Lack of awareness on WW1/2

Davies_M · 23 Dec 2010 at 16:59

Von Smallhausen said:
^^

And if the UK didn't have a sea border, do you think we would have repelled Nazi invasion force ?

Italy was a UK ally in WWI by the way.

Not much good they done then either

That hypothetical situation is silly, Britain's reliance was on the Navy, if we didn't have a sea border I don't think it would have been the most important service!

lcg · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:03

The other week I was talking to some people and one of them didn't who won WW2. o_O
And someone else thought WW2 started in 1937 rather than 1939.

Von Smallhausen · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:07

Is it silly though ?

A lot of people knock France for surrendering etc but the Nazi war machine swept through Europe like a hot knife through butter and by 1941, the Third Reich stretched from France, down to the Balkans and almost to the gates of Moscow.

A sea border was likely Britain's salvation.

rypt · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:10

lcg said:
And someone else thought WW2 started in 1937 rather than 1939.

1937 was when Japan invaded China
1938 has Germany annexe Austria & the USSR/Japan battles

So from China's POV WW2 was 37-45

Von Smallhausen said:
Is it silly though ?

A lot of people knock France for surrendering etc but the Nazi war machine swept through Europe like a hot knife through butter and by 1941, the Third Reich stretched from France, down to the Balkans and almost to the gates of Moscow.

A sea border was likely Britain's salvation.

The French were completely unprepared for war though, which is why we knock them. Everyone (including Britain) kept on refusing to believe that Hitler was building up and army ...

lcg · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:12

rypt said:
1937 was when Japan invaded China
1938 has Germany annexe Austria & the USSR/Japan battles

So from China's POV WW2 was 37-45

That's true, but World War II itself is generally regarded to have started on September 1, 1939.

rypt · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:14

lcg said:
That's true, but World War II itself is generally regarded to have started on September 1, 1939.

Again entirely depends from which country you are, Russia for instance views WW2 as 41-45 as they only entered the war in 41.

Trusty · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:14

Von Smallhausen said:
Is it silly though ?

A lot of people knock France for surrendering etc but the Nazi war machine swept through Europe like a hot knife through butter and by 1941, the Third Reich stretched from France, down to the Balkans and almost to the gates of Moscow.

A sea border was likely Britain's salvation.

Yeah exactly, the french were still using horse and cart. Can hardly compete with a nation that had been rearming since the first world war. The sea border for sure saved our skins, that aswell as the germans making a school boy error of attacking cities instead of airfields. They should have bedded in for winter aswell when they were marching to Moscow instead of trying to defeat mother earth. There's only one winner when you come up against the planet.

lcg said:
That's true, but World War II itself is generally regarded to have started on September 1, 1939.

Europe anyway. If you asked a Chinese person when WW2 started they would say 1937.

Davies_M · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:16

Von Smallhausen said:
Is it silly though ?

A lot of people knock France for surrendering etc but the Nazi war machine swept through Europe like a hot knife through butter and by 1941, the Third Reich stretched from France, down to the Balkans and almost to the gates of Moscow.

A sea border was likely Britain's salvation.

Yes

Sure we would have been buggered if there were no channel but Britain has adapted to being an island and was mainly based on naval dominance, who knows what Britain would be like if we were....joined to the cheese eaters...

dread the thought

B@Th*nG · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:16

Trusty-X said:
Why coul'dnt it be peachy?

it wasn't peachy for the German population

B@

Trusty · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:22

B@Th*nG said:
it wasn't peachy for the German population

B@

True, i was nitpicking your statement of Facist Dictator though. Playing devils advocate.

Von Smallhausen · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:22

rypt said:
The French were completely unprepared for war though, which is why we knock them. Everyone (including Britain) kept on refusing to believe that Hitler was building up and army ...

France spent years building the Maginot Line in anticipation of a German invasion and by the time they invaded, there were Allied forces in Belgium.

A two pronged attack involved German forces advanced through the Ardennes to cut off the BEF and they also flanked the Maginot Line which allowed passage into France.

France believed Germany was rearming but didn't anticipate the Ardennes being used nor their defensive line being flanked.

Winston Churchill was warning of Germany rearming long before he became PM as well.

physichull · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:25

Von Smallhausen said:
Is it silly though ?

A lot of people knock France for surrendering etc but the Nazi war machine swept through Europe like a hot knife through butter and by 1941, the Third Reich stretched from France, down to the Balkans and almost to the gates of Moscow.

A sea border was likely Britain's salvation.

Probably worth pointing out that the AEF had more men than the Germans in France in those early days. Shame our equipment was dire!

Trusty-X said:
Yeah exactly, the french were still using horse and cart. Can hardly compete with a nation that had been rearming since the first world war. The sea border for sure saved our skins, that aswell as the germans making a school boy error of attacking cities instead of airfields. They should have bedded in for winter aswell when they were marching to Moscow instead of trying to defeat mother earth. There's only one winner when you come up against the planet.

The Germans relied massively on horse drawn vehicles, especially in Russia. Most of the horses in the Kessel at Stalingrad were worked to death at the end or, quite frankly, eaten because there was no other food. The German army was badly equiped for winter. The Russians weren't that much better off but they did have much better winter clothing. Russians tended to counter attack during the winter months whereas the German army dug in, fortified their positions and waited for the thaw.

Davies_M · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:26

Von Smallhausen said:
France spent years building the Maginot Line in anticipation of a German invasion and by the time they invaded, there were Allied forces in Belgium.

A two pronged attack involved German forces advanced through the Ardennes to cut off the BEF and they also flanked the Maginot Line which allowed passage into France.

France believed Germany was rearming but didn't anticipate the Ardennes being used nor their defensive line being flanked.

Winston Churchill was warning of Germany rearming long before he became PM as well.

A lot of people were, but nobody wanted to believe it...Britain during the mobilisation of the war economy wasn't a cushy place to live! War weariness was set in for a while afterwards.

The French didn't realise that the Germans would flank them...again.

*edit*
Yes, these lovely sensationalist hollywood movies have made people believe it was all 'ACHTUNG PANZER!' rather than giddyup Horseh.

Dave M · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:27

Trusty-X said:
Yeah exactly, the french were still using horse and cart.

As were the majority of Germany's military.

The difference was Germany's adoption of combined arms, a very effective strike bomber and a more modern attitude to the use of tanks.

Given the limitations of German forces it could easily have gone the other way if more resistance was put up - of course nobody knew that at the time.

Davies_M · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:31

Telescopi said:
As were the majority of Germany's military.

The difference was Germany's adoption of combined arms, a very effective strike bomber and a more modern attitude to the use of tanks.

Given the limitations of German forces it could easily have gone the other way if more resistance was put up - of course nobody knew that at the time.

I remember reading somewhere about the Blitzkrieg that it was a real gamble as the resources allocated to German troops were so little, they barely covered the need of the plan and were usually screwed if something went boobs up. And then due to the real fast advancement, the exhaustion and bad/stretched supply lines made things even more problematic (funnily enough, the same problems they experienced in WWI, too fast a momentum)

Orcish-Horde · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:33

Von Smallhausen said:
^^

And if the UK didn't have a sea border, do you think we would have repelled Nazi invasion force ?

Sea has always been a major part in the defensive plans for the UK, after all we do have two sea channels to play with. Without it our land forces would have been a hell of a lot stronger, in the past it also protected Europe from ourselves. If we had shared a land border with mainland Europe the Nazis would never have existed and much of Europe's history would be unrecognizable.

Amp34 · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:34

lcg said:
That's true, but World War II itself is generally regarded to have started on September 1, 1939.

I'd disagree with that. WW2 started on the 3rd for those in the UK, Commonwealth and France (in fact everywhere but Germany and Poland).

Monkeymatt · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:35

Von Smallhausen said:
Is it silly though ?

A lot of people knock France for surrendering etc but the Nazi war machine swept through Europe like a hot knife through butter and by 1941, the Third Reich stretched from France, down to the Balkans and almost to the gates of Moscow.

A sea border was likely Britain's salvation.

I think why everybody laughs at the French is that, France and Russia were Germany's only real competitors in Europe. They had a very similar sized army and their Tanks were better, in theory they should have been able to put up a very good fight.

I'm not saying the French didn't put up a very good fight, but the way that the Germans swept them up in what, a month or two? really does show the French in a bad light.

Orcish-Horde · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:41

Von Smallhausen said:
France spent years building the Maginot Line in anticipation of a German invasion and by the time they invaded, there were Allied forces in Belgium.

A two pronged attack involved German forces advanced through the Ardennes to cut off the BEF and they also flanked the Maginot Line which allowed passage into France.

France believed Germany was rearming but didn't anticipate the Ardennes being used nor their defensive line being flanked.

Belgium objected to the Maginot line running to the coast as it would have left them on the wrong side of the coming war and they didn't want Belgium to become a battle ground. France didn't want to alienate Belgium.

Von Smallhausen · 23 Dec 2010 at 17:42

What about the Russians as well ?

They swept their armies aside after invading in 1941 until the weather slowed them and Russian men and materiel kicked in.