You lot voted a clown in ---- live with it ....

Oh no we didn't Pete! ;)

So in other words he was right, but from D-day onwards.

I listened to him and tbh he was right about this, apart from the year lol. I mean our influence was a LOT bigger, and if it wasn`t for us before that there would never been a D-day if the battle of Britain was lost.

The media will try and spin this to say something different than how it was said.
As the last British planned large scale offensive in WWII was Market Garden, and was a failiure, mainly due to intelligence being majorly wrong. The Americans and Russians had more men, equipment, and money thrown into the war. Thats not playing down the British and Commonwealth troops in any means, and with the majority of the troops comes the planning and control, simple fact. Thats not saying that we didn`t have decisions, but which nation had the ultimate say???

We won the BoB because the Germans switched from bombing our airfields to our cities, we were on the brink. It's not that we weren't taking alot of them out, but we couldn't replenish our planes or pilots.

That single mistake by them probably cost them the war, ultimately.

Geezer

Very true. But we were on our own (with Commonwealth, Polish, free French etc etc etc).

Think about it, if the Battle of Britain was lost, then no second front. Russia would probably have lost as Germans would use stolen technology. It would be a whole lot different.

BUT through luck and our efforts it didn`t happen, so left the door open for the re-invasion of Europe. Which we couldn`t have done on our todd.


The only areas we were on our own totally was North Africa, Malta and the Atlantic/Med with the Navy, and a few other places in the pacific. Most of the time we werre never far away from the Americans, yes we were under British command, but over seen and directed my Joint staff Eike and some of his British ADVISORS. Monty stuffed it in Holland.

Battle Of Britain: The worry was that if the Germans continued attacking airfields etc, who would crack first. Park and Dowding had real worries about that. Today, we can look back over all of the historical record and see that the Germans never had a chance of pulling it off. as regards planes, we had hundreds stashed in maintenance units to replenish front line units. The biggest worry was pilots. Though compared to us, the Germans were in dep do-do. Servicability rates in their units were crap by BoB day. They had to amalgamate gruppen to put a decent formation in the air.

Brilliant book : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Most-Dangero...9854307&sr=1-1

Pearl harbour: The main targets were the US aircraft carriers. If the USA had lost them @ Pearl, USA would have had to rebuild their entire fleet air infrastructure from scratch and would have had little/no experience of fighting the Japs that led to improved tactics and aircraft designs later in the war. IMO they'd have been on their arses for about two years before they'd be able to mount a serious response. Those extra two years would have seen Japan consolidate their territories across the Pacific and SE Asia. We'd probably have lost India and everything afloat east of Africa in the mean time.

Cameron: IMO: His comment is a slip up. In no way did he intend to belittle efforts before the USA got off the sofa and joined in.

Brown: IMO: The comments Brown made should never have been recorded and certainly not aired. I wonder what off the cuff comments one of us would ahve made just after escaping a harranguing by a demented old biddy.

J.

"Demented ol biddy?" We'll make a Labour politician of you yet;)

Just shows how careful you have to be before making pronouncements in public. It was a unnecessary remark anyway.

I doubt very much however that he would deliberately show any disrespect to our armed forces during WW2.

Of course the US were much better equipped than we were, in numbers as much as anything, but we could hardly be said to be a "junior" partner. We had done pretty well up until then against the Germans anyway.

Les

so are we the junior partner in iraq and afganistan? wonder what the leaders will say about the current campaign in 60 years time?

Yes ;)

But he's only stating the truth - the UK were a "junior" in the great scheme of things

I find all this very interesting and have already admitted I know much less than I should about WW2 history.

Lots of questions but one in particular. Would the USA have considered threatening to nuke Germany or had they capitulated by then?

dl


btw I think Cameron should have bitten his tongue.

Hi David,

I've never seen any mention of it. The Germans were beaten by the time the A bombs came on line in August 1945. Although the Germans fought hard, towards the end they were more tham happy to surrender to the Brits & Americans (they were less keen on long stay in a Gulag!). The same could not be said of the Japanese.

the Japs has a bit of a "No Surrender" policy, like the Apprentice Boys in Londonderry. The only way you could beat them was by killing them.

Cameron should have kept his mouth shut, we know we dont have the man power, money and equipment the US has. Plus - Mistake mentioning ww2 , especially the wrong date!


While we are on ww2 though, does anyone else think Russia isnt mentioned enough?
They never get the praise they deserve. They lost 25 million people in ww2!:eek:

One thing often forgotten about the Battle of Britain and the RAF at that time, we sent 1000's of trainee pilots and crews to the states to get trained so they could fly and fight, without that and those pilots we would have been in bigger trouble and Deutch would likely be our first language.

I think Camoron needs to think a little more carefully about his words before he speaks, at least he hasn't proclaimed himself the saviour of the world yet

As I said-it was an unnecessary remark anyway.

Les

My thoughts exactly!

it is reckoned that the battle for Okinawa (and the fanaticism of the Japanese defence) hardened the Americans attitude to the A bomb - as opposed to the invasion of mainland Japan

Not up for having a better march than them then? Have the X factor judges mentoring the teams?

J.

Canada, not the US. US had a reasonably strict neutrality policy (on the face of it, at least). Canada was where a lot of pilots were sent to be trained. American pilots wanting to volunteer had to sneak across the border into Canada. 'Officially' they were Canadian.

This guy was the first known American pilot to die in WW2. He was already living in the UK by then, having married the Duchess of Warwick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Fiske


I disagree about the language/invasion thing. Britain is pragmatic when it comes to Europe, historically. The Germans would have settled for us being off their backs. An armistice where we don't re-arm and agree to play nice. Hitler's mind was always that "space/room" was eastwards and Russia was where he wanted to fight. Churchill was the difference. He was determined to fight on at any cost. Economically, we would probably have done better to have quit. Though we can discuss whether eventually German or Russian would become our first or second language. ;)

J.

I take your point, but I don't think armistice in 1940 would have been much better that outright capitulation.

True, the Germans would have been delighted to have had the opportunity to take on Stalin without the (diminished) British threat. However, I think it likely that the Nazis would have decided to swallow us up once they had finished with the USSR, if indeed they were successful. Also, what would have been better for the world - we would have been left to helplessly watch the Nazis exterminate every Jew, gypsy, disabled person they came across. They did of course come close to that, but at least we were bombing hell out of them as they did it!