Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

Wibbs

dave1987 wrote: »

How does it fail the maths test.

Luftwaffe = 2,500 serviceable aircraft
RAF = 660

2,500 / 660 = 3.787 (Which rounds upto 4)

=> Luftwaffe aircraft outnumbered RAF by 4:1

Eh no. From your quote(which is accurate) At the start of the battle, the Luftwaffe had 2,500 planes that were serviceable and in any normal day, the Luftwaffe could put up over 1,600 planes. The RAF had 1,200 planes on the eve of the battle which included 800 Spitfires and Hurricanes - but only 660 of these were serviceable. So best case scenario the Germans had two and a half thousand aircraft in theatre versus twelve hundred aircraft on the British side. The 660 part is talking about their fighters BTW. So no, four to one is not working out. Not even close.

I totally agree with you about bomber crews of all airforces.

+1

RAF Bomber Command losses throughout the war numbered over 55,000 air crew. Britains single largest casualty rate of any service of British forces.

Yep and sadly they were the "many" sitting in the background of the "few".

Have an oul gander at this...

You appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard place Wibbs

Ohhhh you're so right D

Doc Ruby wrote:

For the third time, you have no clue how bad it got, because the jolly old civil service destroyed the jolly old paperwork chap. What we actually know is unbelievably nasty, god alone knows how much worse it really was. Would you like me to quote the reasons why the paperwork was destroyed? Preventing the "embarrassment of eminent persons" and all?

I wonder would even the nazis have had the gall to make such excuses had they won.

Oh god. Again. So you've missed the point and the debate by a country mile? Again? At least you're consistent. Except when actually responding to points of debate, nay even direct questions. Kudos. Well... get back to us when you get the whole discussion thing. The objective thing may be more of a stretch, but I remain, yours, hopefully. What what. Or better, whatever.

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

Have an oul gander at this...

Why is he going to such lengths to discredit the British effort in ww2?

Micky Dolenz

Brilliant doc here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptijNcDanVw

nucker

dttq wrote: »

It’s one thing for large nations such as China throughout the centuries to declare itself isolated from world events, or industrial superpowers such as America to declare itself neutral during the first half of the 20th century. Both stances held water as both nations had large populations, large militaries, a large manufacturing base- all of which would instil some respect in potential imperial and superpower rivals to respect their position, as to rock the boat, would bring two large powers such as America and China out of their neutrality slumber. But what about smaller nations such as Ireland, with little in the way to defend it’s position of neutrality, both past and present?

Are we really to believe that by simply declaring ourselves neutral, as a small country during a war such as the Second World War, that our position would have been respected by larger and more powerful nations, giving that we were and always have been a key strategic location regarding defense. It seems to be that we would have been attacked and overrun either way by either the Germans, or the Americans/ British during WWII, had either seen us as a threat to their interests. Had the Americans/ British thought for a moment that the Germans would invade Ireland to use as a launch pad for an easier invasion into England, and hence cut off the entire Western Front, given that both Ireland and Britain would be under German occupation- then would have not have thought twice about ceasing the country until the war had ended.

Conversely, how can we really have expected that as a small country with no means of fighting back, that had Germany conquered Britain, that they would not have invaded Ireland, simply because we took a stance of neutrality- knowing full well that to not invade Ireland, would provide the Americans/ British with an outpost for attacking Germany and it’s newly conquered territories, including Britain to the east.

There was no way that Nazi Germany just wanted to not invade neutral countries, he was planning to invade America, I read somewhere that Hitler was enraged at the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, because that would of and inevitably did get America into the war, had it not been for that, we might of seen a different outcome or a more prolonged WW2

nucker

The only reason why some countries remained neutral, was because they were militarily weak, obviously, it took 3 major nations (with the help of others in a small way) to bring the Axis to a crumbling halt