Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 73
Thanks Tree48Thanks

Thread: Canada and Australia

  1. #41
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,887
    Thanks
    38887

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Just simple facts dude.

    Its not about the soldiers who I am sure were all very brave, its about their national policies that didn't make an iota of difference.

    Its like they weren't even trying to change anything.
    They fought and died right beside us all over the Pacific theater. The Australian Navy was as valiant and dedicated as any navy on the planet.

    First Battle of Savo Island: The U.S. Navy?s Worst Defeat
    Thanks from Hollywood

  2. #42
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,887
    Thanks
    38887

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    I find it hard to believe that an adult from a developed nation knows so little history.

    The Australians and Canadians were a significant part of the British and Commonwealth forces which amongst other important war aims - won the Battle of Britain (perhaps the most important battle of the 20th century) without which victory there would have been no counter-invasion of Europe. They also secured the Middle eastern oil fields by defeating Rommel's armoured forces, thus forcing Hitler to look to Russia for that important resource. By early 1942, the Germans were desperately short of the materials necessary to conducting modern warfare - in principal, oil and steel. Have you any idea of the outcome of the conflict, had Britain fallen to the Nazis, and Mongomery been unable to stop the Panzers in the Middle East? And have you any idea how isolated the USA would have become with the fall of Britain and her Commonwealth? With Fortress Europe theirs, they would have started on South America, where they already enjoyed much sympathy, and worked their way up.
    He claims a Masters Degree in history, tis to laugh...

  3. #43
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,453
    Thanks
    10870

    From
    By the wall
    As it were, Hitler had them beat anyways.

    Had he continued on with operation Sea Lion Britain would have lost.

    Hitler also gave an order to quit bombing military targets and focus on population centers but Britain was done with.

    They only won because Hitler decided to stop attacking them.

    It was another Dunkirk, Hitler let them off the hook.

  4. #44
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,453
    Thanks
    10870

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    They fought and died right beside us all over the Pacific theater. The Australian Navy was as valiant and dedicated as any navy on the planet.

    First Battle of Savo Island: The U.S. Navy?s Worst Defeat
    Nobody is saying they weren't valiant.

    And like I said, they had 3 years to win the conflict but they had to fight beside us to be successful.

  5. #45
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,453
    Thanks
    10870

    From
    By the wall
    Tell us this.

    Would Britain have won if the US had provided zero help?

  6. #46
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,356
    Thanks
    2936

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    As it were, Hitler had them beat anyways.

    Had he continued on with operation Sea Lion Britain would have lost.

    Hitler also gave an order to quit bombing military targets and focus on population centers but Britain was done with.

    They only won because Hitler decided to stop attacking them.

    It was another Dunkirk, Hitler let them off the hook.
    I repeat - can you really know so little about WW2?

    Unternehmen Seel÷we was a very thorough plan which counted on two elusive elements. The first was going toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy, and thus securing the waters of the English Channel, and the second, crucial, element was establishing air superiority over the channel and southern England. The first was never going to be achieved without the second. The Royal Navy was the most powerful naval force on earth at that time, and whilst the Germans had some remarkable ships, such as Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisnau, and Graf Spee, they were too few, and forced to fight their way into the Atlantic whenever they left Kiel. It was only after the fall of France that they had access to Mediterranean bases.

    Once the Battle of Britain was over, and air superiority denied to the Luftwaffe, the invasion was literally dead in the water. The barges would have been picked off by naval and air power long before they saw the white cliffs of Dover, and Hitler and his generals knew this. He called off the invasion simply because it was no longer possible.

    I don't wish to be discourteous, but your uninformed comments upon this subject, are beginning to try my patience. Warfare is not always determined by Hollywood-style victories - strategy is often more important than tactics.

    However, if you are determined to cling to the opinion that British and Commonwealth forces were ineffectual, and accomplished nothing before the Americans entered the conflict - no amount of factual information is likely to counter that misapprehension, and I have no wish to discuss the matter further with you.
    Last edited by Leo2; 21st August 2017 at 10:25 AM.
    Thanks from OldGaffer, Dr.Knuckles and Hollywood

  7. #47
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,356
    Thanks
    2936

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Tell us this.

    Would Britain have won if the US had provided zero help?
    Fair question.

    Yes, Britain and her Commonwealth would have won eventually - it would simply have taken much longer. As I pointed out - by 1942, Germany was already desperately short of resources. Added to which Germany didn't occupy Europe in the colonial sense - it held every occupied country at the point of a gun - that takes a lot of man power. And the Russians were not just sitting on their hands - they defeated the Nazis almost single handedly.
    Thanks from Hollywood

  8. #48
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,887
    Thanks
    38887

    From
    Nashville, TN
    In 1940, Australia had a total population of a little over 7 million, less than New York City. Expecting them to have the same military might as the US with a population of 140 million at the time is ludicrous and frankly, silly.
    Thanks from Hollywood

  9. #49
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,887
    Thanks
    38887

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Australia put 993,000 in uniform during the war, we would have had to have 20 million to match that percentage, we only had 16 million in service, so arguably they had more of a commitment to the war than we did.
    Thanks from Hollywood

  10. #50
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    98,458
    Thanks
    5254

    From
    Vancouver
    He's not questioning commitment, he's questioning competence.

    I'm fully committed to dating Ellen Page, but she's 20 years younger, hot, rich, famous, and a lesbian. My commitment and valour aren't the issue, it's my ability that's lacking.

    However, Spooky is wrong about the ability. The British Enpire would have defeated Germany because the British Empire's goal was to survive intact. Invasion of Britain was prevented, Africa / Middle East was won, the Soviets would have ejected the Axis from Eastern Europe and Germany would have returned to pre-war borders. Maybe keeping Austria.

    In the Pacific, Chinese, Indian and Australian forces would have slowly removed Japan from India, Burma, Hong Kong and Singapore and then negotiated a peace.

    Nobody had any intention whatsoever of OCCUPYING Germany or Japan.

    Once attacked, The US offered to ally in the war at full strength but only if it was "total war" and involved the conquest and overthrown of Axis countries.

    This was not even considered in WW1. Was not really normal. And was not a remote interest of The UK.

    That was a good deal so we took it.

    But you Yanks wanted that. And Russia too. We just wanted back what we'd lost, and would have had it with or without help.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 19th August 2013, 02:24 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 5th July 2011, 05:58 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10th May 2010, 12:42 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 19th April 2010, 06:05 PM
  5. Replies: 97
    Last Post: 18th July 2008, 12:05 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed