Picking up on the previous post, The United States did not declare war on Germany first...

Nox

Nox, I would assume everybody knows that whether you are talking about Europe or Official American Policy after Pearl Harbor. I am referring to the big picture and not to specific historical points of who, what and when,etc.

As an interesting aside, Phillip K Dick's 'Man in the High Castle' is a good read concerning reverse outcomes of WWII.

[This message has been edited by belarion23 (edited 05-22-2002).]

Bel,

I hope you didn't miss my point, ...I agree with you.

There is a school of thought that some view the lend-lease act as a not so subtle way to get the US into the European portion of the war. These same people believe that the US government was part of the Luisitania conspiracy in WWI.

Nox

Actually The US entered the first world war because of the zimmerman note, a telegraph which requested mexico to enter into war against the US on behalf of germany.

And by the way, the lusitania was running arms, which is why it went up so quickly. Personally I have no sympathy for any one who bought a ticket on the lusitanic as the ad had next to it an equal sized ad published by the german embassy stating that any ship flying under english colors was subject to sinking without notice by german U-boats and that this included the lusitania.

Nox, no harm no foul on my part. just misinterpeted the post.

Alan, don't you think it funny though that a U-Boat just happened to be right where it needed to be to score a direct hit.

Yes, they deliberately targeted it because they knew it was carrying arms.

Alan,

The United States entered WWI because Germany had announced unrestricted submarine warfare.

Demographically, the nation claimed by the largest percentage of Americans (at that time) as their country of origin was Great Britian. The second largest percentage claimed Germany. There was a great push in this country to have the United States enter the war on the side of Germany. Business wanted neutrality, because they were selling to both sides, albeit the Brits were stopping US merchant ships on the high seas headed for Germany and confiscating cargos (which were already paid for- no COD during war). The Germans couldn't confiscate because they lacked not only the Navy, but a ready access to the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, the Germans opted to sink the vessels headed for non-German ports.

Bel,

The myth of that submarine which "just happened to be in the neighborhood", is just that. Ads were taken out in the Liverpool (point of departure for the Luisitania) newspapers advising people not to seek passage on the Luisitania for that particular voyage. Remember, the victors write the history books and wartime errors are easily censored and covered up.

Additional point, the Luisitania was the sister ship of the Titanic. It took hours for the Titanic to sink. It took minutes for the Luisitania to sink. Why? Because as subsequent investigation has shown, the bottom was blown out from internal explosions (munitions? The Germans were right? The British Government covered up? The British Government lied? Lions and Tigers and Bears, O my!).

Nox

Nox

Actually Alan is right. Germany announced their decision to reinstate unrestricted U-boat warfare on Feb 1 1917, reneging on their promise not to attack any more civilian shipping after the Lusitania sinking.

Wilson wanted to remain neutral, announcing to Congress Feb 3 that America's role should be as a peacemaker.

This forced Britain to hand over the intercepted Zimmermann telegram (they didn't want to do this as it would indicate to the Germans that their messages were being intercepted and decrypted.

When Zimmerman was appointed, Americans saw him as a peacmaker... strange how "Our Friend Zimmerman" made the plan which was to catapult America into the war.

Belgium craved the same neutrality in the war that doubtlessly led to their downfall and many others in the end. Belgium had refused to take a side in the war until they were invaded then they called upon Britain for rescue and we answered their call without regret. We entered into the war in Belgium along with France to help save a nation from nazi Germany while America sat back and did nothing. America maintained its neutrality in the war until they found themselves under attack from the enemy, then they decided to join in allied fight. America joined the war for its own selfish needs not those of Great Britain or the French. Winston Churchill said it best:

quote:

---

The King of the Belgians had called upon us to come to his aid. Had not this Ruler and his Government severed themselves from the Allies, who rescued their country from extinction in the late war, and had they not sought refuge in what was proved to be a fatal neutrality , the French and British Armies might well at the outset have saved not only Belgium but perhaps even Poland

---

As for any talk that America is responsible for stopping a full-scale invasion of Great Britain I am doubtful that Hitler could have ever entered Britain whether we were with or without America. At the time of WW2 Great Britain had the greatest army in its entire history. The shoreline was protected by the royal navy who were in turn were protected by the royal air force neither of which could the Nazi�s even begin to rival. As for the army it was obviously substantially smaller than the Nazis but it was far better trained that along with British air support this is the reason why German casualties were at a six to one ratio just for the British battles in Europe. Sir Winston Churchill said:

quote:

---

The whole question of home defence against invasion is, of course, powerfully affected by the fact that we have for the time being in this Island incomparably more powerful military forces than we have ever had at any moment in this war or the last. But this will not continue. We shall not be content with a defensive war. We have our duty to our Ally (France).

---

Great Britain would never have fallen to the Enemy the mood of our great nation is summed up by Winston Churchill bellow:

quote:

---

The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

---

Great Britain was truly the only nation that opposed germanise ways from the outset if it was not for the unflinching commitment of this country the whole world could have become a nazi state because they were all so eager not to enter war. My nation committed its self to fight the enemy from the outset to the end losing many people in the defence of world freedom.

At the outset of the war Hitler sort to make an ally with Great Britain and we dismissed it without concern. Great Britain could have sort the same neutrality as the rest of the world buts that�s not in our nature.

quote:

---

Every morn brought forth a noble chance
And every chance brought forth a noble knight

---

VIPER

VIPER

Let us take out of history Hitler's decision to invade the USSR and Germany would have rolled right over the UK just like France. Yes, The royal Air Force would have put up a noble fight but you Brits get a little too big headed when it comes to war at sea. For example, you were trounced by the US during the War of 1812 when you were the so-called champions of naval warfare.

Simply put, UK vs Nazi Germany, the UK would have been toast. The only reason you did not suffer as the Russians was due to Hitler's theories of the English being genetically Nordic.

With a proper proganda campaign, the Nazi Heer would have rolled over you as they did to the Soviets during the earlier part of the WWII. Island or no Island. I think one word says it best: Dunkirk.

[This message has been edited by belarion23 (edited 05-29-2002).]

[This message has been edited by belarion23 (edited 05-29-2002).]

quote:

---

Let us take out of history Hitler's decision to invade the USSR and Germany would have rolled right over the UK just like France. Yes, The royal Air Force would have put up a noble fight but you Brits get a little too big headed when it comes to war at sea. For example, you were trounced by the US during the War of 1812 when you were the so-called champions of naval warfare.

---

The 1914-18 navy starved 800,000 Germans to death by blockading their points. Of course, this has little relevance to the relative strengths of the navies in 1940, but nor does your reference to the War of 1812.

Besides which, America was not responsible for stopping a full-scale invasion of Britain; Hitler was.

quote:

---

Simply put, UK vs Nazi Germany, the UK would have been toast. The only reason you did not suffer as the Russians was due to Hitler's theories of the English being genetically Nordic.

---

Not really. Hitler planned to invade Britain before Russia. His switch to bombing cities instead of military targets meant that Operation Sea Lion had to be postponed, and so the campaign in Russia took precedence. The switch to bombing cities was Hitler's mistake, but it had little to do with wanting the integrity of Britain preserved (he didn't) and everything to do with avenging British bombing raids.

quote:

---

With a proper proganda campaign, the Nazi Heer would have rolled over you as they did to the Soviets during the earlier part of the WWII. Island or no Island. I think one word says it best: Dunkirk.

---

Yes, the British withdrew a smaller force from a defeated ally, thus retaining men to assist in the defence of their homeland.

Die
My reference to the British Navy and the War of 1812 was to illustrate my opinion you brits thought the royal navy would have prevented Germany from taking England in regard to Viper's post. The reference was to show over confidence in a mighty force. The same way americans feel the Navy Seals could defeat Iraq.
I never said the USA was responsible for stopping a full scale invasion of England. You were correct in stating Hitler was.
No one will never know the reason why Hitler did not fully invade England, but I think Hitler A: knew a full scale invasion would very likely involve American Intervention at a point in the war where he had not consolodated his forces in significant strength and B: various logistical factors. Whether or not you believe Hess was sincere and had Hitler's approval for a proposed peace plan we will never know since Hess was murdered, yeah, I know it was ruled suicide, but common, before he was soon to be released. I am only speculating that Hitler and his cronies thought an invasion of the USSR would suddenly make England change sides. Thus, no operation sea lion.

Playing Hypothetical history, even if he would have allowed Von Rundstedt to blast away at Dunkirk it still would have been a ferocious battle on the home isle. However, I still think you would have lost.

[This message has been edited by belarion23 (edited 05-29-2002).]

The expedition team killed three men for every British loss. Successfully saving the lives of most of those men should not be underestimated in importance over 300,000 men were evacuated from Dunkirk. Belgium nearly left the expedition force to die after all we had done for them and Germany tried hard to wipe them out. But the majority of them were rescued by his majesties royal navy in the so-called little ships supported by the fleet, and guarded by his majesties royal air force.

Dunkirk was a victory in side of a massive military disaster

VIPER


[This message has been edited by Viper2002 (edited 05-30-2002).]

Viper,

Thank you for the history lesson. Nox didn't know Lizzy was Queen during Dunkirk.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Viper2002:
[b] But the majority of them were rescued by her majesties royal navy in the so-called little ships supported by the fleet, and guarded by her majesties royal air force.

Nox

Yes, the royal air force guarded the "little boats" from Goering. However, if Hitler would have followed Von Rundstedt's advice the UK forces would have been massacred at Dunkirk. It was luck that allowed you to survive and Hitler's foolish faith in Hermann.

Plus, allow me to clarify, my grandfather was Welsh so I do not have any doubt he would have fought to the bitter end-however, the other side of the family (germanic) would have won.

Wasn't the RAf hard pressed to stop the Luftwaffe? If so, How could they have stopped the German Army from invading? Wasn't the Royal Navy so desperate that we lent them 50 old destroyers? or was it WWI that that took place?

no they were WWI destroyers lent durring WWII, they were lent to protect convoys.

Also, wasn't it not His majesty's navy, but nearly every single fishing and private boat on the English Channel coast?

Joe,

You picked up on it (his/her) and Viper is strangely quiet. However, that error was tiny compared to the others.

Nox

Well he is right that it was a joint victory though, the UK did let us base B-17's there to bomb Germany.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
that error was tiny compared to the others.

---

Feel free to point them out, I am sure you know everything Nox.

It is easier to pick out petty little things then try to address the real subject at hand.

VIPER


[This message has been edited by Viper2002 (edited 05-31-2002).]

Viper,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Viper2002:
[b]I am sure you know everything Nox.

VIPER

Thank you. First time I've ever been accused of that. Most of the time the converse is true.

Anyway, I think (or I should say remember) that I give credit where credit is due and correct where there is an error.

But back to the subject, I did point out that yours was a minor error. Not because of any slamming of you, there are other people who read our posts, and our information should be as accurate as possible. With enough people giving "peer review" to our posts, accuracy gets much closer to 100%. Therefore, when it comes to facts (as I said earlier), those I will correct. Opinions, I try to let slide, unless I see what I perceive as a glaring error in a logic train.

Recent example, there are a couple posters who feel the Zimmerman Note was responsible for US entry into WWI. I feel the German declaration of unrestricted warfare was the cause. Two different opinions, the readers can sort out what they accept for themselves. However, regardless of who is right, the facts presented by both parties were 100% correct.

If you were offended, then I don't know what to say...I'm sorry does not come to mind. You are a big kid and have given your share of shots. Consider this a hit.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
that error was tiny compared to the others.

---

On the contrary I don�t mind in the slightest, I just think picking out errors as small as that is only slowing the progress of this topic down. I acknowledged the error and attempted to correct it, however I feel dragging such a tiny error out and feeling the need to point it out again to be sure everyone heard is uncalled for.

And as you said you want 100% accuracy, I only asked you to point out the other errors you said I have made.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Viper2002:
Feel free to point them out

---

However I think I may have misinterpreted your original post if so sorry if not then not sorry. When you said, "that error was tiny compared to others" I assumed you meant by myself, If you did not then as I said I apologise. If you did mean other errors by me then as you said in the interest of accuracy and to put my mind at rest point them out then.

Anyway No offence taken on my part, I was wrong with that, fair do's.

VIPER

Hey In Germany they Uncovered Kaiser Wilhelm's Plans for invading New York just recently

Joe,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
Hey In Germany they Uncovered Kaiser Wilhelm's Plans for invading New York just recently

---

As a military member you should be proud of that fact. At least the German high command was thinking beyond the Schlieffen Plan.

But to take your comment back to how it is relevant...there should be plans for every contingency. In military terms we talk in terms of colors. Friendlies are blue, enemies are red (makes for easy recognition plus it was convenient for the cold war).

What is important is that today's blue can be tomorrows red. Let's look at some recent examples...Iran...Kuwait (as occupied territory)...Grenada (also as occupied). For the sake of my point, I will use Grenada as my example. This small island was a threat to no one and as far as including it in military planning, it just didn't happen. It was a threat to no one...up until the Cubans started building a very large runway. New situation, the length and thickness and all the associated tarmac and logistic facilities went way beyond what was required for a mere commercial airport on a tiny Caribbean island (although some die-hards who don't understand logistics still argue to the contrary).

Now all of a sudden a plan had to be created. The planning process involves more than just the deployment of the forces. The logistic support (food, supplies, medical, etc) not only has to be provided on location, but where it comes from, who takes it, where it is stored, etc. has to be arranged. This is what the plans are for.

Just because you have made a plan doesn't mean the plan will be used. As a matter of fact, the plan (if used) will be altered considerably because of the situational requirements at the time.

Just because a plan exists, it means little...other than your military planning staff is doing what it's supposed to do...prepare for war.

I'm getting way too wordy...I'll quit.

Nox

No Problem. i also know there was a big fuckup in planning the invasion. But those happen all the time. Just Improvise,adapt and overcome