensuring that a second front couldn't be opened up behind him in the west he would have had more chance of being successful in Russia.

 

As to Churchill, when the returned troops voted in the first election after the war they gave their verdict on him.

My father who served throughout the war detested the man & told me that view was commonplace amongst the military.

 

Had it not been for the professional input & influence of Field Marshal Alan Brooke Churchill would have brought disaster upon us.

 

Check out Viscount Alanbrooke's war diary for his view on winnie, didn't rate him that much.

[Hillpig]

You don't think Stalingrad wasn't more pivotal than Kursk ? Could the soviets have survived without American supplies?

 

El Alamein was only pivotal in so much it gave allied forces a base to invade Italy. Which we did. With the Americans.

 

It was pivotal in that we no longer had a threat to our oil supplies, also that we cut off oil from mainland Europe. Stalingrad was hugely important of course, but, to repeat the point, these two battles mark the point were the war changed, after these battles the Nazis were on the decline, slowly and painfully but none the less declining. The US arrived after this, and made a huge contribution. None the less the war had started to go our way, albeit slowly, before they arrived.

 

The Soviets could have survived without US aid, according to Max Hastings.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2013 at 19:00 ----------

 

There was US involvement in El Alamein. Montgomery's overwhelming superiority in tanks and artillery was due to US Lend Lease.

 

Not intending to downgrade Britain's WW2 victories but the Battle of Stalingrad and the Russian victory was in addition to the Battle of Kursk the real turning point in the war.

 

Following these two battles the German army's ability to launch a major offensive was finished and from then on it was a defensive force in a long retreat back to Germany.

 

What happened on the eastern front to the German Forces greatly affected it's ability to operate against the western allies following D-Day

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2013 at 16:31 ----------

 

 

So what you're saying in effect is that D-day could have been carried out without US participation ?

 

Not on that scale, you must remember we are looking at an alternative view of history. My premise is that if neither the US or Japan entered the war, or if they fought each other but no one else Germany and Russia would have effectively cancelled each other out. It is unlikely that either of them would have been able to achieve total victory. The presence, albeit much diminished compared to D Day of a British and Empire expeditionary force at the right time could have made a big difference.

 

The war would not have been over in 1945, More like 1955.

 

I realise this is highly speculative. But imagine what would have happened if Hitler had not declared war on the US.

 

If Churchill had told the US what he probably new, that the Japanese were at sea and likely to attack.

 

The fact that the war tuned out the way it did is subject to hundreds of coincidences and individual judgments.

 

It was not pre ordained that it tuned out the way it did.

[mjw47]

 

[/color]

 

I'll add to that by saying that the Royal Family cost the individual British taxpayer on avergae about one pound a year.

 

This fallacy that they cost the national economy millions is the biggest load of garbage ever put out

 

In tourism alone they bring in several millions

 

Complete fallacy.Of the top eight tourist destination country's in the world only two are monarchies Spain & the UK. Been to Spain on quite a few occasions & will be there again next month, second time this year. Their royalty holds no attraction & I suspect that is true of most tourists.

 

Top three most visited country's are France - way ahead of the rest - the USA & China. Not a crowned head amongst them.

 

In any event financial reasons are the last reason that I object to a monarchy.

It is a medieval anachronistic system which should no longer be tolerated in a grown up society.

 

that any mature adult can allow themselves to be referred to as a 'subject' or a 'commoner' without objection is pathetic.

[Eccentric]

He called it his plan for Liebensraum or living space for his Aryan peoples.

 

Liebensraum = loving space. I fail to see how anyone could be against that, especially at swingers’ clubs.

[buck]

I rather doubt that, Hitler had already attacked Russia, unless Japan had attacked Russia from the east it is highly unlikely that Germany could ever have successfully invaded Russia.

 

The probability is that Germany and Russia would have become involved in a protracted bloodbath that would have gone on for years.

 

Remember the tide in Europe had actually turned before the Yanks arrived, El Alamein had ended the German superiority in North Africa, the Russians had won the battle of Kursk.

 

It may have been possible to come to an accommodation with the Japanese leaving them to face the Americans, we could then have concentrated our forces in Western Europe, it would have been a long bitter conflict. But the outcome was likely to come out in our favour.

 

Please do not take my comments as being disrespectful to the brave men and women of the US who fought and died for freedom. However I have no respect whatsoever for the US politicians such as Trueman who, under the influence of the US military industrial complex manipulated the victory to their own ends at the expense of their allies, particularly the UK.

There was no Trueman.

[SevenRivers]

just interested in peoples different opinions so the question is what will put the 'great' back into great britain?

 

Nigel Farage as Prime Minister.