Nonskimmer
Captain
Most big brand Canadian beer is shit too, but not the stuff I like. 
Btw, I love German beer!
Btw, I love German beer!
Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NightHawk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I agree about the American beer it all tastes the same and is too light. The Europeans especially the Germans have been making beer for thousands of years and really have it down to an art. What I like most about it in Germany is every town down to the smallest village has its brewery and whenever I go and visit one I like to taste them all. About a 20 minute drive from my house in Ansbach is a monestary. The monks there still brew there beer the way they did hundreds of years ago and you can buy it in small wooden kegs. It really is great tasting and one of the best beers I have ever had.
parsifal
Colonel
haven't read the thread fully, but for me the most important single battle of the war was also the longest. The battle of the Atlantic. without victory there, nothing else was possible. something the germans were far less aware of than the allies.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
What a load of BS.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
I was doing a search and ended up finding that post you quoted, I just realized it's a really old thread.
Lunatic, still managing to piss people off years later...
Although since his forum name was "Lunatic", i guess its hard to be surprised if the posts seem deranged...
Freebird
Master Sergeant
BoB, El Alamein/Torch and Stalingrad are all very important to the Allies.
I'd say BoB is the most critical, as if Britain throws in the towel in 1940 then the Soviets can't survive Barbarossa.
buffnut453
Captain
Or if they do, it means the Iron Curtain falls over most of Europe once Nazi Germany is defeated, primarily by the USSR. To the victor, the spoils.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
The Soviets cannot survive Barbarossa if Britain isn't in the war.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Without Britain, Germany wouldn't have it's resources drawn into North Afrika and suffering losses both in men and material.
So that means that all those resources (including Rommel) would be available, not to mention all that fuel that was consumed just getting supplies over to the DAK.
So that means that all those resources (including Rommel) would be available, not to mention all that fuel that was consumed just getting supplies over to the DAK.
parsifal
Colonel
what help can Britain provide the USSR in 1941?
To what degree can the garrisons in western Europe be denuded without risk
What logistical support is available to feed move and supply the additional troop[s that might be assumed as possible reinforcements into Barbarossa?
The problems are far more complex than you are assuming.
Germany did not lack for troops in 1941 (at least troop numbers were not the major constraint). The shortages she faced related ultimately to the shortages of raw materials she laboured under, and this would be no different with the British isles under occupation or not. Unless you are thinking Britain was going to abjectly capitulate all her overseas empire following Halifax as well, and her fleet. Only the total defeatists wanted that and in any event most of the RN and other escaping armed forces as well as all the independent dominiions would have disobeyed any such directive from London anyway. india and other imperial holdings are not so certain, but Im inclined that the majority would follw the defiant Churchillians over the weak Halifaxians, no matter what happened in the home islands
The bomber offensive was totally ineffectual in 1941. Western Europe was garrisoned by just two fighter wings and one bomber wing. fighting on the southern flank would continue with increase effort by the dominions.
No additional transport, rail net just as overstretched as always. one million extra hungry useless mouths to feed.
You gotta be kidding.
To what degree can the garrisons in western Europe be denuded without risk
What logistical support is available to feed move and supply the additional troop[s that might be assumed as possible reinforcements into Barbarossa?
The problems are far more complex than you are assuming.
Germany did not lack for troops in 1941 (at least troop numbers were not the major constraint). The shortages she faced related ultimately to the shortages of raw materials she laboured under, and this would be no different with the British isles under occupation or not. Unless you are thinking Britain was going to abjectly capitulate all her overseas empire following Halifax as well, and her fleet. Only the total defeatists wanted that and in any event most of the RN and other escaping armed forces as well as all the independent dominiions would have disobeyed any such directive from London anyway. india and other imperial holdings are not so certain, but Im inclined that the majority would follw the defiant Churchillians over the weak Halifaxians, no matter what happened in the home islands
The bomber offensive was totally ineffectual in 1941. Western Europe was garrisoned by just two fighter wings and one bomber wing. fighting on the southern flank would continue with increase effort by the dominions.
No additional transport, rail net just as overstretched as always. one million extra hungry useless mouths to feed.
You gotta be kidding.
parsifal
Colonel
Sorry, but this just makes me very angry. Britain was not planning to surrender its fleet. it was not planning to surrender its foreign armies. 80% of the forces in the middle East werent even British. There were more than twelve divisions in the dominions and india, almost ready for depployment in 1941, but held back because of shortages in shipping. With no north atlantic run to worry about, where do you think the britiah might employ all that (14 million tons approximartely) of shipping? Less than a million had been allocated for support of the WDF up to that time. With 14 times the logisitc support, the Allies in the med are goinbg to rampage like hell. rommel will not be holidaying in Southern Russia, I can assure you.
parsifal
Colonel
If Russia can withstand Barbarossa with British "support" in 1941, they can just as likely withstand it without so called british "support". what the Russians cant do on their own is win the war.
There was never the slightest hope of the germans winning the 1941, from the strategic position they began in in mid 1941. Fundamental changes, dating back to the mid 1930's would have been needed, most important of which would be changes to their motor vehicle industry and fuel supply situation for them to have any hope of overpowering Russia.
It is doubtful that hitler would even want to invade Russia if Britain was out of the picture, even despite hios manifesto intentions. hitler was an inveterate liar, and the ultimate opportunitist. He went after Russia, not because he said he would in 1923, he did because he could not cow the British...…...With Britian out of the equation, he, like you guys would incorrectly6 assume an opportunity had arisen that he needed to takie advantage of. That no such advantage existed is immaterial.
,
There was never the slightest hope of the germans winning the 1941, from the strategic position they began in in mid 1941. Fundamental changes, dating back to the mid 1930's would have been needed, most important of which would be changes to their motor vehicle industry and fuel supply situation for them to have any hope of overpowering Russia.
It is doubtful that hitler would even want to invade Russia if Britain was out of the picture, even despite hios manifesto intentions. hitler was an inveterate liar, and the ultimate opportunitist. He went after Russia, not because he said he would in 1923, he did because he could not cow the British...…...With Britian out of the equation, he, like you guys would incorrectly6 assume an opportunity had arisen that he needed to takie advantage of. That no such advantage existed is immaterial.
,
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
I tend to agree. I think the Battle of Britain was probably the most important of the war if forced to pick just one. Maybe followed closely by Midway and Stalingrad.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Well, be angry all you want.
The statement I made was in regards to Britain not being engaged in war with the German Reich. No war with Britain (regardless of how it was accomplished) meant that there was nil chance of Italy getting their ass kicked in North Africa, which in turn meant that Germany didn't need to go down there and bail them out.
In regards to this statement:
Hitler may have been a liar, but his hatred of Jews trumped every single bit of rationality the man may have possessed.
Add to that, his firm belief that Marxism was a Jewish invention and you have your reason why Hitler lied to Stalin and attacked him in violation of their non-aggression pact.
Hitler's ultimate goal was to restore Germany to it's pre-WWI borders and eradicate anything Jewish - Communists included.
A herald of this intention would have been in 1935 during negotiations with the British that his rearmament was important to Europe because he was safeguarding them from Communism.
And again, in 1939, when Hitler told in his conversation with Carl Burckhardt, Switzerland's League of Nations representative, that his efforts were aimed at the Soviet Union and "if those in the West are too stupid or too blind to understand this, then I shall be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians to beat the West, and then, after its defeat, turn with all my concerted force against the Soviet Union." and referred to Operation Barbarossa as "the chosen Aryan people against Jewish Bolsheviks."
It is perhaps western history's greatest stroke of luck that Britain held firm and didn't buckle to Hitler, because without Britain's resolve, the Allies would have been in for some very difficult years.
That being said, without Britain being at war with Germany:
There would not have been strategic manpower and equipment placed in France and the Low Countries.
There would have no been the loss of tens of thousands of vehicles in North Africa.
There would not have been the loss of thousands of AFVs in North Akrica.
There would have not been the loss of hundreds of thousands of personnel (KIA, POW, MIA) in North Africa.
There would have not been the loss of thousands of fighters, bombers and transports in North Africa.
There would have not been AFVS, aircraft, munitions and supplies to the Soviet Union.
There would have not been a lend-lease pact brokered (by Britain) between the US and the USSR.
And all those German non-losses would have been poised at the Soviet Union, who is not getting any support from the UK or US.
The full might of Germany would fall on Russia unhindered, with all of of it's Axis Allies, who were also unhindered by non-British intervention and Russia would have to fend for itself without benefit of any AFVs, Aircraft, Munitions or food from the UK or the US.
That's not going to end well for Uncle Joe...
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
So, not having Britain in the war does not mean that Britain is in any way defeated. That would require, if we wound the scenario back to where is neds to start that:
1) There was no attack on Britain by germany
2) There were no attacks on Belgium or the Netherlands, since Britain had given gurantees to both countries for their security. In the case of Belgium, those gurantees went back for more than a century.
3) Bit of an open question on Yugoslavia, but with France and low countries still in the fight, im going to toss a coin and say that the Yugoslavs stay with the western alliance .
4) You have not mentioned the rather inconvenient issue of Greece. I dont know where you are headed with this, apart from a definite move south in a very unpleasant way, but if italy is at war with Greece and there is no German intervention, because they arent at war with the British, Im going to go for a very bad ending for italy in that TO.
5) If the Germans aren't at war with the British because they didn't attack Belgium, Holland France and the Scandinavian countries, they also need to not attack Poland, to avoid war with Britain. Britain had guaranteed the security of all these nations, so Im at a loss as to exactly how Germany is going to avoid war with Britain and then get at the Russians. Beyond this, with France still in the war, Rumania will remain a pro French client, and will give preference to the west over the Axis. Two thirds of her oil will go to the west over Germany.
The only way Germany can deal with Russia is if she deals wirth the west first, and if she does that, she will run foul of Britain. To suppose otherwise is to live in a fantasy land. We used to call it the "Axis wet dream.....a united alliance of European nations against Russia. That was never going to happen once Hitler was in power.
So apart from the fantasy scenario of everybody against Russia under the shining light of german leadership, we have instead the prospect of an isolated and weakened Germany blocked by Poland, not helped by Rumania, not involved in the MTO, not helping or helped by the Italians, with limited supplies of fuel, trying to prosecute a war against russia.
All I can say is...good luck with that.
Or do you want to explain further this dream scenario of yours
1) There was no attack on Britain by germany
2) There were no attacks on Belgium or the Netherlands, since Britain had given gurantees to both countries for their security. In the case of Belgium, those gurantees went back for more than a century.
3) Bit of an open question on Yugoslavia, but with France and low countries still in the fight, im going to toss a coin and say that the Yugoslavs stay with the western alliance .
4) You have not mentioned the rather inconvenient issue of Greece. I dont know where you are headed with this, apart from a definite move south in a very unpleasant way, but if italy is at war with Greece and there is no German intervention, because they arent at war with the British, Im going to go for a very bad ending for italy in that TO.
5) If the Germans aren't at war with the British because they didn't attack Belgium, Holland France and the Scandinavian countries, they also need to not attack Poland, to avoid war with Britain. Britain had guaranteed the security of all these nations, so Im at a loss as to exactly how Germany is going to avoid war with Britain and then get at the Russians. Beyond this, with France still in the war, Rumania will remain a pro French client, and will give preference to the west over the Axis. Two thirds of her oil will go to the west over Germany.
The only way Germany can deal with Russia is if she deals wirth the west first, and if she does that, she will run foul of Britain. To suppose otherwise is to live in a fantasy land. We used to call it the "Axis wet dream.....a united alliance of European nations against Russia. That was never going to happen once Hitler was in power.
So apart from the fantasy scenario of everybody against Russia under the shining light of german leadership, we have instead the prospect of an isolated and weakened Germany blocked by Poland, not helped by Rumania, not involved in the MTO, not helping or helped by the Italians, with limited supplies of fuel, trying to prosecute a war against russia.
All I can say is...good luck with that.
Or do you want to explain further this dream scenario of yours
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
If Germany had not attacked the Europeans and had turned its attention to attacking Russia Britain France etc would have done little if anything to assist Russia as Stalin was loathed by all these states.
Taking that to the next step, Russia would have fallen and I believe that would have been big enough to keep Germany occupied. Running an area that size, rebuilding the economic infrastructure would be a major job.
Taking that to the next step, Russia would have fallen and I believe that would have been big enough to keep Germany occupied. Running an area that size, rebuilding the economic infrastructure would be a major job.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
OK, so let's set the parameters (for the sake of hypothetical) what a British "Loss" (or capitulation) in the BoB might look like, most likely a negotiated settlement.
I think we can both agree that the chance for Germany to successfully invade is virtually nil.
In fact IMO they cannot "win" in the BoB, they lost more aircraft than the British in every week of the battle, vs. an Allied force that produced more pilots & aircraft than the Axis.
So basically the only way to "lose" the BoB is for the British to lose their nerve, and capitulate.
Suppose Halifax is the PM instead of Churchill in 1940, and he decides to cut a deal with Hitler instead of continue fighting a war that his cabinet tells them they can't win, (ie. Liberate Europe) and will likely see the British cities bombed into rubble. Britain can't defend Egypt and East Africa colonies vs overwhelmingly superior Italian forces, and risks the Asian ones too. They also face a crippling U-boat onslaught.
Since we're discussing the BoB specifically, let's assume that Britain decides to seek armistice at the beginning of Aug, 1940
So suppose Halifax signed an armistice, what might the terms be?
1. Britain ceases fighting, keeps her colonies & navy, but ends any blockade or embargo.
2. Axis powers are free to ship or transport without restriction.
3. The Kings of Norway, Denmark, Belgium & Netherlands are restored, governments are free, but are neutral, disarmed and Germany has a veto over their foreign policy.
4. The Axis powers will declare war on the Soviets, after which a free Poland (1914 borders) will be allowed.
5. Britain agrees not to hinder the war against the Soviets or interfere in Eastern Europe.
6. The League of nations mandate for Palestine & Lebanon is transferred to Italy.
7. Djibouti is transferred to Italy, but Italy withdraws from all other British colonies, agrees to a non-aggression pact with Britain.
What would Britain get?
They'd avoid a costly and devastating war, restore the governments of conquered European nations, and avoid any loss of colonies. (Except for one minor one.)
Shortround6
Major General
Not sure how that works, Germany is not going to leave Poland alone. The Whole Polish Corridor/Danzig thing.
IF they leave Poland alone the attack route into the Soviet Union is from Romania.
Which certainly cuts down the area the Russians have to guard/defend (assuming the Germans respect Polish neutrality) and the Dnieper river is a bigger obstacle because it is harder to go around it?
parsifal
Colonel
Not sure how that works, Germany is not going to leave Poland alone. The Whole Polish Corridor/Danzig thing.
IF they leave Poland alone the attack route into the Soviet Union is from Romania.
And if they attack through Rumania, a French client in 1939 also bankrolled by Britain and given gurantees of protection like all the other minor European neutrals , they run foul of th franco british alliance. After the gurantees given to Poland (which was in effect even before the formal announcement), Germany will be at war with Britain and France. If you want to rewind history to before munich, whare are you going to go????? This is a pointless and very silly line of argument to be pursuing in my view...…..how does a Tiger lose its stripes?
We are right back where we started
After Munich nobody trusted germany, and nobody was prepared to make any more concessions. Hitlers lying and bullying wewre catching up with him. Stalin entertained a revival of the old entente with the west, which was initially ignored but at the last minute Britain wanted to revive as well. By the time the aallies woke up to the possibilities of a Russian alliance it was too late, and the Russians had made separate (and catastrophicv) arrangements with the germans
Germany was seen as public enemy number 1, the USSR was an annoying distraction a backwater essentially. Any attack on Russia has to go through neutral states.....the Baltic is covered by Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all of whom sought some form of solace from the allied powers.
Germany after Munich is an isolated state. She was winning, but this 'victory came at the cost of being isolated, and worse on an ustoppable collision course with France and Britain. Everybody knew it was coming though different nations reacted in different ways. The US hoped to saty out of it, and profit by selling guns to everyone, the neutral formed a separate bloc, seeking the protection of the remaining great power supporters of the League, but feigniing neutrslity to avoid war at all costs. They couldn't, mostly because at various times they found themselves in the way. Britain spent most of the time in the lead up to war, runningaround Europe writing cheques she could not honour, playing for time, and making valiant attempts to contain Germany. The aim was no longer appeasement with a road to peace, it was delay with a road to war, and anyone who wouold side with Britain to stop the germans were friends of the British.
Any other appraisal of this is living in a dreamworld.
IF they leave Poland alone the attack route into the Soviet Union is from Romania.
And if they attack through Rumania, a French client in 1939 also bankrolled by Britain and given gurantees of protection like all the other minor European neutrals , they run foul of th franco british alliance. After the gurantees given to Poland (which was in effect even before the formal announcement), Germany will be at war with Britain and France. If you want to rewind history to before munich, whare are you going to go????? This is a pointless and very silly line of argument to be pursuing in my view...…..how does a Tiger lose its stripes?
We are right back where we started
After Munich nobody trusted germany, and nobody was prepared to make any more concessions. Hitlers lying and bullying wewre catching up with him. Stalin entertained a revival of the old entente with the west, which was initially ignored but at the last minute Britain wanted to revive as well. By the time the aallies woke up to the possibilities of a Russian alliance it was too late, and the Russians had made separate (and catastrophicv) arrangements with the germans
Germany was seen as public enemy number 1, the USSR was an annoying distraction a backwater essentially. Any attack on Russia has to go through neutral states.....the Baltic is covered by Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all of whom sought some form of solace from the allied powers.
Germany after Munich is an isolated state. She was winning, but this 'victory came at the cost of being isolated, and worse on an ustoppable collision course with France and Britain. Everybody knew it was coming though different nations reacted in different ways. The US hoped to saty out of it, and profit by selling guns to everyone, the neutral formed a separate bloc, seeking the protection of the remaining great power supporters of the League, but feigniing neutrslity to avoid war at all costs. They couldn't, mostly because at various times they found themselves in the way. Britain spent most of the time in the lead up to war, runningaround Europe writing cheques she could not honour, playing for time, and making valiant attempts to contain Germany. The aim was no longer appeasement with a road to peace, it was delay with a road to war, and anyone who wouold side with Britain to stop the germans were friends of the British.
Any other appraisal of this is living in a dreamworld.
