Most Significant Battle In Britain.

[Gaius Octavius]

phil25:

 

What was the point of your pen-ultimate sentence? Did it make you feel good? Would you like it if I said that you are a personage with a paper dumper?

 

OK, I am wrong, case closed for me.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

What oil and raw materials in the early 40s?

 

There's a place called the Middle East. It has lots of oil, and can keep a nation in the air, moving on the ground, and afloat in the sea for a very very long time during a war. That oil.

 

Nor would The U.S. leave its markets in their hands. What markets? The Greater Reich might have offered even greater markets and rewards?

 

Actually, the Third Reich didn't plan on opening a market for the U.S. They planned on taking over the U.S, not offer markets.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[tflex]

So tflex - the french threw out the Germans in the 40s without outside help did they - just through the efforts of the Maquis/resistance?

 

Where did you get that from? just pull it out of the air? certainly not from my post.

 

With Britain occupied there was no where for anyone to invade from, even if the US had not turned further into isolationism or been preoccupied with a Pacific war. Would the US have supplied a british independence movement/resistance? I doubt it, frankly. Indeed, the US might have got a pro-German government at some stage if the Reich had been successful.

 

Germany, simply did not have the vast resources of America and Russia, then add to it a stiff British resistance assuming Germany occupied Britian, and the disasterous results of Russia's occupation would not have changed, but simply spread Germany's military too thin. Sure the war might have taken longer, more casualties for the allies, but the defeat of Germany would have been inevitable anyway. I just don't see how German troops could have kept England under control for too long, as they did in France; the British would have put up a much stronger resistance than the French could ever hope. Also, I'm sure the U.S. and Russia would have found a way to penetrate from the east or just a mass troop landing in Britian or France, and definately could count on British support on the ground once they landed.

 

Anyways, I'm voting for the Battle of Hastings.

[phil25]

BTW, I thought the defeat of the Spanish Armada was the most important event. Without it, there would have been no Scottish Enlightenment, no John Locke, and no Adam Smith.

 

Until now I had never thought that there might have been a GOOD side to the Armada!!

 

Although...maybe Holland would then be what Britain is today? Perhaps the American Dutch colonies would have declared independence from Mother Netherlands? Hugo Grotius and William of Orange standing in the places of John Locke and Elizabeth? West Indies Trading Company Day in the US instead of Thanksgiving? Spinoza instead of Puritans? Hmmm....maybe the defeat of the Spanish Armada wasn't ALL good.

 

In terms of 1588 - it was England's Elizabeth and a rather inept force under leicester which helped keep the United Provinces afloat. They had already broken away from the Spanish Netherlands under William the Silent.

 

With the Armada successful, Parma would quickly have supressed the remaining embers of revolt. William of Orange (if you mean William III of England) was a Stuart in part. He would not have been born if the Armada had achieved Philip II's aims!! If you meant William the Silent - he was dead by 1588, assassinated in Delft.

 

So none of what you hypothesise is remotely likely.

 

A of S

 

You picked up my question, "What oil and raw materials in the early 40s? " You missed my point I think. I was countering a suggestion that the US would not have abandoned ITS oil and raw materials. I don't think the US was active in Persia in the 30s/40s so in no way were the resources a particular US interest. Persia was part of the british sphere of interest. That was my point.

 

Actually, the Third Reich didn't plan on opening a market for the U.S. They planned on taking over the U.S, not offer markets.

 

Where did you read that? Hitler had no plans for such action - how could an invasion of the US have been mounted with 1940s technology? From what base? Hitler talked of many things and rambled in his Table Talk but that was not policy. besides for the next few years Germany would have been pre-occupied with Russia.

 

tflex

 

You question my statement, "the French threw out the Germans in the 40s without outside help did they - just through the efforts of the Maquis/resistance?"

 

 

I was responding to your suggestion in an earlier post that a British resistance under German occupation might have been effective and eventually have gained independence. I simply pointed out, in rebuttal, that it was not the case in France in the period 1940-44 even with British and US aid. An invasion was necessary.

 

You now write:

 

Germany, simply did not have the vast resources of America and Russia, But it came very close to taking Moscow even with a war on two fronts!!

 

...then add to it a stiff British resistance assuming Germany occupied Britian..." But a stiff resistance based on what? Who would have supplied it? By what means? From what bases?

 

besides, if you read my posts you'll see I argue strongly that occupation is NOT the most likely outcome of german victory in 1940 IMHO. An appeasing, pro-German Government in the UK is much more likely... and would probably have been more soundly based than Vichy. Any resistance would have been comparatively small scale in my view, akin to IRA terrorism.

 

Sure the war might have taken longer, more casualties for the allies...

 

What allies? With Britain out of the war and probably making paece with Germany?

 

...but the defeat of Germany would have been inevitable anyway. Only if a european War had continued. Russia might have been a lot to swallow and i could see a situation as set out in the novel "Fatherland" having developed.

 

I just don't see how German troops could have kept England under control for too long...

 

As i say no need, with Churchill out and either a Halifax or pro-fascist Moseley Government in. The bulk of the UK population might have considered the end of an unwinnable war; the end of bombing; the retention of the empire overseas, as good things. The Munich attitudes, pro-appeasement and ant-war would probably have re-emerged for pragmatic reasons. No opposition to speak of to Germany, no need for occupation!!

 

... the British would have put up a much stronger resistance than the French could ever hope.

 

On what you base that other than prejudice I cannot think. It sounds sentimental rather than rational!!

 

Also, I'm sure the U.S. and Russia would have found a way to penetrate from the east ... You assume a US in the war - which they did not join until December 1941. Britain stood alone from 1940 summer to June 1941 when Hitler invaded Russia. The US was only tangentially involved. If russia had been effectively knocked out in late 41, there might have been no one to ally with.

 

...or just a mass troop landing in Britian or France... From what base pray?

 

... and definately could count on British support on the ground once they landed.

 

Tell me more. I wonder?

 

GO - my comment on isolation got widowed from its parent thought. It was part of my rationale for why I don't think we can assume the US would necessarily have declared war on a Germany that showed no hostile intention and with Europe neutralised.

 

Phil

[Kosmo]

I think we are a little bit off target. There is no guarantee that if the germans would have defeat the RAF Britain will make peace. With RAF out of the way bombing was easier, but still antiaircraft fire and passive defense would have made the german bombers have less impact. German bombers were designed for tactical role so they had small range and small payload. They did not have tactics, equipment or training to carry large bombing raids even in areas they could reach. Also the german fighters were in small numbers and could cover only SE England so thay could not provide cover for bombers to more distant areas where RAF fighters did not took part in the BoB. The much heavier british-american bombing raids did not impact german war production until january 1945.

So, fighter production and pilot training could not be stopped by germans thru bombing and during the winter the british would build up the airforce.

Even if the germans would have defeated the RAF (a victory meaning destruction of fighter airplanes and airports in SE) in BoB the war would have continued the same.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Kosmo

[M. Porcius Cato]

In terms of 1588 - it was England's Elizabeth and a rather inept force under leicester which helped keep the United Provinces afloat. They had already broken away from the Spanish Netherlands under William the Silent.

No kidding. How is this relevant?

 

With the Armada successful, Parma would quickly have supressed the remaining embers of revolt.

I doubt the Spanish could have dealt with two revolts--the one in Britain and the one in the Netherlands. Once the Inquisition moved to Britain (as it had to the Netherlands) moderates would have become radicalized, and the Spanish would have still had to deal with William's son, who defeated the Spanish several times and forced them to sign an armistice.

 

If you meant William the Silent - he was dead by 1588, assassinated in Delft.

I did mean William I (the Silent), prince of Orange. His murder in 1588 is also completely irrelevant. The premise was that he would have been celebrated by a wider audience if--with their future British rivals crippled by the Spanish--the Dutch had filled the vacuum left by the downfall of Elizabeth and, not having three Anglo-Dutch wars to fight, the Dutch Republic had enjoyed the widespread expansion that Britain had after the defeat of the Armada.

[phil25]

I really question your conclusions Cato - and William was assassinated before 1588 (1584 - I think offhand - in the Pinzenhof, Delft). He was a truely great man, and I have stood both before his grave and in the place where he was shot.

 

With his death, Elizabeth became the "sun" of the Protestant cause - and a reluctant one at that!! Had the Armada been successful and she captured - and one assumes beheaded (for crimes against monarchy maybe!!) then i think the Protestant cause would have lost its way.

 

Spain would have gained a huge boost in morale. Parma would have set about the Low Countries with even more of a will, and i suspect England would have settled back into the old ways and the old faith - especially in the North which was still largely catholic anyway.

 

But perhaps we'll just have to disagree. After all, neither of us can prove the other wrong!! But I take a pessimistic view of that particular counter-factual I think things stood on a knife-edge in 1588 and a single push could have changed things.

 

NOT that I think the Armada ever had a chance, hence why I don't see it as the MOST "decisive" battle.

 

Phil

 

Kosmo

 

The difference between us is that I don't believe that Hitler needed to continue very much of anything once the RAF had lost.

 

the psychological impact of defeat on the British population would have been one factor. The other would have been politicians - many of whom had never wanted a war - seeing no prospect of and end to fighting, no way of winning and no war aims - what were they fighting for any more. If Hitler had offered the terms which were on the table - a free hand in Europe in return for not touching the empire of the Royal Navy - then I think a Halifax, a Butler or someone similar would have accepted them before long. probably sooner rather than later in fact.

 

Later we might have had Edward VIII back, especially if a fascist Government had been elected at an early date in peacetime.

 

Churchill would have gone the day the RAF could not fight back - he nearly went - in fact - before France had fallen!! Without him, I suspect, the nation would have lost its confdence and martial spirit.

 

Remember, Hitler halted the panzers outside Dunkirk, did little really to prevent the evacuation. No REAL invasion plans were ever set up. Hitler did not expect to have to invade - nor did he want to. He half admired Britain (half resented and was jealous of her too) but his world view did not include a defeated Anglo-saxon power, and his eyes were on his true prey, in the East.

 

So while continued bombing of cities might have helped soften up Britain had there been a delay in achieving an armistice and then a treaty, I don't see any of the rest of your points as relevant. The Government would not have attempted to re-arm, unless it was to send forces to Russia to assist Germany!!

 

We were lucky - VERY very lucky.

 

Phil

[Pertinax]

" I wish to draw all Aryan blood to our cause, so we will never quarrel again" Perhaps I misquote Hitler( or perhaps shift context from Scandinavia) , but I think Phil's later remark regarding admiration and jealousy is very apposite. The Nazi officer caste that was manufactured at Bad Tolz, mimicked not only Himmler's bizzare love of the Arthurian legend but took up "country pursuits" in emulation of the British (English) self assured , rural haughtiness.No wonder Hitler struggled with vegetarianism.

Mrs Simpsons Husband would happily have paraded himself, and his excellent casual tailoring , as pro German monarch-I suppose his defence must be stupidity and veniality.

[miguel]

Is it true that the battle of Britain in 1940 brought the most serious destruction to Britain?

[longbow]

Im sure it did,the London Blitz carried on for a while after the BOB (night raids only).But it wasnt only London what took a lot of damage,most city's were repeatedly hit by bombers,i think Coventry was hit especially hard.

 

Longbow

[phil25]

Most of the major cities in Britain got a pounding - Coventry was very badly hit; but Plymouth lost its historic centre, Liverpool, Portsmouth, and many more. Civilian casualties were also heavy - though fortunately less than predictions before the start of the war when 1 million deaths in the first few weeks were feared.

 

The "doodle-bug" V1 and later the V2 rocket bombs caused guite a lot of damage and more casualties from mid-1944 onwards.

 

Phil

[Gaius Octavius]

Since Germany didn't have the capital ships to confront the Royal Navy in the Channel nor the assets required to transport and supply the army that might have attempted an invasion, I wonder if the military and naval chiefs would have allowed the government to accept a treaty or a surrender. Would the USA have allowed it? Could the Germans muster an army to cross and occupy Britain without weakening their positions elsewhere? I don't think that the British spirit was broken by the bombings, but rather stiffened. I believe that the British people did not want another war on the continent, considering the treasure expended in WWI, but would they have accepted a surrender of their nation? Would (or could) there have been a military putsch?

 

The British had more aircraft after the Blitz than they had before. They continued to receive raw materials and manufactures and food, albeit at a reduced rate.

[phil25]

There was a certain "defeatism in the British High Command in 1940.

 

Don't forget almost the whole of the Army's equipment had been left in France when the troops evacuated Dunkirk. There was only one, even moderatley fully equipped division in Britain and that was, I think, Canadian!!

 

The principal commanders - Gort was somewhat discredited, Brooke had yet to establish his reputation as a strategist; Montgomery and Alexander were comparatively junior and Brooke was not yet in a position to be their mentor. Men like Ironside were really not up to it.

 

If the Bof B had been lost, Dowding would have been even less influential than he was as victor (don't forget he was thrown out even having won).

 

The Naval men would have been more concerned with saving the Fleet - maybe getting it to Canada or the US rather than scuttling it or seeing it fall into German hands.

 

But the key consideration, in my view, is how a "coup" - because that is what you are talking about - would have been staged.

 

Churchill, with the air battle lost would have been a spent force. What would he continue the war with? Chamberlain was an appeaser, Halifax and Butler pro- a negotiated peace (Butler had almost come a cropper trying to negotiate one already).

 

Who would have been the Army's placemen - an outright coup with a military Government would, I think I am right in saying, have been impossible in 1940 britain, as it would have left the king-Emperor in an impossible situation. Had he not backed the Army - and knowing George VI, I doubt he would have done so - such a military junta wiuld in any case have been illegal.

 

But on the right, Moseley or Fuller would have been just as likely to be pro-German and seek a negotiated peace. Even the radicals, such as Lloyd George (premier 1916-22) were pro an armistice.

 

No, on balance, I think the Services would have gone along with the Government line and accepted a peace settlement quietly, which left the Fleet in being, the Empire (less perhaps the former German African colonies) largely intact, and Britain independent outside Europe. They would have had no other choice.

 

But please come back at me if you think I have misprepresented the facts.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

In the event of a loss at the BoB, wouldn't someone like Oswald Moseley (Eighth Earl of Sidcup?) have been a threat to British independence? He was a frightful fascist and lifelong European unionist. Backed by the Nazis and their sympathasizers in the House of Lords, what would have prevented Moseley from turning a merely spineless government of appeasers into a full-fledged Vichy-style 'neutral state'?

[WotWotius]

In the event of a loss at the BoB, wouldn't someone like Oswald Moseley (Eighth Earl of Sidcup?) have been a threat to British independence? He was a frightful fascist and lifelong European unionist. Backed by the Nazis and their sympathasizers in the House of Lords, what would have prevented Moseley from turning a merely spineless government of appeasers into a full-fledged Vichy-style 'neutral state'?

 

Even King (former king during the Battle of Britain) Edward VIII was a keen sympathasizer of Mosley.

 

I am curious to know whether or not Mosley met Hitler--I vaguely remember being told he did. Does anybody know the fine details of this event?