"Operation Armageddon" in 1969 would have been mass suicide for Irish - STAY ON TOPIC

itsonlywords

fearcruach wrote: »

Ok itsonlywords there are many things wrong with your posts.

You clearly have an anti - British bias. When it comes to evaluating history you absolutely must have objectivity as far as possible. So perhaps stop referring to them as the "Brits" and people might take your more seriously.

You also show a clear misunderstanding of the Wermarcht and its fighting capabilities. While Blitzkrieg was brutally successful in France and pretty much everywhere else you miss an important point. This all worked because of the seamless integration of aircraft, motorised divisions and infantry. To invade Britain the Germans would have required a gargantuan landing fleet just to get their troops and tanks to Britain. Considering the skys were still being contested and that the RAF had better fighting aircraft this would have been very difficult. All it would have required to stop the invasion would have been for the vastly superiour British Navy to intervene.

So please stop spouting generalised historical BS and anti - British drivel when it there is no evidence to back it up.

Have I respect for the Brits? NO I do not. My perogative and my right as I never forgive them for the murder of my people and destruction of my land. That said the brits without the assistance of the large forces that rowed in with them would have lasted a few months max. The Germans had superior fighting force and the airforce was definitely superior as was their technology. My relations fought with the Germans so I know. German navy was vastly superior with U Boat strength outnumbering the brits. Anyway it pees me off to hear brits claiming a victory when all that happened was millions died because of crazy brits and Germans.

Stev_o

itsonlywords wrote: »

Have I respect for the Brits? NO I do not. My perogative and my right as I never forgive them for the murder of my people and destruction of my land. That said the brits without the assistance of the large forces that rowed in with them would have lasted a few months max. The Germans had superior fighting force and the airforce was definitely superior as was their technology. My relations fought with the Germans so I know. German navy was vastly superior with U Boat strength outnumbering the brits. Anyway it pees me off to hear brits claiming a victory when all that happened was millions died because of crazy brits and Germans.

Probably the funniest thing iv ever read in relation to WW2. The Germans with a strong navy? How many German battleships survived the open waters during WW2? How well did the U-Boat campaign go again? Brits seemed to do fairly well in NA with little assistance and i seem to recall their bombing campaign being alot more successful then the Germans.

itsonlywords

Stev_o wrote: »

Probably the funniest thing iv ever read in relation to WW2. The Germans with a strong navy? How many German battleships survived the open waters during WW2? How well did the U-Boat campaign go again? Brits seemed to do fairly well in NA with little assistance and i seem to recall their bombing campaign being alot more successful then the Germans.

Listen "dude" hey that must sound funny when spoken with a Christy Moore accent. LOL Anyway that shows what you know. The Atlantic fleet was decimated by UBoats and it is historically correct to say that the Germans were superior to the brits. Jutland was an example. I hated Nazism but I hated the brits more. Develera was funny when he upset old Churchill when Dev telegrammed the German parliament to sympatise on The Furhers death

K-9

itsonlywords wrote: »

Yes they would have done so. If Hitler had not gone to Russia, then it would have been a different story. I personally am glad that he choose the way he did but I get kinda peed off to hear the stupid brits say "we won the war" They won shyte

Without the Japanese, Ireland would probably have been taken over anyway, if needed.

With Pearl Harbour, the Americans came to NI, thus reducing the importance of the ROI.

itsonlywords

K-9 wrote: »

Without the Japanese, Ireland would probably have been taken over anyway, if needed.

With Pearl Harbour, the Americans came to NI, thus reducing the importance of the ROI.

What is that about?

Capt'n Midnight

itsonlywords wrote: »

Ok remove the Americans(who won the war in fact), French, , Norwegians , Czechs Irish:mad: etc etc and then the Brits got their asses kicked. The Germans were almost over the channel and they bombed the crap out of London and the Midlands.

Czechs were sold out.

Americans won the Japanese war. Commonwealth and US beat Italy. It was the Russians who beat everyone else.


German bombing of the UK didn't affect the war effort. British bombing of the continent didn't have as much effect on production as the blockade / lack of raw materials.

Compare the size of the BEF with the German Army and figure it out.

K-9

itsonlywords wrote: »

What is that about?

You really think Churchill cared about Neutrality? He showed enough contempt about it when it wasn't a strategic issue.

anonymous_joe

K-9 wrote: »

You really think Churchill cared about Neutrality? He showed enough contempt about it when it wasn't a strategic issue.

Not much of a surprise given who he was.

Moreover, if you were in his situation, i.e. a country which has (whether for good or ill) been intimately linked to yours for several hundred years refuses to help you against an enemy who will conquer you both, you'd be tempted to ignore neutrality too.

K-9

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Not much of a surprise given who he was.

Moreover, if you were in his situation, i.e. a country which has (whether for good or ill) been intimately linked to yours for several hundred years refuses to help you against an enemy who will conquer you both, you'd be tempted to ignore neutrality too.

In fairness to Churchill who seemed preoccupied with the Treaty Ports, he did respect our Neutrality though it obviously was an extreme annoyance to him.

Even in victory he got a dig at DeV and IMO DeV, defended Neutrality and showed Churchill up as a bully. DeV's finest moment. Very few could argue and defend our sovereignty better.

Must try and dig out his speech.

Still, if Churchill needed Ireland strategically in a time of war, I'm not sure if he would have respected our Neutrality and if too many would have been defending us.

anonymous_joe

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness to Churchill who seemed preoccupied with the Treaty Ports, he did respect our Neutrality though it obviously was an extreme annoyance to him.

Even in victory he got a dig at DeV and IMO DeV, defended Neutrality and showed Churchill up as a bully. DeV's finest moment. Very few could argue and defend our sovereignty better.

Must try and dig out his speech.

Still, if Churchill needed Ireland strategically in a time of war, I'm not sure if he would have respected our Neutrality and if too many would have been defending us.

Definitely a fine hour as a man of balls of steel, but if I was Churchill I'd just have taken the ports and used them anyway.

zonEEE

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness to Churchill who seemed preoccupied with the Treaty Ports, he did respect our Neutrality though it obviously was an extreme annoyance to him.

Even in victory he got a dig at DeV and IMO DeV, defended Neutrality and showed Churchill up as a bully. DeV's finest moment. Very few could argue and defend our sovereignty better.

Must try and dig out his speech.

Still, if Churchill needed Ireland strategically in a time of war, I'm not sure if he would have respected our Neutrality and if too many would have been defending us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNOQ3zQ2F0

K-9

strongr wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNOQ3zQ2F0

Thanks for that. Definitely his finest moment. Despite his many failings, he left us with Neutrality and a damn good defence of it!

Manic Moran

The Atlantic fleet was decimated by UBoats and it is historically correct to say that the Germans were superior to the brits.

It seems to me that the Battle of Britain indicated a greater balance than you may think. Not to mention pretty much every naval battle where German warships met British ones. Sure, Hood blew up, but that didn't save Bismark in the long run.

And the U-Boat fleet wasn't having an easy time of it either. If you want to say the Atlantic Fleet was decimated by U-boats, what would be the appropriate term to describe 800 U-boats sunk out of a fleet of just over 1,000? Octo-decimated?

The Germans seemed to regard the English Channel as a somewhat wide river, and were equipped accordingly. It wouldn't have worked out well for them.

NTM

pat78monday6

some posts have the case for irish fighting the brits in the north when they referred to churchill accepting irish nutrality , he had no other choice dev threatened guirella war against the brits should they invade, this meant the brits would have another front to fight on and they could not afford that. since the only troops they could send were irish born.fast forward to today and the brits are part of nato which is split ,half are fighting and the other half are looking on,hence the brits could be there for a very long time unless the irish catch themselves on and stop filling their ranks as they dont have enough englishmen to replace their own retirees. what else is new:rolleyes:

Tordelback

I personally am glad that he choose the way he did but I get kinda peed off to hear the stupid brits say "we won the war" They won shyte

Unbelievable. No-one is denying, no-one has ever denied, that the massive economies and militaries of the US and more significantly the USSR are what turned the war back on Germany, but love 'em or hate 'em the Brits and their Imperial allies held the critical European invasion beach-head of Britain, and tied up vast numbers of Axis troops in the other theatres.

How would the Yanks ever have made it to Normandy if Britain and (don't fool yourself) Ireland had been in German hands? They might be irritating neighbours, but like it or not they saved our bacon from those bloody savages. We don't have to like it, but it's true.

In All Fairness

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that is one thing that is puzzling me.

In 1969 the Royal Navy and Air Force were conducting almost non stop exercises alongside their American colleagues to help prevent a perceived Soviet invasion of europe and the US via the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap. Why would the US have stopped these to support a small country who was expecting the Red Army to come and give them a hand? do people really think the USSR would have risked sparking war with NATO by coming to the aid of Ireland, or that the US would have sat back and watched them build bases in Cork?

Some people need a reality check.

the 1916 volunteers all ended up dead, which is probably what would have happened in Londonderry had the irish Army invaded.



Did the British ask the US for assistance? Britain had dozens of frigates that could have taken out the Icelandic navy in an afternoon, why would they want to seek US assistance?

WTF has the cod wars got to do with this anyway, are you suggesting the Irish should have stolen all the cod?

Absolute agreement with your post. I think, as I stated in an earlier post, that Lynch realised that it was a cold war, and neither Russia nor America wanted another Cuba situation. Therefore just the threat of civil unrest in a place as geographically strategic as Ireland, would force both players to the table. Phone calls were made and the British Army was sent in to protect the Catholics/Nationalists. Good work Mr. Lynch.

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

It seems to me that the Battle of Britain indicated a greater balance than you may think. Not to mention pretty much every naval battle where German warships met British ones. Sure, Hood blew up, but that didn't save Bismark in the long run.

And the U-Boat fleet wasn't having an easy time of it either. If you want to say the Atlantic Fleet was decimated by U-boats, what would be the appropriate term to describe 800 U-boats sunk out of a fleet of just over 1,000? Octo-decimated?

NTM

If a U Boat attacked a convoy, it had only a one in six chance of surviving itself. Whereas that German battleships (Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Graf Spae etc) were systematically hunted down and destroyed. You are right, how anyone can claim the Germans decimated the Royal Navy is comical.

In All Fairness

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If a U Boat attacked a convoy, it had only a one in six chance of surviving itself. Whereas that German battleships (Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Graf Spae etc) were systematically hunted down and destroyed. You are right, how anyone can claim the Germans decimated the Royal Navy is comical.

My knowledge of naval history is pretty sketchy, but wasn't the Bismarck's sister ship (Tirpitz?) also blockaded into port for the entire war until it was finally sunk by Lancasters?

Of course the other side of that coin is it tied up a fair few allied ships. Like Diego Maradonna or Marco Van Basten. It doesn't matter if they do anything, you have to triple mark them which frees up other players.

It's very complex. Better to leave it to the professionals like NTM who at least have an idea of the game imho.

Politicians make poor generals. Look at Hitler. If it had been left to Rommell and Doenitz, who knows what might have happened. Thank God for Hitler.:)

getz

just to add my little bit,more british merchant seamen died during the second world war[some as young as 14 years old] than any of the other of the british armed forces.cities like liverpool,glasgow,that a large amount of these lads came from,was always in constant mourning.when a ships went down during u/boat attacks , you would have had over a 100 families a time would have lost sons and husbands from that one city

Donny5

getz wrote: »

just to add my little bit,more british merchant seamen died during the second world war[some as young as 14 years old] than any of the other of the british armed forces.cities like liverpool,glasgow,that a large amount of these lads came from,was always in constant mourning.when a ships went down during u/boat attacks , you would have had over a 100 families a time would have lost sons and husbands from that one city

That's not true. The Brits lost about 30,000 Merchant Navy Seamen in the Atlantic, and about 35,000 overall. The contrasts will 382,700 deaths in the Armed Forces (which includes the MN).

getz

Donny5 wrote: »

That's not true. The Brits lost about 30,000 Merchant Navy Seamen in the Atlantic, and about 35,000 overall. The contrasts will 382,700 deaths in the Armed Forces (which includes the MN).

its just a point of who you believe, www.culture24.org. think its 30,000, www.merchant-navy.net. say its 50,000.wicko thinks ireland lost a total of only 200 people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but i know for sure 16 irish merchant ships were torpedoed as well as many fishing trawlers .the british 382,000 figure also includes the civilians who were servicing the forces and backroom staff.

Manic Moran

My knowledge of naval history is pretty sketchy, but wasn't the Bismarck's sister ship (Tirpitz?) also blockaded into port for the entire war until it was finally sunk by Lancasters?

Correct, Tirpitz basically holed up in a Norwegian fjord until being hit by some of the largest bombs dropped in WWII.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

Correct, Tirpitz basically holed up in a Norwegian fjord until being hit by some of the largest bombs dropped in WWII.

Tallboys, another Barnes-Wallace creation.

getz

going back to the thread, i found this letter on the net,;;;my father was a army officer in 69, and i asked him about this;his reply is always the same-the plans to invade the north were drawn up in responce to the wide-eyed fantasies of hardcore republican elements in the governing fianna fail party, the senior officers of the defence forces-specifically the army-thought the mere suggestion lunatic and let the politicians know this.

Capt'n Midnight

pat78monday6 wrote: »

, this meant the brits would have another front to fight on and they could not afford that. since the only troops they could send were irish born.

Please re-read my previous posts

The number of troups sent to the Faroes was the same as our army.
They also invaded Iceland and Iraq.

Also there was fighting with Vichy colonies in Madagascar and the Italians in Abyssinia

There was also involvement with the Finnish war

Ireland would have been just another front.

The brits were content to leave us as we were but if there had have been any German invasion they would not have waited for an invitation. In the same way that no one cared what Belgium or Holland thought if it intefered with their plans. Poland could have had a peace treaty with Russia if they allowed Russians troops to cross their border.

getz

getz wrote: »

going back to the thread, i found this letter on the net,;;;my father was a army officer in 69, and i asked him about this;his reply is always the same-the plans to invade the north were drawn up in responce to the wide-eyed fantasies of hardcore republican elements in the governing fianna fail party, the senior officers of the defence forces-specifically the army-thought the mere suggestion lunatic and let the politicians know this.

There was a greater risk of a private army going up and joining forces with the rioters, my uncle for one was ready to go!
Fortunately there was no coherant organisation, just a few individuals and small groups who in the end did nothing!

DoireNod

When I watched this I was struck by how unimaginative it was. It could have been an hour shorter for what it contained.

I think the people who decided what 'could have happened' overlooked so many things. Like the reasons behind the clashing with the cops. The documentary acknowledged that it was a riot sparked by a loyalist parade, but as Éamonn McCann pointed out, to the people who suffered, the parade was like a demonstration and celebration of 'Catholic second-class citizenship'. The whole 'second-class citizenship' notion seems to have been glossed over, but I feel it should have received much more emphasis. For example, would the international community have frowned so much on the Irish government for seeking to confront and address the blatant disregard for the civil rights of the Catholic Nationalist Irish community in the North? I mean, one need only look at some of the support the hunger-strikers received to get an indication of how the plight of people who weren't 'terrorists' might have been received.

Also, there seems to have been a convenient case of alzheimer's when it came to acknoweldging the welcome support that an Irish invasion would have had in the Nationalist community in the North. There would have been mass revolution had there been a state backed invasion. Instead though, they (and not just the Irish gov.) let it get to a stage where it took events like Bloody Sunday to militarise an oppressed community.

pat78monday6

why is it so popular for posters to glorify the british army and all their so called accomplishments, according to those posters our people would not have stood a chance against the brits, well lets see did the brit army not have to fly into their base at crossmaglen as they were afraid of our snipers.and what about the brighton bombwhere was the mighty brit army then. the bomb almost took out rusty ass thacher and her cabinet.just imagine how it would have went if the irish army had crossed into the north east and carried out there duty , they would have found their fellow irishmen just waiting to join them . so please fellow irishmen cut out the doomsday approach to this argument remember ireland was great when they had the celtic tiger and they can have it again.

Manic Moran

well lets see did the brit army not have to fly into their base at crossmaglen as they were afraid of our snipers

Why should they take an un-necessary risk? They had the helicopters, why not use them?

The Brits aren't afraid to fight. But, correctly, they're reluctant to risk men for little or no gain.

NTM

mike65

pat78monday6 wrote: »

well lets see did the brit army not have to fly into their base at crossmaglen as they were afraid of our snipers

You are member of the Provos?