| Most important battle in British history ? 09:05 - May 26 with 13092 views | Keno |
I thought I try and raise the intellectual standard today with a little rhetorical question. I was watching an old series War & Remembrance in which comment is passed that El Alamein will be the last battle fought by 'the British' (a term used loosely as there was acknowledgement paid to the part paid by 'Empire')
I immediately thought well actually I guess the Falklands probably was 'our last war', although that could be argued as we got a lot of help from the Yanks
Anyway got me thinking which historically could be argued to be the most important/siginificant battle?
Ashdown
Hastings
Agincourt
Naseby
Culloden
Waterloo
Amiens
Cable Street
El Alamein
Feel free to add other!!
I doubt there is a right or wrong answer but there are several historians on here and I thought it might make for an interesting thread
|  |
| |  |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 15:25 - May 28 with 2221 views | HARRY10 |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 15:02 - May 28 by lightuser |
That edge is getting really blunt now...and tiresome.
It could be argued that Mussillini's decision to enter the war cost the German's the war because Hitler had to send a Korp to Africa that he should have used in Russia.
Therefore, it was the Brits that won it by "largely doing nothing" I suppose and getting lucky "as usual".
Sarcasm off. |
It could be argued, but to no credible effect.
The number of German troops in North Africa would not have shifted the balnce in Germanies attempt to defeat Russia, nor realistically to keep hold of any oil fields seized.
Germanies ultimste defeat was never any questin of if, but when - on the simple basis of the size of thise opposed to it. Russia, the British Empire, the French Empire and eventually the US
WW2 was much as WW1, in as much as Germany was fighting for her 'place in the sun' against those who already had theirs. A similar situation was ingoing with Japan, as it sought to gain access to oil and minerals it's developing industry needed.
Nothing new, as the economic and political battles over rubber in the 1920/30's demonstrate. And despite the various alliances, countries do not have friends........they have interests, that's all. |  | | |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 16:10 - May 28 with 2196 views | nodge_blue |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 14:13 - May 28 by HARRY10 |
That is bizarre to say the least - and smacks of muddleing (making up) 'facts to back a flawed narrative.
Why would Atlee be talking of Nov 2nd when Hitler had already postponed Operation Sealion on September 27th ?
Enigma messages were altready being read by Sept 1939, and the Luftwaffe's before the Battle of Britain.
The troops were sent to North Africa in August 1940 during the height of the Battle of Britain - the German Africa Korps did not arrive until until Feruary 1941.
Challenge my understanding of these events, that is part of a forum, but have the courtesey to others, and those who fought and died, to check your facts first......something you clearly feel has no importance, or requirement. [Post edited 28 May 2021 15:08]
|
Harry - why do you think Im making it up when I said I was quoting from a biography.
That is Churchill - A life by Martin Gilbert.
p681
"Throughout that week (October) the German bombing was severe.....The greatest danger lay in a German invasion being launched at this moment of continuous and destructive bombardment. On October 27, however, a German top-secret radio message, sent by Enigma to the German forces gathered at the Channel Ports for the invasion of Britain, instructed them 'yo continue their training according to plan'. The message was immediately picked up by a radio listening post in Britain....thos who then interpreted the message concluded that invasion could hardly be immediate if training was still to continue.
On October 28, photographic reconnaissance...detected a considerable movement of German shipping Eastward away from Britain. This combined with the previous days message was decisive.
At Chequers on Nov 2 , Colville (apologies I did say Attlee), who did not know the reason, noted in his diary that Churchill 'now thinks the invasion is off"
Churchills relief was considerable."
p666
"Each day during the last week of June and the first week of July, Churchill discussed anti-invasion plans with his advisers, suggesting areas of urgent research and immediate preparation, visiting the beaches on which the Germans might land, and meeting the divisional commanders whose task would be to repel the invader."
Does that sound like someone who thought it was all a bluff and totally out of the question that it could happen?
So those are my facts. I had already presented them as such. There was a very real perceived threat of invasion throughout 1940 only for Churchill to conclude in November it wouldn't happen.
I do indeed hate revision of history. I think its very dangerous for alsorts of reasons. But I cant see how you can dispute what Ive written. It was you suggesting that there was never going to be an invasion and that Churchill merely used the threat to keep the public on their toes. i think that is more of a disservice and a distortion than what Ive written.
You wrote:
"in Churchill's view, "the great invasion scare" was "serving a most useful purpose" by "keeping every man and woman tuned to a high pitch of readiness". He did not think the threat credible.
Not true. He may have thought it worthwhile to keep the public on alert but he certainly thought the threat credible as detailed above.
And the bits about going to an invasion footing late summer I can also quote from the same book too if you like.
[Post edited 28 May 2021 16:50]
|  |
| |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 17:53 - May 28 with 2139 views | HARRY10 |
I might suggest that the idea of putting up evidence is to support your case, not refute it.
Your dates conflict with "On 17 September, he sent out a directive to the three armed services informing them of Sea Lion's delay"
You have not explained why a part of 2nd armoured division were sent away from Britain to North Africa in August 1940 if an invasion was considered a possibility.
The reality wsas that it never was a possibility, given the logistics involved, Both sides of the channel were fully aware of this, as
"In Memoirs of WWII, Churchill stated, "Had the Germans possessed in 1940 well trained [and equipped] amphibious forces their task would still have been a forlorn hope in the face of our sea and air power. In fact they had neither the tools or the training".
and
"As early as 14 August 1940, Hitler had told his generals that he would not attempt to invade Britain if the task seemed too dangerous, before adding that there were other ways of defeating the UK than invading."
"Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, believed the invasion could not succeed and doubted whether the German air force would be able to win unchallenged control of the skies; nevertheless he hoped that an early victory in the Battle of Britain would force the UK government to negotiate, without any need for an invasion.[
Adolf Galland, commander of Luftwaffe fighters at the time, claimed invasion plans were not serious and that there was a palpable sense of relief in the Wehrmacht when it was finally called off.
Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt also took this view and thought that Hitler never seriously intended to invade Britain; he was convinced that the whole thing was a bluff to put pressure on the British government to come to terms following the Fall of FranceGerman naval staff produced a study on the possibility of an invasion of Britain and concluded that it required two preconditions, air and naval superiority, neither of which Germany ever had.
Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz believed air superiority was not enough and admitted, "We possessed neither control of the air or the sea; nor were we in any position to gain it."
Grand Admiral Erich Raeder thought it would be impossible for Germany to attempt an invasion until the spring of 1941
Elsewhere the German movement of military and commercial shipping away from the close channe; ports had already been observed in the third week of September, well before the date you quote. the latter I suspect because of the crippling effect it was having on the German war economy.
It can be difficult for some to see long held beliefs in a new light. As suggested, a look at Operation Fortitude and the great lengths it took long after D-Day might give you the thought that WW2 was a bit more complicated than some 1950's British films would have you believe. And a lot more cynical, as
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amiens-Raid-Secrets-Revealed-Operation/dp/0955473527 | | | |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 18:41 - May 28 with 2123 views | nodge_blue |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 17:53 - May 28 by HARRY10 |
I might suggest that the idea of putting up evidence is to support your case, not refute it.
Your dates conflict with "On 17 September, he sent out a directive to the three armed services informing them of Sea Lion's delay"
You have not explained why a part of 2nd armoured division were sent away from Britain to North Africa in August 1940 if an invasion was considered a possibility.
The reality wsas that it never was a possibility, given the logistics involved, Both sides of the channel were fully aware of this, as
"In Memoirs of WWII, Churchill stated, "Had the Germans possessed in 1940 well trained [and equipped] amphibious forces their task would still have been a forlorn hope in the face of our sea and air power. In fact they had neither the tools or the training".
and
"As early as 14 August 1940, Hitler had told his generals that he would not attempt to invade Britain if the task seemed too dangerous, before adding that there were other ways of defeating the UK than invading."
"Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, believed the invasion could not succeed and doubted whether the German air force would be able to win unchallenged control of the skies; nevertheless he hoped that an early victory in the Battle of Britain would force the UK government to negotiate, without any need for an invasion.[
Adolf Galland, commander of Luftwaffe fighters at the time, claimed invasion plans were not serious and that there was a palpable sense of relief in the Wehrmacht when it was finally called off.
Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt also took this view and thought that Hitler never seriously intended to invade Britain; he was convinced that the whole thing was a bluff to put pressure on the British government to come to terms following the Fall of FranceGerman naval staff produced a study on the possibility of an invasion of Britain and concluded that it required two preconditions, air and naval superiority, neither of which Germany ever had.
Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz believed air superiority was not enough and admitted, "We possessed neither control of the air or the sea; nor were we in any position to gain it."
Grand Admiral Erich Raeder thought it would be impossible for Germany to attempt an invasion until the spring of 1941
Elsewhere the German movement of military and commercial shipping away from the close channe; ports had already been observed in the third week of September, well before the date you quote. the latter I suspect because of the crippling effect it was having on the German war economy.
It can be difficult for some to see long held beliefs in a new light. As suggested, a look at Operation Fortitude and the great lengths it took long after D-Day might give you the thought that WW2 was a bit more complicated than some 1950's British films would have you believe. And a lot more cynical, as
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amiens-Raid-Secrets-Revealed-Operation/dp/0955473527 |
The second chunk of your reply is all about how the Germans perceived their own chances and has little bearing on Britains own perceived threat. And ultimately there was a reason they didn't eventually invade lol. And that was indeed because they didnt have the air superiority or the naval power.
All these factors and permutations were probably being assessed and revised on a daily basis. A bit like now with our covid situation, somethings seem more certain one day, but less so the next.
But it's clear Britain lived that year under a serious invasion threat. There is no basis to suggest otherwise.
If you refute what the author (not me) has written about Churchill only in November being relieved that the invasion threat was finished, or that he told Coville as such, or that intelligence only in November finally concluded that, then thats up to you.
Your thin insults are a bit tiring. I might suggest blah blah blah. Not sure how my evidence refuted my case rather than supported it but no doubt you'll be delighted to tell me that. You might have read alot of history but I don't think your conclusions are correct. This whole thing that no one believed in an invasion and it is was propaganda is not proven and Id say is a unfounded revision of history.
Churchill may well have reflected in later years that the threat wasn't that credible but Im certain that during 1940 he was less sure of that. He was worried about it. He was reviewing plans to combat it (how he met Montgomery). Thats my reading of the sections Ive quoted.
My dates are the biographers dates. A biography that is seen as one of the definitive ones on Churchill.
In August 1940 Churchill discussed taking back Oslo or even attacking territory in Northern Germany. He rowed back from that but I think you have to see that he was desperate for some form of offensive and Northern Africa was more about that. "Very fine arguments are always given for doing nothing" was his quote in September.
That still doesn't mean that he didnt see invasion as credible.
And once again, Im reading a history book written by an expert in his field. Drawing simple observations and conclusions. | |
| |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 20:10 - May 28 with 2083 views | HARRY10 |
So, having failed to even answer, never mind refute the points made, you have sunk to the level of making up stuff instead, as
" This whole thing that no one believed in an invasion and it is was propaganda"
Something I have not stated. What I have done is give clear evidence - comment from those involved, and logistic evidence that both sides were well aware of. And the added point that one of the few fully equipped units in Britain was sent overseas in August 1940 would indicate the level of threat felt by the British.
You then avoid defending your comments on the basis that they were what the author wrote. Whereas anyone who sought to put forward a credible argument would double check, especially when there is so much evidence available. Or be aware that from mid September onwards the weather would make towing river barges across the channel a suicidal mission. That the Germans did not possess the ships to tow them in one go (as with D-Day) would mean they would be cgugging across at almost walking pace, and subject to the tides as to when they would arrive on the English coast
However to compound that confusion, or ignorance of the subject, you further add
"I think you have to see that he was desperate for some form of offensive and Northern Africa was more about that"
Whereas you also claim that an invasion was a real threat. Would it not be better to be retaining these troops in Britain if that inavsion was a strong possibility ? It would be months away (as it was) before these troops would land in North Africa and could be used, so where then the offensive .......when one was supposedly about to happen in Britain's own backyard !
You seem incapable of taking onboard anything that does not fit with 'a biography', irrespective of the numerous valid sources that disprove it. Or even a very basic grasp of the weather conditions in the channel during the autumn.
Similarly you seem incapable (or unwilling) to take on board the difference between a perceived threat and a real one. The British were well away of the limitations of the German army to mount a successful amphibious crossing, if only by the shipping records - and the idea that it could be carried out by river barges towed at around 4mph is totally absurd.
That Germany did not have the transport, air or sea, to land heavy artillery/tanks was also known then. Neither did it have the means to re-supply an invasion force in sufficient amounts once it was ashore. And all these failings were measured against NO hostile action by British forces.
No bombing of craft crossing the channel, no mining those crossing areas, no attacks from the Royal Navy, no destructin of the various ports that could be used ...Dover, Folkstone, Newhaven....just a free unhindered crossing.
Finally if your Boys Own comic view had any grasp on reality the dates and claims you post would be backed by sources other than that solitary book..........which is even refuted by Churchills actual words.
Operation Sealion was a bluff. The facts fully support that thought, as do comments from practically all the major participants who put their thoughts on record.....except you, with your supposed 'facts' | | | |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 21:01 - May 28 with 2059 views | nodge_blue |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 20:10 - May 28 by HARRY10 |
So, having failed to even answer, never mind refute the points made, you have sunk to the level of making up stuff instead, as
" This whole thing that no one believed in an invasion and it is was propaganda"
Something I have not stated. What I have done is give clear evidence - comment from those involved, and logistic evidence that both sides were well aware of. And the added point that one of the few fully equipped units in Britain was sent overseas in August 1940 would indicate the level of threat felt by the British.
You then avoid defending your comments on the basis that they were what the author wrote. Whereas anyone who sought to put forward a credible argument would double check, especially when there is so much evidence available. Or be aware that from mid September onwards the weather would make towing river barges across the channel a suicidal mission. That the Germans did not possess the ships to tow them in one go (as with D-Day) would mean they would be cgugging across at almost walking pace, and subject to the tides as to when they would arrive on the English coast
However to compound that confusion, or ignorance of the subject, you further add
"I think you have to see that he was desperate for some form of offensive and Northern Africa was more about that"
Whereas you also claim that an invasion was a real threat. Would it not be better to be retaining these troops in Britain if that inavsion was a strong possibility ? It would be months away (as it was) before these troops would land in North Africa and could be used, so where then the offensive .......when one was supposedly about to happen in Britain's own backyard !
You seem incapable of taking onboard anything that does not fit with 'a biography', irrespective of the numerous valid sources that disprove it. Or even a very basic grasp of the weather conditions in the channel during the autumn.
Similarly you seem incapable (or unwilling) to take on board the difference between a perceived threat and a real one. The British were well away of the limitations of the German army to mount a successful amphibious crossing, if only by the shipping records - and the idea that it could be carried out by river barges towed at around 4mph is totally absurd.
That Germany did not have the transport, air or sea, to land heavy artillery/tanks was also known then. Neither did it have the means to re-supply an invasion force in sufficient amounts once it was ashore. And all these failings were measured against NO hostile action by British forces.
No bombing of craft crossing the channel, no mining those crossing areas, no attacks from the Royal Navy, no destructin of the various ports that could be used ...Dover, Folkstone, Newhaven....just a free unhindered crossing.
Finally if your Boys Own comic view had any grasp on reality the dates and claims you post would be backed by sources other than that solitary book..........which is even refuted by Churchills actual words.
Operation Sealion was a bluff. The facts fully support that thought, as do comments from practically all the major participants who put their thoughts on record.....except you, with your supposed 'facts' |
I read the first couple of sentences then realised id only be dispirited by the rest of your self importance that I couldn't be bothered to read the rest.
Have a nice evening. | |
| |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 22:24 - May 28 with 2032 views | HARRY10 |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 21:01 - May 28 by nodge_blue |
I read the first couple of sentences then realised id only be dispirited by the rest of your self importance that I couldn't be bothered to read the rest.
Have a nice evening. |
And there was me thinking you were going to point out where I said
" This whole thing that no one believed in an invasion and it is was propaganda" as you claim
I am sure you could restore some credibility by backing that, rather than have folk think you have to make up stuff to distract from the truth.
But at least you did come to recognise the flaw in yclaims, as with your words
" And ultimately there was a reason they didn't eventually invade lol. And that was indeed because they didnt have the air superiority or the naval power. "{/Air superiority was never possible as Britain could, and did, shift it's fighter squadrons to airbases out oif reach of the Lufwaffe... asdid the Russians when retreating in 1941.
And with a Kriegsmarine barely a tenth the size of the Royal Navy it was never going be able to protect any invasion (by river barges at that).
And despite your claim of " All these factors and permutations were probably being assessed and revised on a daily basis. " no amount of assement could alter that reality.
It was on that basis, as well as the German's lack of ability to get a fighting frce across the channel, that gave the British the knowledge that any invasion talk was only ever a bluff, and so could release troops and equipment to North Africa in Aug 1940. Over there, was actually a real risk of 'invasion', not least the threat to the Suez Canal.
Nothing you have posted suggests you have the slightest idea about this whatsoever. Nothing about how the weather or tides would play a part, the lack of specialist craft and trained forces (see D-Day). An invasion that was up to two years in planning and preparation, backed by colossal resources - not least PLUTO and the Mulberry harbour(s)
Whereas this was to utilise Rhine barges with the bows cut off then put back on hinged, so as to afford debarcation by soldiers and horses (not much changed from 1066 some might think). An invasion that would have to be spread over days to allow re-use of barges (towed back across the channel for the 'next lot') and only possible a few days in late September when the tides allowed.
And yet with British knowing all his thoughout that summer, they were not to conclude it was no more than a bluff ? | | | |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 22:41 - May 28 with 2014 views | nodge_blue |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 22:24 - May 28 by HARRY10 |
And there was me thinking you were going to point out where I said
" This whole thing that no one believed in an invasion and it is was propaganda" as you claim
I am sure you could restore some credibility by backing that, rather than have folk think you have to make up stuff to distract from the truth.
But at least you did come to recognise the flaw in yclaims, as with your words
" And ultimately there was a reason they didn't eventually invade lol. And that was indeed because they didnt have the air superiority or the naval power. "{/Air superiority was never possible as Britain could, and did, shift it's fighter squadrons to airbases out oif reach of the Lufwaffe... asdid the Russians when retreating in 1941.
And with a Kriegsmarine barely a tenth the size of the Royal Navy it was never going be able to protect any invasion (by river barges at that).
And despite your claim of " All these factors and permutations were probably being assessed and revised on a daily basis. " no amount of assement could alter that reality.
It was on that basis, as well as the German's lack of ability to get a fighting frce across the channel, that gave the British the knowledge that any invasion talk was only ever a bluff, and so could release troops and equipment to North Africa in Aug 1940. Over there, was actually a real risk of 'invasion', not least the threat to the Suez Canal.
Nothing you have posted suggests you have the slightest idea about this whatsoever. Nothing about how the weather or tides would play a part, the lack of specialist craft and trained forces (see D-Day). An invasion that was up to two years in planning and preparation, backed by colossal resources - not least PLUTO and the Mulberry harbour(s)
Whereas this was to utilise Rhine barges with the bows cut off then put back on hinged, so as to afford debarcation by soldiers and horses (not much changed from 1066 some might think). An invasion that would have to be spread over days to allow re-use of barges (towed back across the channel for the 'next lot') and only possible a few days in late September when the tides allowed.
And yet with British knowing all his thoughout that summer, they were not to conclude it was no more than a bluff ? |
Jesus give yourself a break from yourself.
You started off the very first reply in a aggressive way and you’ve continued it throughout. You have become personal and unpleasant. As a result there’s no fun in the discussion as it becomes like some sort of intellectual ego thing with you.
I still stand by everything I wrote. But this is now out of proportion. So I’m not going to comment on it anymore. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Most important battle in British history ? on 22:46 - May 28 with 2009 views | BlueFin |
Maybe the one where Britain as we know it nowadays, was secured, the Battle of Brunanburh in northern England?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brunanburh
King Aethelstan was able to keep England together with victory over northern kingdoms. Who know what British Isles would look if they’d lost and divided. | | | |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 06:35 - May 29 with 1957 views | Bluespeed225 |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 22:41 - May 28 by nodge_blue |
Jesus give yourself a break from yourself.
You started off the very first reply in a aggressive way and you’ve continued it throughout. You have become personal and unpleasant. As a result there’s no fun in the discussion as it becomes like some sort of intellectual ego thing with you.
I still stand by everything I wrote. But this is now out of proportion. So I’m not going to comment on it anymore. |
This thread has turned into an episode of Peep Show... | | | |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 06:41 - May 29 with 1956 views | WeWereZombies |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 22:41 - May 28 by nodge_blue |
Jesus give yourself a break from yourself.
You started off the very first reply in a aggressive way and you’ve continued it throughout. You have become personal and unpleasant. As a result there’s no fun in the discussion as it becomes like some sort of intellectual ego thing with you.
I still stand by everything I wrote. But this is now out of proportion. So I’m not going to comment on it anymore. |
Parts of this thread have certainly become an object lesson in talking at crossed purposes, haven't they? For my part can I say that all I was trying to do was point out that the North Africa campaign (or campaigns if you regard the operations by the British out of Egypt and the later Nazi incursion into Tunisia as separate ones) cannot be regarded as solely Britain vs. Italy. The benefit of the challenges to our received wisdom have been there though, I read a couple of Wikipedia pages on Italian operation in Ethiopia, Somaliland and Kenya that gave me a bit more background to the knowledge I had picked up when I visited that part of the World.
Also HARRY10 was helpful in pointing out that Rommel and the Afrika Korps did not get deployed until late winter / early spring 1941, I should have known that from reading the relevant volume (two I think) of Churchill's 'History of the Second World War', but the poster's argument could have been made more cordially...
Finally, a few years back I caught a film on, perhaps, 'The History Channel' called 'El Alamein - La linea del fuoco' which gives an Italian perspective but I couldn't continue watching as I couldn't stand the British being portrayed as 'baddies'. But I guess we have to accept that, although the Fascists are always the force of evil from a meta perspective, there are wrong 'uns on both sides and there can be 'micro' atrocities that have catastrophic repercussions for human beings and their families even if they are fighting the wrong cause. |  |
| |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 09:15 - May 29 with 1918 views | Radlett_blue |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 22:46 - May 28 by BlueFin |
Maybe the one where Britain as we know it nowadays, was secured, the Battle of Brunanburh in northern England?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brunanburh
King Aethelstan was able to keep England together with victory over northern kingdoms. Who know what British Isles would look if they’d lost and divided. |
Indeed. They might have started playing Rugby League. |  |
| |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 11:19 - May 29 with 1893 views | WeWereZombies |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 09:15 - May 29 by Radlett_blue |
Indeed. They might have started playing Rugby League. |
Or shinty or hurley or gone full GAA... | |
| |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 13:58 - May 29 with 1851 views | solemio |
Am I allowed to go back to what the thread was all about? If you said no- tough.
The start of the Wars of the Roses, the First Battle of St Albans, which started in a car park.
What do you mean? It wasn't a car park then? If a king can be found under a car park in Leicester than surely this proves the battle must have started in a car park. | | | |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 14:30 - May 29 with 1833 views | ElephantintheRoom |
I see this thread turned into a pretty heated battle too.
The ludicrous idea that Britain was ever in any danger of being invaded shouldn't be judged on the rambling and deluded memoirs - and more on reality.
Firstly Germany never had any heavy bombers or transport aircraft - making airborne attack and supply of an invasion impossible. They also lost huge numbers of aircraft in the invasion of Poland - and again in the invasion of France. French Airforce shot down more Luftwaffe planes in the rather short 'battle of france' than in the protracted small scale skirmishes that made up the 'battle of britain'. They simply didnt have enough,planes with the range to make an invasion feasible. They also had an airborne attack force that leapt out of their planes without weapons to save weight - again not ideal.
Secondly they never had a navy - an obsession with battleships years after they had any practical use meant also they never developed aircraft carriers. This didnt stop Britain obsessing over obsolescnt german battleships - largely for PR purposes.
Thirdly Britain is a small island nation off the west of Europe with nothing much to offer - The third Reich always looked to expand eastward for vast amounts of farmland and useful stuff like oil.
The idea that enigma code breakers could listen in on German plans is also somewhat fanciful given that towards the end of the war some glaringly awful mistakes were made
Invading Italy at the bottom. Invading France at Normandy with its impenetrable bocage and poor transport links. Stopping the american advance on an indefensible broad front and changing to a highly defendable narrow front in Holland
Arnhem where British and Polish airborne troops were dropped unsupported into the Arnhem area - despite this being an established SS training area for the entire war.... a bit like the Germans parachuting into Fort Bragg.
The Battle of the Bulge - where a weakened Germany could still assemble and organise an impressive armoured attack - even if they didnt have enough fuel to go anywhere - and no air cover.
I see nobody has mentioned the Battle of the Boyne - which could be construed by some in Northern Ireland as the most important battle for the Unted Kingdom... until Brexit. | |
| |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 18:07 - May 29 with 1799 views | HARRY10 |
Thank you, Mr E
Claiming you stand by you comments does not in themselves mean they are correct - if so no one would ever be convicted
"I stand by my words that I am innocent, m'lud"
'In that case you must be innocent, despite all the evidence to the contrary.'
the concern there, as with the German post war myth 'we were not beaten, we were stabbed in the back' is it allows people to be manipulated, much as with the current lie about Trump not losing the election.
My thought on the OP is that it perpetuates the idea that battles happen in almost isolation and so alone can make major changes in history. Whereas they should be seen as merely an identifiable peg to sum up far more complex matters.
As with the Armada, where it is generally thought to be the one decisive battle. It is only that bit of a long conflict between Britain/Netherlands and Spain.
Waterloo, where less than 20% of those fighting could be considered British and of them around 30% were Irish regiments, with large contingencies of Irish serving within the non Irish regiments. The battle was part of a wider and far longer struggle, and given the money backing the anti French forces it was always going to end in defeat for the French.
What it comes down to is whether you feel that 'Great' men make history, or that it is more a case of cometh the hour, cometh the man. | | | |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 19:00 - May 29 with 1744 views | nodge_blue |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 18:07 - May 29 by HARRY10 |
Thank you, Mr E
Claiming you stand by you comments does not in themselves mean they are correct - if so no one would ever be convicted
"I stand by my words that I am innocent, m'lud"
'In that case you must be innocent, despite all the evidence to the contrary.'
the concern there, as with the German post war myth 'we were not beaten, we were stabbed in the back' is it allows people to be manipulated, much as with the current lie about Trump not losing the election.
My thought on the OP is that it perpetuates the idea that battles happen in almost isolation and so alone can make major changes in history. Whereas they should be seen as merely an identifiable peg to sum up far more complex matters.
As with the Armada, where it is generally thought to be the one decisive battle. It is only that bit of a long conflict between Britain/Netherlands and Spain.
Waterloo, where less than 20% of those fighting could be considered British and of them around 30% were Irish regiments, with large contingencies of Irish serving within the non Irish regiments. The battle was part of a wider and far longer struggle, and given the money backing the anti French forces it was always going to end in defeat for the French.
What it comes down to is whether you feel that 'Great' men make history, or that it is more a case of cometh the hour, cometh the man. |
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-winston-churchill-endured-blitzand-ta
Did Churchill and the people of Great Britain believe that the bombing would lead to an invasion?
That’s another thing that did surprise me: the extent to which the threat of invasion was seen to be not just inevitable, but imminent. Within days. There was talk of, “Oh, invasion Saturday.” Can you imagine that? It’s one thing to endure 57 nights of bombing, but it’s another to live with the constant anxiety that it is a preamble to invasion.
Churchill was very clear-eyed about the threat from Germany. To him, the only way to really defeat any effort by Hitler to invade England was by increasing fighter strength so the Luftwaffe could never achieve air superiority. Churchill felt that if the Luftwaffe could be staved off, an invasion would be impossible. And I think he was correct in that. | |
| |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 23:58 - May 29 with 1656 views | nodge_blue |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 14:30 - May 29 by ElephantintheRoom |
I see this thread turned into a pretty heated battle too.
The ludicrous idea that Britain was ever in any danger of being invaded shouldn't be judged on the rambling and deluded memoirs - and more on reality.
Firstly Germany never had any heavy bombers or transport aircraft - making airborne attack and supply of an invasion impossible. They also lost huge numbers of aircraft in the invasion of Poland - and again in the invasion of France. French Airforce shot down more Luftwaffe planes in the rather short 'battle of france' than in the protracted small scale skirmishes that made up the 'battle of britain'. They simply didnt have enough,planes with the range to make an invasion feasible. They also had an airborne attack force that leapt out of their planes without weapons to save weight - again not ideal.
Secondly they never had a navy - an obsession with battleships years after they had any practical use meant also they never developed aircraft carriers. This didnt stop Britain obsessing over obsolescnt german battleships - largely for PR purposes.
Thirdly Britain is a small island nation off the west of Europe with nothing much to offer - The third Reich always looked to expand eastward for vast amounts of farmland and useful stuff like oil.
The idea that enigma code breakers could listen in on German plans is also somewhat fanciful given that towards the end of the war some glaringly awful mistakes were made
Invading Italy at the bottom. Invading France at Normandy with its impenetrable bocage and poor transport links. Stopping the american advance on an indefensible broad front and changing to a highly defendable narrow front in Holland
Arnhem where British and Polish airborne troops were dropped unsupported into the Arnhem area - despite this being an established SS training area for the entire war.... a bit like the Germans parachuting into Fort Bragg.
The Battle of the Bulge - where a weakened Germany could still assemble and organise an impressive armoured attack - even if they didnt have enough fuel to go anywhere - and no air cover.
I see nobody has mentioned the Battle of the Boyne - which could be construed by some in Northern Ireland as the most important battle for the Unted Kingdom... until Brexit. |
“The idea that enigma code breakers could listen in on German plans is also somewhat fanciful given that towards the end of the war some glaringly awful mistakes were made “
This is exactly what happened (enigma listening to German plans). Britain was even passing vital info to Russia in the end which Stalin was grateful for. It kept our shipping barely running. It told us numerous things that made a huge difference.
But join the club of revising history that’s going on here. [Post edited 30 May 2021 0:24]
| |
| |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 01:18 - May 30 with 1639 views | HARRY10 |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 19:00 - May 29 by nodge_blue |
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-winston-churchill-endured-blitzand-ta
Did Churchill and the people of Great Britain believe that the bombing would lead to an invasion?
That’s another thing that did surprise me: the extent to which the threat of invasion was seen to be not just inevitable, but imminent. Within days. There was talk of, “Oh, invasion Saturday.” Can you imagine that? It’s one thing to endure 57 nights of bombing, but it’s another to live with the constant anxiety that it is a preamble to invasion.
Churchill was very clear-eyed about the threat from Germany. To him, the only way to really defeat any effort by Hitler to invade England was by increasing fighter strength so the Luftwaffe could never achieve air superiority. Churchill felt that if the Luftwaffe could be staved off, an invasion would be impossible. And I think he was correct in that. |
That is absolute nonsense, even by your standards. the bombing (the blitz) ran through autumn until February 1941.
Which ignores the fact that Hitler had akready postponed the invasion on September 17th, if only that the tides and weather would then make it impossible for any barges to cross the channel'
Yet you persist in your bleat that the "the bombing would lead to an invasion? ...... whereas earlier you had told us "detected a considerable movement of German shipping Eastward away from Britain "
So why was this shipping moving back to the German coast if an invasion was umminent ?
As to the bombing, it was aimed mostly at ports, and the results were heavily censored so the vast majority of the populace had no idea of the extent of the bombing. And if it were a prelude to an invasion it would have been aimed at Britain's defences, military targets etc not civilian areas.
That type of bombing merely backs up the knowledge, as expressed by pretty much everyone else who has written about that time, that it was a continuing attempt to get Britain to sue for peace by bombing civilians
If the Luftwaffe had been 'staved off' by increased fighter plane construction as you claim, then why was an invasion, not only 'inevitable, but imminent.' ?
Month Pythons Parrot Sketch offers a more credible defence of an absurd position than anything you have posted on this matter. [Post edited 30 May 2021 2:12]
| | | |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 02:07 - May 30 with 1621 views | HARRY10 |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 23:58 - May 29 by nodge_blue |
“The idea that enigma code breakers could listen in on German plans is also somewhat fanciful given that towards the end of the war some glaringly awful mistakes were made “
This is exactly what happened (enigma listening to German plans). Britain was even passing vital info to Russia in the end which Stalin was grateful for. It kept our shipping barely running. It told us numerous things that made a huge difference.
But join the club of revising history that’s going on here. [Post edited 30 May 2021 0:24]
|
"But join the club of revising history that’s going on here"
I would hradly call your solitary confused and contradictoty rants a club.
It is clear you have not the slightest idea about any of this, instead you have blinded adoration of Churchill - so have spent time scabbling about the internet to find something, however bizarre and inaccurate to counter accepted wisdom.
Wisdom that has "in Churchill's view, "the great invasion scare" was "serving a most useful purpose" by "keeping every man and woman tuned to a high pitch of readiness"
He did not think the threat credible. On 10 July, he advised the War Cabinet that the possibility of invasion could be ignored, as it "would be a most hazardous and suicidal operation"; and on 13 August that "now that we were so much stronger", he thought "we could spare an armoured brigade from this country"
in fact it went further
Over-riding General Dill, Churchill initiated Operation Apology by which a series of troop convoys, including three tank regiments and eventually the entire 2nd Armoured Division, were sent around the Cape of Good Hope to reinforce General Wavell in the Middle East in support of operations against Italian colonial forces
and further we next had
"on 5 August the War Cabinet approved Operation Menace, in which a substantial proportion of the Home Fleet - two battleships, an aircraft carrier, five cruisers, and twelve destroyers, together with five out of six battalions of Royal Marines, were dispatched to Dakar on 30 August "
Not the actions of a country that thought an invasion was not only inevitabke but imminent. Meanwhile on the other side of the channel
"Grand Admiral Raeder visited Hitler at the Berghof to persuade him that the best way to pressure the British into a peace agreement would be a siege combining air and submarine attacks. Hitler agreed with him that invasion would be a last resort."
So it comes down to case of whether documentary evidence from that time, documents subsequently released and comments from all the 'major players' are to be believed, or some author trying to increase sales of his book.
Christopher Hitchens v David Icke, some might say | | | |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 07:56 - May 30 with 1567 views | nodge_blue |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 01:18 - May 30 by HARRY10 |
That is absolute nonsense, even by your standards. the bombing (the blitz) ran through autumn until February 1941.
Which ignores the fact that Hitler had akready postponed the invasion on September 17th, if only that the tides and weather would then make it impossible for any barges to cross the channel'
Yet you persist in your bleat that the "the bombing would lead to an invasion? ...... whereas earlier you had told us "detected a considerable movement of German shipping Eastward away from Britain "
So why was this shipping moving back to the German coast if an invasion was umminent ?
As to the bombing, it was aimed mostly at ports, and the results were heavily censored so the vast majority of the populace had no idea of the extent of the bombing. And if it were a prelude to an invasion it would have been aimed at Britain's defences, military targets etc not civilian areas.
That type of bombing merely backs up the knowledge, as expressed by pretty much everyone else who has written about that time, that it was a continuing attempt to get Britain to sue for peace by bombing civilians
If the Luftwaffe had been 'staved off' by increased fighter plane construction as you claim, then why was an invasion, not only 'inevitable, but imminent.' ?
Month Pythons Parrot Sketch offers a more credible defence of an absurd position than anything you have posted on this matter. [Post edited 30 May 2021 2:12]
|
I’m not saying anything, I’m just posting you more links and direct comments from other authors who have researched it and written books about it. That last one was from 2020. You do realise that what I wrote was a quote and understand the difference? A quote from the link I pasted, which you couldn’t be bothered to read in the haste to defend your own self importance. So yet again, If you want to write to that author and tell him that his book would be better off in a monty python sketch then be my guest.
So who do I trust and base my own conclusions from? People who have written books about it, or some bloke on a football forum who fails to see what experts write and resorts to puerile insults constantly. Mlud.
I’d give you the time of day more if you didn’t resort to be insulting and didn’t hold such absolute views. You don’t nicely debate, you resort to sneering . [Post edited 30 May 2021 10:23]
| |
| |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 14:29 - May 30 with 1470 views | nodge_blue |
| Most important battle in British history ? on 02:07 - May 30 by HARRY10 |
"But join the club of revising history that’s going on here"
I would hradly call your solitary confused and contradictoty rants a club.
It is clear you have not the slightest idea about any of this, instead you have blinded adoration of Churchill - so have spent time scabbling about the internet to find something, however bizarre and inaccurate to counter accepted wisdom.
Wisdom that has "in Churchill's view, "the great invasion scare" was "serving a most useful purpose" by "keeping every man and woman tuned to a high pitch of readiness"
He did not think the threat credible. On 10 July, he advised the War Cabinet that the possibility of invasion could be ignored, as it "would be a most hazardous and suicidal operation"; and on 13 August that "now that we were so much stronger", he thought "we could spare an armoured brigade from this country"
in fact it went further
Over-riding General Dill, Churchill initiated Operation Apology by which a series of troop convoys, including three tank regiments and eventually the entire 2nd Armoured Division, were sent around the Cape of Good Hope to reinforce General Wavell in the Middle East in support of operations against Italian colonial forces
and further we next had
"on 5 August the War Cabinet approved Operation Menace, in which a substantial proportion of the Home Fleet - two battleships, an aircraft carrier, five cruisers, and twelve destroyers, together with five out of six battalions of Royal Marines, were dispatched to Dakar on 30 August "
Not the actions of a country that thought an invasion was not only inevitabke but imminent. Meanwhile on the other side of the channel
"Grand Admiral Raeder visited Hitler at the Berghof to persuade him that the best way to pressure the British into a peace agreement would be a siege combining air and submarine attacks. Hitler agreed with him that invasion would be a last resort."
So it comes down to case of whether documentary evidence from that time, documents subsequently released and comments from all the 'major players' are to be believed, or some author trying to increase sales of his book.
Christopher Hitchens v David Icke, some might say |
I have previously said the balance of probable invasion was constantly being evaluated.
You started this all off with:
talk about getting things arz about face (pretty rude in itself). But in relation to me saying air superiority was key over naval. Ive given you other experts who have researched it and said the same. They are hardly David Iyke. At best you can make an argument otherwise but your absolutism and rudeness that follows is whats galling.
You've chosen to ignore the author i read, whose book ran to over 1000 pages in detailed research. Whilst Churchill was maybe bullish and confident that as the air battle was being won that the chances were receding, neither him nor the commanders were totally sure until November when the events that I detailed happened and finally a more conclusive position was reached.
None of that marries with your original narrative of pure complacency/dismissiveness about the chances of invasion.
The bombing of the airfields and mitilatry targets stopped because we bombed Germany cities. Hitler said: "If they declare that they will attack our cities on a large scale, we will erase theirs! ... We will put a stop to the game of these night-pirates, as God is our witness." The bombing of british cities wasn't because he gave up on the idea of invasion as you said, it was an irrational, incensed mad man wanting revenge.
I think if you really reflect on this, you cant say that Churchill or Britain never saw invasion as not credible. Of course they did. Their position changed as events unfolded, not because of the speed of barges across the channel.
Events and peoples interpretations of them at the time are over far more nuanced than you give them credit for.
You still cant help yourself being insulting can you?
You've also given me load of hyperbole about not respecting the war dead. You've said I know nothing. Its all puerile stuff. Very insulting.
Ive resisted getting too personal back with you, but I think you need to have a look at yourself. [Post edited 30 May 2021 14:42]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
