Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Sigh : only bombers could attack airfields north of London IF,IF they were protected by fighters .And London was the limit for the German fighters . Thus the airfields north of London were safe even without CH .
And the defense of Britain against air attacks was not the mission of FC only : after the war the BC lobby said that the 40000 civilian deaths from the Blitz were the responsibility of the politicians who refused to give more money to BC .The BC lobby said that if BC was strong enough in 1940 to destroy German cities the LW would not have attacked British cities : something as the MAD doctrine of the Cold War .
 
Irrelevant : you mentioned something that was a myth : Britain was not saved by a few fighter pilots .
 
Doctrines are subordinate to the circumstances .
Biplanes could only attack if there were opponents, if they had sufficient fuel, sufficient ammunition, if they had the order to attack, if, if ,...

So, in your world, the Battle of Britain doesn't really happen because FC retreats and refuses to fight and the Luftwaffe doesn't go after them. Sounds something like this:

 

Why would Luftwaffe bombers need to be protected by fighters if FC is stuck on the ground because it doesn't know the raid is coming? Without radar, the Observer Corps have no idea where or when a raid might develop. Their ability to spot raids would be greatly diminished. How, then, would FC stations be alerted that a raid was incoming?

Please answer me that.

P.S. BC never had a mission to defend British airspace. FC did have that mission. Deterrence is not defence...deterrence is a preventative measure seeking to avoid attack, defence is an active measure required in case of attack. Stop your tortured twisting of soundbites.
 
Last edited:
Chamberlain made Winston PM .
No he didnt, you keep stating your latest idea as a fact. It is extremely tiresome. You never back anything up with any facts, you just state another baseless idea, you just found out when Chamberlain died yesterday.
 
Irrelevant : you mentioned something that was a myth : Britain was not saved by a few fighter pilots .

In your tortured opinion. However, you've yet to answer a number of key questions asked of you. So put up or shut up. Either start answering questions with reason and facts rather than restating your opinions and absolute statements that entirely lack evidence.
 
Doctrines are subordinate to the circumstances .

Wrong again. Doctrines are guiding principles. Reread what I quoted above from the USAF's own source material.

Biplanes could only attack if there were opponents, if they had sufficient fuel, sufficient ammunition, if they had the order to attack, if, if ,...

Well, duh, Capt Obvious ... although orders to attack weren't always necessary. None of that, however, obviates my rebuttal to the stupid claim that no principles of air power have stood the test of time.

Chamberlain made Winston PM .

I'm pretty sure the King made Winston PM.
 
What is your argument or is it just a series of contradictions? There was a war because Germany invaded Poland, are you now saying Germany doesnt invade Poland? Why?
Sigh : even a student of the LSE would understand this .
1 There were elections in 1935 won by the Tories but with a smaller majority than in 1931
2 Elections were planned for November 1939,but it was dubious that the Tories would win them ,
3 Because of the DOW, these elections were delayed
4 If the war was over in September 1940 because of a British surrender, there would be no longer a reason to delay the elections and the Commons would be dissolved .
5 No one could predict the outcome of these elections.
6 Germany would not take the risk that the new government would be hostile to Germany and would demand a dictatorial government .
7 As such a government could not survive without German support,a German army of occupation would be needed .
QED .
 
Doctrine/s are not absolutes, at least they shouldn't be.

They are, in an ideal world, guidelines or best practices should be able to be violated by a junior officer IF the junior officer has good and sufficient reason/s for doing so and can state the existing doctrine and why the junior officer felt it didn't apply in the particular situation. Just saying he didn't fell like it is not good enough.

Unfortunately in an imperfect world doctrine sometimes becomes Dogma.
In the RAF Bomber Command had their own Dogma which they held to both during and after the war. It resulted in a lot of deaths of British service men (and merchant seamen) and lost battles which BC stubbornly refused to admit any fault. Anything BC said at the time or in the years after WW II needs a very careful examination as they were in full blame shifting mode.
 

And it would be a lot better if you'd stop making such bald assumptions. The following numbers offer alternative interpretations to your "statement = fact" nonsense:

#4: A negotiated peace settlement is not the same as surrender...as you've been told numerous times.
#5: That's your assumption. If the war went so badly that Churchill was removed from power, it's entirely possible that the election results COULD be predicted.
#6: There's a fair amount of distance between dictatorial and compliant...and both government options were viable.
#7: Again (as has been pointed out repeatedly), this all depends on the peace negotiations and whether German demands essentially forced Britain into a treaty that supported Nazi war aims. If this was presented as the only viable option other than invasion, it's entirely possible that Parliament and the people would have gone along with the plan (reinstating Edward VIII was also on the table to help ensure Britain's compliance).
 
So the British surrender and then hold an election, if Germany gives them permission? Can you spend more than 2 seconds on these theories. The declaration of war was more significant to the UK than it was to Germany, with that declaration the UK government took almost unlimited powers, including those on the constitution. The Emergency Powers Act was passed on 24 August 1939 in reaction to Nazi Soviet pact. After Sept 3 1939 the UK had and used far more powers over its people than Germany did. I am getting a bit irked by people who dont know the UK constitution or its history glibly lecturing me on it. No one "makes" a British prime minister, after an election the monarch invites a member to form a government.

 
Hence why reinstating Edward VIII would be a canny move by Germany.
They wouldnt get the chance. I dont know where the conversation came from or is going, the LW couldnt eliminate the RAF or force it to pull back, the navy was perfectly able to defeat any invasion without air cover but losses would be high and Germany couldnt cut UK supply lines. It is a scenario based on the UK just laying down its arms to see what happens next.
 

So you agree with our argumentative friend that the Battle of Britain was irrelevant?
 

Users who are viewing this thread