The epitamy of british history and military lies.

Snickers Man

Zambia232 wrote:

the only difference is I have no problem with the irish role in the advance of the British Empire because at the time thats what people did.

Well I'm not one for demanding that a 21st century british politician apologise for the actions (or inactions) of a 19th century one.

But nor am I in favour of glorifying what was an unsavoury aspect of our history and saying it was all about "defending the rights of small nations"

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

Peripheral effort?

By that stage yes.

Fratton Fred wrote:

And the war was also in Germany, a major factor on the number of civilian deaths.

And this refutes my argument how?

Fratton Fred wrote:

nice one, you canalways rely on the Irish to bring up Drogheda:rolleyes:

Just an example that i thought people would be familiar with. i'm not still cross with you for it.

odonnell

Snickers Man wrote:

Well it was meant to be an observation on the role of TV drama in instilling a commonly held belief which puts Britain's role in the war as the central one. Which I still believe to be true. It was not meant to imply that you are ignorant. Happy to clarify.





I've already said that the war being central to the experience of British people who lived through it does not mean that the British role was central to the overall conduct of the war.

Let me paraphrase a passage from a classic of wartime cinema:


"It doesn't take much to see that the loss of 300,000 people [your figures] out of a population of about 50 million, compared to Soviet losses of about 20 million people or Polish losses of 6.5 million out of a prewar population of 35 million doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world"

Why do I highlight this? Next time you see a load of English yob soccer supporters on the continent chanting "If it wasn't for the English you'd be Krauts" you should think, "Not only are you chaps frightfully uncouth and ill mannered, you are also ignorant of the overall facts. If it wasn't for the peripheral nature of our country to German considerations, we'd probably be Krauts too. But the fact is they couldn't be arsed because they had bigger fish to fry"




Yeah. Twenty years ago.

And why do you keep calling me "mate"?:confused:

now thats just petty.... obviously youve never spoken to any other Brits, Aussies, Canadians, Americans, Italans, Swedes, French, Poles, Czechs, Russians, Dutch and so on... in your life and youve never noted their automatic colloquialisms or speech 'informalities' no?

im done with ya mate... ive no time for disrespectful people.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

By that stage yes.



And this refutes my argument how?



Just an example that i thought people would be familiar with. i'm not still cross with you for it.

Lets make this simple. MY understanding is that a country could be considerd peripheral, if their presence made little or no difference. Do you honestly believe that Britain not entering the war would have made no difference at all? If Neville had not been kicked out and Britain had signed a truce with Germany, do you honestly think it would have made no difference at all and Germany would still have been defeated?

That is what your posts sound like.

and it sounds like you are still cross about Drogheda, you lost, get over it;)

Snickers Man

odonnell wrote:

now thats just petty

im done with ya mate... ive no time for disrespectful people.

See ya, Pal.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

Do you honestly believe that Britain not entering the war would have made no difference at all? If Neville had not been kicked out and Britain had signed a truce with Germany, do you honestly think it would have made no difference at all and Germany would still have been defeated?

Well that's a big what if? And it's debatable, but I reckon a strong case could me made for saying: yes absolutely.

Fratton Fred wrote:

and it sounds like you are still cross about Drogheda, you lost, get over it;)

Now that's just a raspberry.

odonnell

Snickers Man wrote:

See ya, Pal.

pathetic.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

Well that's a big what if? And it's debatable, but I reckon a strong case could me made for saying: yes absolutely.

Everything is debatable this side of the grave. Some debates aren't winnable though

jmayo

Fratton Fred wrote:

Lets make this simple. MY understanding is that a country could be considerd peripheral, if their presence made little or no difference. Do you honestly believe that Britain not entering the war would have made no difference at all? If Neville had not been kicked out and Britain had signed a truce with Germany, do you honestly think it would have made no difference at all and Germany would still have been defeated?

That is what your posts sound like.

and it sounds like you are still cross about Drogheda, you lost, get over it;)

I just have to reply to this...
The problem with Drogheda was not that we lost, it was the reception that cromwell's forces gave to the defeated.
You should remember this is an Irish board not an English one.

Regarding Germany invading Britain, were the Germans really capable of undertaking a massive seaborne invasion ?
Remember they used airborne forces to get a foothold in Crete.
They would have needed overwhelming air superiority to stand a chance against the Royal Navy and prevent them from descimating their invasion craft.

If Britain had not entered the war or signed a truce circa 1940, then the question would be whether there would have been a Western Front?
Would the USA have declared war on Germany or Germany declared war on US, seen that the UK was not at war with Germany?

One change would have been, the USSR would not have been able to receive the needed supplies during the early stages of their war with Germany.
There would be no US/British bombing of Germany, which did still absorb a lot of resources and manpower, no matter what some people on here may think.

Yes, the USSR would probably have eventually defeated Germany since Stalin had no morals or scruples about sacrificing his peoples. The war may have dragged on a lot longer, can't see Hitler and Stalin coming to an accomodation and if they did it would only to rearm.
Then you would have a Soviet dominated Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic. Nice thought that.

Now that we are into the realms of "What ifs".
What if Mayo does secede from the republic when we eventually bring OUR gas ashore and leave the rest of ye shiver in the cold.
Then we can win our own All-Ireland and have our own Taoiseach & Tanaiste and feck the rest of ye.

What if we open a new thread to discuss who won the war, another new one to spit on the memory of cromwell and leave this to discuss the Zulu war or has OP achieved his aim once again?

O'Leprosy

Fratton Fred wrote:

and it sounds like you are still cross about Drogheda, you lost, get over it;)

In fact the majority of the population of Drogheda was what was termed 'Old English'. They had been the English who had come over since the Norman invasion, but unlike their counterparts back in England, they had kept to Catholicism. Sir Arthur Aston, a Catholic from England, was commander of the town. So, you could say, it was brits butchering brits

Zambia

jmayo wrote:

Now that we are into the realms of "What ifs".
What if Mayo does secede from the republic when we eventually bring OUR gas ashore and leave the rest of ye shiver in the cold.
Then we can win our own All-Ireland and have our own Taoiseach & Tanaiste and feck the rest of ye.

What if we open a new thread to discuss who won the war, another new one to spit on the memory of cromwell and leave this to discuss the Zulu war or has OP achieved his aim once again?

A:Which war the thread has seen so many

B:An if Mayo did secede the amount they would have the monoploy of irish hot air

Snickers Man

jmayo wrote:

Regarding Germany invading Britain, were the Germans really capable of undertaking a massive seaborne invasion ?
Remember they used airborne forces to get a foothold in Crete.
They would have needed overwhelming air superiority to stand a chance against the Royal Navy and prevent them from descimating their invasion craft.

What they would have probably done, if they'd REALLY wanted to defeat Britain, if it was REALLY the focus of their war effort as opposed to being just a peripheral nuisance would have been to do what Churchill was so afraid they would do and invade Ireland. They could have done this largely via the air, flying out from Brittany and landing paratroops in the south.

They could have pinned the majority of the RAF down by continuing to attack London and landed troops in Ireland. They would not have needed quite so many to take over a country with such a small population.

Remember, they would have got some popular local support, not ironically from the Blueshirts, who were now in Fine Gael and whose leader was the only leading Irish politician who wanted to join in the war on the Allied side (though maybe that was not until after america joined the war), but rather the recalcitrants in the IRA who were in contact with them throughout the war and continued to believe that Britain's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity.

Germany would have ruled Ireland like it ruled any other country. A mixture of "whip and cream" which worked so well in Czechoslovakia where there was hardly any resistance until late in the war. Co-operate and all will be rosy; resist, and you're up against the wall.

Then they would have built airstrips on the West coast with which to harrass British shipping way out into the Atlantic and at the same time denied airbases in Northern Ireland, like Ballykelly which was so vital to the British in the war as the most westerly aerodrome for its anti submarine patrols.

More airstrips on the east coast would have been used to pound the industrial north of Britain with virtual impunity. And they would also have completely choked off a vital source of Britain's food: Irish farms.

They would basically have starved Britain out

Wonder why they never did it? Maybe they had bigger fish to fry.

jmayo wrote:

Yes, the USSR would probably have eventually defeated Germany since Stalin had no morals or scruples about sacrificing his peoples. The war may have dragged on a lot longer, can't see Hitler and Stalin coming to an accomodation and if they did it would only to rearm.
Then you would have a Soviet dominated Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic. Nice thought that.

I reckon they would have fought themselves to a standstill and split the difference. Large parts of what are now Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic republics would have been absorbed into the Reich and the Soviets would have kept Russia and everything east of there.


But that's all "what-if". We have facts enough to ponder and the facts are that the vast majority of the effort expended in defeating the Nazis was done by the Soviets.

What the west really won was the peace, not the war.

Fratton Fred

jmayo wrote:

I just have to reply to this...
The problem with Drogheda was not that we lost, it was the reception that cromwell's forces gave to the defeated.
You should remember this is an Irish board not an English one.

you are right, although there are those that argue the reception given to the defenders was standard practice at the time, which is why a seige usually lasted so long, becuase the defenders knew if they gave in they were toast. The thing with Drogheda is that a lot of the seige has become propaganda and is used as an example of English oppression rather than viewed objectively. My statement was a petty dig at the poster though, who appears to have little regard for the massive effort Britain put into the war, or is trying to wind up the Brits on here, that is all.

jmayo wrote:

Regarding Germany invading Britain, were the Germans really capable of undertaking a massive seaborne invasion ?
Remember they used airborne forces to get a foothold in Crete.
They would have needed overwhelming air superiority to stand a chance against the Royal Navy and prevent them from descimating their invasion craft.

If Britain had not entered the war or signed a truce circa 1940, then the question would be whether there would have been a Western Front?
Would the USA have declared war on Germany or Germany declared war on US, seen that the UK was not at war with Germany?

One change would have been, the USSR would not have been able to receive the needed supplies during the early stages of their war with Germany.
There would be no US/British bombing of Germany, which did still absorb a lot of resources and manpower, no matter what some people on here may think.

Yes, the USSR would probably have eventually defeated Germany since Stalin had no morals or scruples about sacrificing his peoples. The war may have dragged on a lot longer, can't see Hitler and Stalin coming to an accomodation and if they did it would only to rearm.
Then you would have a Soviet dominated Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic. Nice thought that.

that is pretty much how I see it, which is why I believe Britain part was a lot more than "Peripheral".

jmayo wrote:

What if we open a new thread to discuss who won the war, another new one to spit on the memory of cromwell and leave this to discuss the Zulu war or has OP achieved his aim once again?

I believe he already has.:o

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

The thing with Drogheda is that a lot of the seige has become propaganda and is used as an example of English oppression rather than viewed objectively. My statement was a petty dig at the poster though, who appears to have little regard for the massive effort Britain put into the war, or is trying to wind up the Brits on here, that is all.

I didn't actually use the example of Drogheda to bleat about "British oppression" I used it as an example of the time-honoured phenomenon in war that at the very point of victory, the defeated enemy and its civilians get massacred in droves. I only chose Drogheda as an example that many people here would be familiar with.

I could have chosen the sack of Magdeburg in the 17th century, or the sack of Antwerp in the 16th or the Rape of Nanking in the 20th or even the fate of Melios or Carthage from antiquity but that would have sent too many people scurrying towards Wikipedia.

Or an atlas.

Like I said, I'm not still cross with you about it.

And I have never denied--and have made explicit--that Britain's effort in WWII was gargantuan. I have just made the point, using FACTS and FIGURES to back it up, that that gargantuan effort didn't account for a whole lot when measured against other peoples' gargantuan efforts.

Indeed, Britain's effort was so gargantuan that within 25 years of the war's end, it had lost nearly all its overseas possessions from which it recruited so many of the soldiers that fought in the war. According to the famous "World at War" documentary, for example, 60 % of the "British" army in Burma was in fact Indian.

And as for winding up the Brits on this board: well if you get wound up by facts, perhaps it's because you can't face them.

jmayo

Snickers Man wrote:

They could have done this largely via the air, flying out from Brittany and landing paratroops in the south.

They could have pinned the majority of the RAF down by continuing to attack London and landed troops in Ireland. They would not have needed quite so many to take over a country with such a small population.

Germany would have ruled Ireland like it ruled any other country. A mixture of "whip and cream" which worked so well in Czechoslovakia where there was hardly any resistance until late in the war. Co-operate and all will be rosy; resist, and you're up against the wall.

Then they would have built airstrips on the West coast with which to harrass British shipping way out into the Atlantic and at the same time denied airbases in Northern Ireland, like Ballykelly which was so vital to the British in the war as the most westerly aerodrome for its anti submarine patrols.

More airstrips on the east coast would have been used to pound the industrial north of Britain with virtual impunity. And they would also have completely choked off a vital source of Britain's food: Irish farms.

They would basically have starved Britain out

Wonder why they never did it? Maybe they had bigger fish to fry.

There are quiet a few problems with your theory about flying from Brittany to invade Ireland.
The bombers or troops carrying Junkers carrying the paratroopers would have little fighter support since the operational range of for instance the Me 109s would not allow it.

If the Germans were even to mimic the invasion of Crete (Operation Mercury) then you would have to transport in the region of the following: 14,000 paratroopers, 15,000 mountain troopers

Now you may not need the numbers that were used in Crete, since there was a large Allied presence there (over 25,000), but even if you only used half the soldiers, how the hell are you going to get them to Ireland.

Now in Crete they used something like 150 dive bombers, 300 fighters, 500 Junkers 52 transports and 72 troop gliders.

Now the dive bombers and fighters would probably not make Ireland so where is the air support?
Trust me from knowing gliders, it is damm long way to pull a glider.
The JU 52 transport used by the paratroopers has operational range of only 500 odd miles. Doesn't leave much of a margin. Each one only carried about 17 paratroopers and only the empty or near empty ones are pulling gliders.

Crete is a lot closer to mainland Greece than Brittany is to Ireland and you do not have one of your major enemies with major airpower and seapower lying along the route.

Hitler only diverted to bombing London because Berlin was bombed and he considered it a slight. The key to defeating RAF was to continue trying to knock out the airfields and radar. Even then they were having serious losses of pilots and aircraft.
If the Germans concentrated on bombing London then how do they support their invasion aircraft.
Were there any major airfields in West Brittany, weren't most of them along Normandy and Belgium border?

What would the Irish Army have done, gone on joined the Germans or fought for our soverignty as an independent state from all foreign nations?
And the North would have of course have collapsed?

Even if they get a foothold how would the Germans have been able to resupply their forces here. Their ships would have been subject to both air and surface attacks. It is also a long way to fly a supply aircraft over enemy territory.

There are too many holes in your theory.

>>> A mixture of "whip and cream" which worked so well in Czechoslovakia
Yeah tell that to the 5,000 odd slaughtered in retaliation for Heydrich's death.

Snickers Man

jmayo wrote:

There are quiet a few problems with your theory about flying from Brittany to invade Ireland.
The bombers or troops carrying Junkers carrying the paratroopers would have little fighter support since the operational range of for instance the Me 109s would not allow it.

They would have had plenty of fighter support for the area where they were most likely to be attacked, near the southern tip of England. They wouldn't have had to worry about the irish air force. We didn't have one.

Now you may not need the numbers that were used in Crete, since there was a large Allied presence there (over 25,000), but even if you only used half the soldiers, how the hell are you going to get them to Ireland.

Oh they would have needed some boats certainly. And if they'd REALLY wanted to do it, they would have deployed the resources.

Now the dive bombers and fighters would probably not make Ireland so where is the air support?

Fighters already dealt with. Dive bombers: wouldn't have needed them as much. Irish army defences not as strong as the British ones in Crete.

Hitler only diverted to bombing London because Berlin was bombed and he considered it a slight. The key to defeating RAF was to continue trying to knock out the airfields and radar.

True. And good point. If you'd been in command of the Germans, Fratton Fred might now be Friedrich aus Fratton.

Were there any major airfields in West Brittany,

Dunno. But how difficult is it to build a few?

What would the Irish Army have done, gone on joined the Germans or fought for our soverignty as an independent state from all foreign nations?
And the North would have of course have collapsed?

What would have happened is likely what happened in all small countries. There woudl have been a heroic and futile formal resistance. Followed by a surrender. Followed by a division in the native population between those who favoured the new German regime (of which there would of course have been many just as there were in Belgium, Norway, even France) and those who were determined to resist.

Even if they get a foothold how would the Germans have been able to resupply their forces here. Their ships would have been subject to both air and surface attacks. It is also a long way to fly a supply aircraft over enemy territory.

Same way they supplied Rommel in N Africa. By boat. Just because the German navy was miniscule compared with the RN doesn't mean they were afraid of the water.

There are too many holes in your theory.

Nothing that a good brainstorm won't fix.

>>> A mixture of "whip and cream" which worked so well in Czechoslovakia
Yeah tell that to the 5,000 odd slaughtered in retaliation for Heydrich's death.

Entirely consistent with my point. Heydrich's assassination was organised by the British, who wanted to provoke a retaliation that would, they hoped, cause an uprising. It didn't work. Until the very end of the war and the immediate aftermath when thousands of Germans were "ethnically cleansed" from the Sudetenland where they had lived for centuries.

PHB

Come on lads, let's try keep it civil, I'll be keeping an eye on this thread.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

They would have had plenty of fighter support for the area where they were most likely to be attacked, near the southern tip of England. They wouldn't have had to worry about the irish air force. We didn't have one.




Oh they would have needed some boats certainly. And if they'd REALLY wanted to do it, they would have deployed the resources.



Fighters already dealt with. Dive bombers: wouldn't have needed them as much. Irish army defences not as strong as the British ones in Crete.




True. And good point. If you'd been in command of the Germans, Fratton Fred might now be Friedrich aus Fratton.




Dunno. But how difficult is it to build a few?



What would have happened is likely what happened in all small countries. There woudl have been a heroic and futile formal resistance. Followed by a surrender. Followed by a division in the native population between those who favoured the new German regime (of which there would of course have been many just as there were in Belgium, Norway, even France) and those who were determined to resist.




Same way they supplied Rommel in N Africa. By boat. Just because the German navy was miniscule compared with the RN doesn't mean they were afraid of the water.



Nothing that a good brainstorm won't fix.


Entirely consistent with my point. Heydrich's assassination was organised by the British, who wanted to provoke a retaliation that would, they hoped, cause an uprising. It didn't work. Until the very end of the war and the immediate aftermath when thousands of Germans were "ethnically cleansed" from the Sudetenland where they had lived for centuries.

jesus, good job the Germans didn't think of that, this war thing is so easy:D

(In hind sight anyway)

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

jesus, good job the Germans didn't think of that, this war thing is so easy:D

(In hind sight anyway)

OK so I'm no logistics expert. Let's just leave it that if the Germans had wanted to invade Ireland to use it as a base to harrass Britain, they would have done it and probably been successful.

Churchill certainly feared that they could. Or at the very least feared that splitting up what was left of the British Army after the fall of France to defend approaches to Ireland would have left Britain fatally exposed.

Put it another way: if you were a German commander in 1940 and forcing a British surrender was your number one priority, how would you have gone about it?

Tchocky

*sneezes wildly*

Germany hadn't a a chance of successfully invading Britain, never mind Ireland. The prime mover for the invading army was to be the river barge, towed out to sea and allowed to coast onto the shore. That was the plan for Seelowe. Germany had nothing like the massive industrial resources needed to move the Allied armies to Normandy.
The surface elements of the Kriegsmarine was in bits and pieces, spread between Brest and Narvik. After the Norwegian campaign, the strongest arm of the German Navy was the U-bootwaffe, and they were needed in the Atlantic. The slow-moving invasion fleet would have been decimated by the Home Fleet.

The Luftwaffe wouldn't have been much help, Me109's had enough fuel for 9 minutes of combat over London, that doesn't bode well for total air superiority.

Snickers man, you say fighters are already dealt with. Are you talking about an invasion of Ireland to harass Britain? If you are, where would these fighters fly from?

*sneeze*

Snickers Man

Tchocky wrote:

*sneezes wildly*

Gesundheit.

Well the Mod says we have to be nicer to each other.

Tchocky wrote:

Germany had nothing like the massive industrial resources needed to move the Allied armies to Normandy.

They would have needed nothing like the size of that army to invade Ireland. They would need to have got a small army there pretty quickly to establish a foothold and then reinforced them adequately by sea at a later date.

But of course, as with all invading armies of neutral countries they would have preceded this with intrigue to attempt the takeover of the country by a friendly local government. Sort of like they did with Norway where the local Nazi Quisling effectively "invited" the Germans in to take over in the face of an impending British invasion.

Drumming up fears (well founded as it turned out) of a British re-invasion of the Free State could have stirred up anti British feeling and facilitated German troops being sent/invited to the country to keep the invading hoards out. And do you know, they would probably have described their actions as "coming to the aid of small nations." That could have worked for them in 1940-41 as well as it worked for the British in 1914.

After the Norwegian campaign, the strongest arm of the German Navy was the U-bootwaffe, and they were needed in the Atlantic. The slow-moving invasion fleet would have been decimated by the Home Fleet.

For a serious invasion they could have redeployed quite a few submarines to help protect an invasion fleet.

The Luftwaffe wouldn't have been much help, Me109's had enough fuel for 9 minutes of combat over London, that doesn't bode well for total air superiority.

And how well would British assault planes have dealt with an invasion fleet? They didn't do too well against Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during the Channel Dash, did they? Weren't ALL of their planes shot down in that one. Including that of the leader of the assault, the very Irish Eugene Esmonde?

Snickers man, you say fighters are already dealt with. Are you talking about an invasion of Ireland to harass Britain? If you are, where would these fighters fly from?

What I meant was that the area in which an invasion fleet would have been under threat from British planes would have been the same area in which they could have been protected by German planes flying from Brittany. Once the fleet got as far as St George's Channel it would have been in an area in which attacking British planes would also have been hampered by range limitations.

jmayo

Snickers Man wrote:

Gesundheit.
They would have needed nothing like the size of that army to invade Ireland. They would need to have got a small army there pretty quickly to establish a foothold and then reinforced them adequately by sea at a later date.

For a serious invasion they could have redeployed quite a few submarines to help protect an invasion fleet.

And how well would British assault planes have dealt with an invasion fleet?

What I meant was that the area in which an invasion fleet would have been under threat from British planes would have been the same area in which they could have been protected by German planes flying from Brittany. Once the fleet got as far as St George's Channel it would have been in an area in which attacking British planes would also have been hampered by range limitations.

True there wasn't a battle hardened army in ireland and we would not have had the resources that the Allies had in Create, so German invasion force would be smaller.
Yes the German would be able to give some air support over the mouth of the English Channel but not when they crossed inot St Georges Channel, but British planes could have been moved to Wales and the West country temporaily. Britain I presume had some aircraft based in Nortern Ireland. Ok the aircraft may not be Spits or Hurricanes but they would not have had to deal with front line German fighters, but unprotected German transports.

The whole idea is irrelevant if the distance involved from Brittany to Southern Ireland is greater than 250 miles. If it is then the JU 52 tranpsorts used by German paratroopers could not do the round trip.
Otherwise have to try and adapt long range bombers to carry troops.

Did the Germans have troop carriers, did they pocess landing craft?
Submarines could not protect an invasion fleet. Submarines would be susceptible to air attack from maritime patrols.

I believe Hitler did want to invade Britain in 1940, but got dejected when he realised the much promised destruction of the RAF did not materialise from Goering's Luftwaffe. If the RAF had not stopped the Luftwaffe then the story could have been much different.

Anyway should we start another thread to discuss ways to invade England?
How many threads have I now suggest be started ?

I guess if we started a thread discussing the American war of independence or the travels of David Livingston it would still end up with the same discussion as this thread.

Snickers Man

jmayo wrote:

I believe Hitler did want to invade Britain in 1940, but got dejected when he realised the much promised destruction of the RAF did not materialise from Goering's Luftwaffe. If the RAF had not stopped the Luftwaffe then the story could have been much different.

Oh I absolutely agree with that statement. The RAF had upped the ante and made the Germans realise that there would be a heavy price paid for an invasion of Britain. In that sense they did much to protect their country from invasion.

But all I'm saying is that if defeating Britain was Hitler's priority, he would have deployed what resources he needed to effect an invasion, either across the English Channel or via Ireland. After all, he invaded Russia with an army of more than a million. What's building a few extra boats or airplanes compared with that?

His main interest always lay in the east. That's where the Lebensraum was always going to be.