Invasion myth created by Churchill in 1940 ?

thecommietommy · 13-08-2012 10:46AM #1

Now normally I wouldn't read a word of what Kevin Myers has to say, but in this case he may very well have a point. Basically he is saying that the Germans never had the capability, nor the intention, to invade Britian in 1940. The whole purpose of the Operation Sealion preparations was psy war, to frighten the British into accepting an armistice with Germany. Myers can be very good when he turns to these anoraky discussions of history.

Hitler had actually made peace proposals to the British, though these proposals remain locked away under UK secrecy laws. This is not to paint Hitler as a good guy versus Churchill, but Myers' article shows, in a way I never quite realised, how weak was the German position versus England in 1940.

But the German naval leader, Raeder, had repeatedly forbidden his staff from planning an invasion of Britain. And far from wanting to continue the war, in June 1940, Hitler ordered 20pc of his army to be demobilised, in order to get the German economy going again. The "invasion fleet" that the Nazis began to assemble that summer was no more capable of invading Britain than it was Hawaii. It was war by illusion: its purpose was to get the British to the negotiating table.
This "fleet" consisted of 1,900 canal barges, only one- third of which were powered, to be towed cross-channel, in clusters of three, by just 380 tugs. These barges had tiny keels, blunt prows and small rudders, with just two feet of freeboard: the distance between the water and the top of the hull. They would have been swamped during even a direct crossing of the English Channel.

So folks, does Myers have a point, the whole thing is a myth ?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-everything-people-believed-about-hitlers-intentions-toward-britain-was-a-myth-created-by-churchill-3143805.htm

Wibbs · 13-08-2012 12:03PM

Well they certainly weren't exactly prepared for a seaborne invasion. Pilots of single engined aircraft previous to that time had been restricted from flying over more than a couple of miles of sea. They broke out some hasty training and equipment to make up the gap(rubber life rafts and the like).

As you say their invasion "fleet" wasn't exactly up to scratch. I'd suspect the same, that it was an extension to the phony war. Hitlers real aim was Europe and especially Russia. It was more hubris that kept him on side for a military solution to the UK problem. Goering egged him on by claiming he'd break the RAF. That was doomed to failure long before it failed IMH. They had no long range strategic bombers(range was a problem full stop) and their manufacturing couldn't hop to keep up with the losses in a protracted campaign. At that stage the majority of their aircraft were very much of mid 30's design. Their comms equipment was remarkably under par(the fighters couldn't even talk with the bombers). The luftwaffe was essentially airborne artillery in support of ground forces for the most part. Then you had their navy, or rather they kinda didn't. They would likely have been cut to pieces in the channel.

Funny enough I recall an interview with Luftwaffe fighter ace Adolf Galland where he recounted a personal meeting with Hitler around that time. Galland suggested that they should carpet bomb london through fog using everything they had. Including their large fleet of JU52 general transport planes. JU52's carried out the Guernica bombings. Not subtle and not accurate and aimed at the civilian population. Hitler shot him down - if you'll pardon the pun - in no uncertain terms and dismissed the idea out of hand. He explained that he wouldn't attack them like that as he felt some affinity with them. I'll try and dig it up, I think it may be on Youtube. Ah here it is(went away for a half hour and decided to look it up

);

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwqnt5_GEhQ

The relevant bit is from 1.10 where he tells Galland he doesn't want a war with England.

Another pilot ace Hans Rudel also stated that Hitler divulged to him that he had made overtures to the allies, particularly the British throughout and up to 44 to no avail.

Rudel's book wrote:

At the end of our talk I say to the Führer these words:

"In my opinion at this moment the war can no longer be ended victoriously on both fronts, but it is possible on one front if we can succeed in getting an armistice with the other."

A rather tired smile passes across his face as he replies: "It is easy for you to talk. Ever since 1943 I have tried incessantly to conclude a peace, but the Allies won't; from the outset they have demanded unconditional surrender. My personal fate is naturally of no consequence, but every man in his right mind must see that I could not accept unconditional surrender for the German people. Even now negotiations are pending, but I have given up all hope of their success.

gobnaitolunacy · 13-08-2012 03:19PM

The Nazis had a bit of a liking for the British, racially more acceptable to them than the Russians.

thecommietommy · 13-08-2012 03:55PM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

The Nazis had a bit of a liking for the British, racially more acceptable to them than the Russians.

Britain would have been an inspiration to Hitler, after all they had invaded and occupied many other smaller countries, were using concentration camps decades before him and even did something the Nazi's failed to do, exterminate a race of people the Tasman aboridgines.

gobnaitolunacy · 13-08-2012 04:22PM

thecommietommy wrote: »

Britain would have been an inspiration to Hitler, after all they had invaded and occupied many other smaller countries, were using concentration camps decades before him and even did something the Nazi's failed to do, exterminate a race of people the Tasman aboridgines.

Not any different to what other colonial European powers did, apart from scale, the Belgians being particularly nasty.
The native Tasmanians would have been easy to pick off, being on a (relatively) small island and in the way of agriculture etc.

The Germans had an admiration for British history, traditions, the Royals etc., recall seeing pre-war footage of Nazi officers on a foxhunt. In fact some ex Wehrmacht interviewed by the BBC a few years ago couldn't understand why Britain didn't ally with Nazi Germany.

Judgement Day · 13-08-2012 07:13PM

Solid fact seems hard to come by on this and while it has often been stated that Hitler was an admirer of the British Empire I remain unconvinced. The same argument is put forward along the lines - that he let the British withdraw at Dunkirk so as not to humiliate them in the hope that they would then sue for peace. Again unproven. I believe that if Goering had defeated the RAF - which he damn nearly did had he not been ordered to switch his attention to the bombing of cities rather than airfields - then an invasion would have followed. Whether it would have been successful is another matter as supply lines would have been stretched even further and the British would have fought on. There were even contingency plans to evacuate the government and Royal Family to Canada, from where the war would have been continued. Kevin Myers is good on military history but likes to promote his own theories regardless of any solid supporting evidence.

pedroeibar1 · 13-08-2012 10:08PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

Kevin Myers is good on military history but likes to promote his own theories regardless of any solid supporting evidence.

Silly season, time to fill space. Did Kevin Myers not think why the Met Office input was so important for the DD landings? Like, high seas, sea-sickness, wet troops, sinking landing craft? Does he think the Germans would not have done the same? He would have been better advised to talk to someone with a basic knowledge of boats before he wrote

This "fleet" consisted of 1,900 canal barges, only one- third of which were powered, to be towed cross-channel, in clusters of three, by just 380 tugs. These barges had tiny keels, blunt prows and small rudders, with just two feet of freeboard: the distance between the water and the top of the hull. They would have been swamped during even a direct crossing of the English Channel.

Even a small tug would not have a problem towing 3 barges; all Allied landing craft did not have keels either, and a rudder is not relevent when being towed, so its size is immaterial. Barges have crossed the North Sea in good-fair conditions, so a Channel hop would not be a problem in fair weather. Many Allied landing craft had only 2 feet of freeboard, DUKWS and LVTs (Landing Vehicle Tracked) had considerably less. Landing craft for tanks did have more freeboard but they were the ones that most often went down, the problem oftem being associated with the ramps. It's a wonder he did not raise the old chesnut about Churchill's US passport.

jonniebgood1 · 13-08-2012 10:27PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

The same argument is put forward along the lines - that he let the British withdraw at Dunkirk so as not to humiliate them in the hope that they would then sue for peace. Again unproven. I believe that if Goering had defeated the RAF - which he damn nearly did had he not been ordered to switch his attention to the bombing of cities rather than airfields - then an invasion would have followed.

The reality at Dunkirk was that the Germans had overstretched their lines so the decision to hold back was a military one. It was not made by Hitler but by one of his generals (i don't remember which without checking) firstly and carried out with Hitlers approval.

Wibbs · 14-08-2012 09:08AM

Judgement Day wrote: »

Solid fact seems hard to come by on this and while it has often been stated that Hitler was an admirer of the British Empire I remain unconvinced.

True but a fair few people who knew him well have said the same. One example I gave above in the youtube link.

The same argument is put forward along the lines - that he let the British withdraw at Dunkirk so as not to humiliate them in the hope that they would then sue for peace. Again unproven.

As jonniebgood1 said that was far more down to logistics. They were too stretched to decisively overwhelm them. If he was so into letting them go, then it seems odd the Germans launched wave after wave of aircraft at them, sinking 200 odd ships in the process.

I believe that if Goering had defeated the RAF - which he damn nearly did had he not been ordered to switch his attention to the bombing of cities rather than airfields - then an invasion would have followed.

I'd disagree. Much is made IMH of Goering switching to the cities and that's what saved them. It certainly gave fighter command some much needed breathing room however Germany had no real chance of defeating the RAF overall simply because they didn't have the range to bomb the whole island, never mind their air superiority fighters which could barely get to London never mind anywhere further north. Let's imagine Goering never attacked London and fighter commands airfields lay in ruins. What then? Move the whole kit and caboodle north and keep hitting the German raids pretty much as they had before.

nuac · 14-08-2012 10:12AM

I don't think the risk of an invasion was an invention of Churchill.

Operation Sealion did not proceed for a number of reasons

1. Luftwaffe did not establish air superiority over UK or indeed over the Channel

2. Disagreements between Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine. Army wanted landings on wide front, Navy on a narrow front where it would be easier to protect a narrow corridor across with mines, uboats etc

3.Bad weather about 18th Sept 40 gave a facesaving excuse to postpone it. In 41, drangan nach Osten!

There were a number of meetings between Hitler and reps of the three services prior to that.

indioblack · 14-08-2012 05:18PM

thecommietommy wrote: »

Now normally I wouldn't read a word of what Kevin Myers has to say, but in this case he may very well have a point. Basically he is saying that the Germans never had the capability, nor the intention, to invade Britian in 1940. The whole purpose of the Operation Sealion preparations was psy war, to frighten the British into accepting an armistice with Germany. Myers can be very good when he turns to these anoraky discussions of history.

Hitler had actually made peace proposals to the British, though these proposals remain locked away under UK secrecy laws. This is not to paint Hitler as a good guy versus Churchill, but Myers' article shows, in a way I never quite realised, how weak was the German position versus England in 1940.

So folks, does Myers have a point, the whole thing is a myth ?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-everything-people-believed-about-hitlers-intentions-toward-britain-was-a-myth-created-by-churchill-3143805.htm[/QUOTE]

If the whole purpose of Sealion was to frighten the British into an Armistice, then, presumably, it was a bluff - so why should Churchill create a myth?
So Hitler was bluffing Churchill and Churchill was bluffing everyone else?
And the alternative? Accept a negotiated peace - with the possibility, if Mr.Hitler was to be trusted, of the British keeping their imperial territories?
If Hitler could have gotten Britain out of the war he would have - if invasion was practicable, it would be invasion - if not it would be a bombing campaign and using U-boats.
His main aim was the east - but if he could've taken Britain out of the game he would have.
I don't see how any of this paints Hitler as a "good guy".

Fratton Fred · 14-08-2012 06:36PM

I think it boils down to one question. Was Churchill right not to accept Hitler's peace proposal?

I think history proves Churchill was right.

thecommietommy · 15-08-2012 09:25AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think it boils down to one question. Was Churchill right not to accept Hitler's peace proposal?

I think history proves Churchill was right.

Hitler would have brought the USSR in by invasion, Japan would have attacked America bringing them in regardless of what Churchill did or didn't do.

indioblack · 15-08-2012 01:01PM

thecommietommy wrote: »

Hitler would have brought the USSR in by invasion, Japan would have attacked America bringing them in regardless of what Churchill did or didn't do.

At this stage of the war, the US and the USSR were not in the frame - and Japan was doing it's own thing in China.
That is not to say that the USSR and the Japanese empire were irrelevant to European countries - and the US - at this time.
It's just that the main focus, for a time, was on western Europe.
Hitler was opposed politically and militarily by the one remaining European power that could offer opposition.
That was the importance of a refusal to negotiate an end to Britains participation in the war at this critical time.
As the war progressed, Britain would become secondary in importance to the US.
But that was the unsure future - this was the very real now.

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2012 02:02PM

thecommietommy wrote: »

Hitler would have brought the USSR in by invasion, Japan would have attacked America bringing them in regardless of what Churchill did or didn't do.

So?

HavingCrack · 20-08-2012 10:51PM

thecommietommy wrote: »

Japan would have attacked America bringing them in regardless of what Churchill did or didn't do.

You have to remember that American public opinion was very hostile to involvement in the European War even after Pearl Harbour and the Japanese attack on the Phillippines. Charles Limburgh and the isolationist movement was extremely popular amongst the general US populace. Roosevelt's opponent Wendell Wilkie in the 1940 election ran on an isolationist platform while Roosevelt himself declared to recent recruits to the US army that "you boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war".

American public anger was very much directed towards the Japanese who had attacked the US, Germany had done nothing to actually threaten the United States. Most Americans felt the war on Germany was nothing to do with them. If Hitler had not felt the need to match the Japanese 'bravery' for lack of a better word by declaring war on the United States it is still arguable as to when the US had entered the European theatre. In fact it may have been very difficult to convince the American public to ever support a European adventure.

In 1940 of course this is all in the future but a Japanese attack on the US was by no means a guarantee of American entry into the war in Europe.

Fratton Fred · 21-08-2012 02:35PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

You have to remember that American public opinion was very hostile to involvement in the European War even after Pearl Harbour and the Japanese attack on the Phillippines. Charles Limburgh and the isolationist movement was extremely popular amongst the general US populace. Roosevelt's opponent Wendell Wilkie in the 1940 election ran on an isolationist platform while Roosevelt himself declared to recent recruits to the US army that "you boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war".

American public anger was very much directed towards the Japanese who had attacked the US, Germany had done nothing to actually threaten the United States. Most Americans felt the war on Germany was nothing to do with them. If Hitler had not felt the need to match the Japanese 'bravery' for lack of a better word by declaring war on the United States it is still arguable as to when the US had entered the European theatre. In fact it may have been very difficult to convince the American public to ever support a European adventure.

In 1940 of course this is all in the future but a Japanese attack on the US was by no means a guarantee of American entry into the war in Europe.

Am I right in thinking that there was a concerted effort by British diplomats to try and convince the Americans that Hitler had plans to invade the US?

HavingCrack · 21-08-2012 02:54PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that there was a concerted effort by British diplomats to try and convince the Americans that Hitler had plans to invade the US?

I've never heard of this before to be honest so I can't give an answer one way or the other. I suspect the Americans would quite correctly have written the 'theory' off as a load of bull****.

nuac · 21-08-2012 04:17PM

whatever about diploats, Churchill kept up a lot of pressure to get the US involved

i.e the deal giving leases on some bases for 50 olc destroyers

getting the US to protect convoys in their waters and later out as far as Iceland I think

Kilkenny14 · 26-08-2012 10:44AM

HavingCrack wrote: »

You have to remember that American public opinion was very hostile to involvement in the European War even after Pearl Harbour and the Japanese attack on the Phillippines. Charles Limburgh and the isolationist movement was extremely popular amongst the general US populace. Roosevelt's opponent Wendell Wilkie in the 1940 election ran on an isolationist platform while Roosevelt himself declared to recent recruits to the US army that "you boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war".

American public anger was very much directed towards the Japanese who had attacked the US, Germany had done nothing to actually threaten the United States. Most Americans felt the war on Germany was nothing to do with them. If Hitler had not felt the need to match the Japanese 'bravery' for lack of a better word by declaring war on the United States it is still arguable as to when the US had entered the European theatre. In fact it may have been very difficult to convince the American public to ever support a European adventure.

In 1940 of course this is all in the future but a Japanese attack on the US was by no means a guarantee of American entry into the war in Europe.

Very true, which is why Hitler's declaration of war against USA on December 11 1941 was a massive blunder for Germany and a stroke of luck for the Allies.

SaoriseBiker · 27-08-2012 12:47PM

nuac wrote: »

whatever about diploats, Churchill kept up a lot of pressure to get the US involved

i.e the deal giving leases on some bases for 50 olc destroyers

getting the US to protect convoys in their waters and later out as far as Iceland I think

Britain was in no position whatsoever to put any pressure on America while the UK was holding on by the fingertips. If anything it was Uncle Sam who put the pressure on Britain and swopped some clapped out ships to Britain in return for access in exchange for shipping rights in the British controlled Caribbean and also sold munitions etc to Britain for the money that the USA had just loaned to it, a hell of a profit to say the least. The final repayment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million) lend lease loan was made by the UK in 2006. Uncle Sam drives a hard bargain.

jonniebgood1 · 28-08-2012 06:55PM

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Britain was in no position whatsoever to put any pressure on America while the UK was holding on by the fingertips.

Of course she was in a position to put pressure on. America did not wish to be left dealing with a Nazi Europe. You need to take off the anti-Brit glasses and deal in reality as opposed to this fictional world. Why do you think America provided pilots to the RAF. How did Churchill get so much military equipment if he was in no position 'put any pressure on America'?

Try looking at the sources of information rather than stating as fact such nonsense with unrelated figures of repayments referred as a basis. Surely in todays climate of spreading out loans (ala bailout) you must realise that if repayments for destroyer ships from 1940's only ends in 1996 it means that the repayments would be in the main favourable:

Letter from churchill to Roosevelt:

"10 DOWNING STREET,
"Whitehall, June 14, 1942.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT,

"For a long time I have watched with grateful admiration the vast stream of gifts which from the first days of the War has been flowing from America to Great Britain for the relief of suffering and the succour of distress, and in a volume which has barely lessened as a result of the advent of war to America, though a considerable diminution of it was well to be expected. The generosity of these gifts, each one of which represents a personal sacrifice by an individual, is overwhelming and without precedent. I am therefore anxious in the first place to express to you, Mr. President, the profound gratitude of the British people, and shall be glad if there is some way in which you may see fit to pass my feelings along to the American public.

"My second purpose in addressing you today is unhappily one of informing you that we now feel under the necessity of asking that this brotherly flow of material shall be diminished. It is not that the gifts are not desired-indeed they have constantly been ingeniously devised to meet our real needs and the parcels from America have become a familiar and welcome feature in all the misfortunes which have overtaken our civilian population. The request which I am now compelled to make is due to additional demands on shipping resulting from the enormously increased flow of war materials for which ocean transport has to be provided. We shall have therefore to assign to goods of a more warlike character the shipping space which has hitherto been available for the relief of our people-a sacrifice which we will make here without complaint, but not without very great regret.

"As to the method of procedure, we have a Committee here-the American Gifts Committee-which hitherto has endeavoured to ensure that gifts from America shall only be of a character that shall meet some real need. The Committee will now have to extend its activities and try to control the actual volume of gifts. A statement will shortly be issued to the press indicating the lines along which it is hoped to proceed.

"I cannot conclude this letter, Mr. President, without affirming once again our gratitude for the comfort in days of suffering and of trial that was brought to us by the people of America, and our desire to make known our thanks.

"Yours sincerely,
WINSTON S. CHURCHILL

and this earlier one requesting the help

London [via U.S. Embassy]
May 15, 1940
Most Secret and Personal. President Roosevelt from Former Naval Person.
Although I have changed my office, I am sure you would not wish me to
discontinue our intimate, private correspondence. As you are no doubt aware,
the scene has darkened swiftly. The enemy have a marked preponderance in the
air, and their new technique is making a deep impression upon the French. I
think myself the battle on land has only just begun, and I should like to see
tanks [masses] engaged. Up to the present, Hitler is working with specialized
units in tanks and air. The small countries are simply smashed up, one by one,
like matchwood. We must expect, though it is not yet certain, that Mussolini
will hurry in to share the loot of civilization. We expect to be attacked here
ourselves, both from the air and by parachute and air borne troops in the near
future, and are getting ready for them. If necessary, we shall continue the war
alone and we are not afraid of that. But I trust you realize, Mr. President, that
the voice and force of the United States may count for nothing if they are
withheld too long. You may have a completely subjugated, Nazified Europe
established with astonishing swiftness, and the weight may be more than we can
bear. All I ask now is that you should proclaim nonbelligerency, which would
mean that you would help us with everything short of actually engaging armed
forces. Immediate needs are: first of all, the loan of forty or fifty of your older
destroyers to bridge the gap between what we have now and the large new
construction we put in hand at the beginning of the war.

or this reply from Roosevelt

THE WHITE HOUSE,
"Washington, July 9, 1942.

MY DEAR MR. PRIME MINISTER:

"I have received your letter of June 14, 1942 in which you express the gratitude of the British people for the vast stream of gifts which from the first days of the war has been flowing from America to Great Britain for the relief of suffering. You ask that this expression be conveyed to the American public.

"You say also that this flow of material must be diminished due to additional demands on shipping and that it will be necessary to assign to goods of a more warlike character the shipping space which has hitherto been available for the relief of the British people. You state further that the American Gifts Committee in Great Britain, which hitherto has endeavored to ensure that gifts from America shall meet some real need, will now try to control the actual volume of gifts.

"I am gratified by your statement that the relief sent from this country has given comfort to the British people during their days of great trial, and I shall give to the American people your expression of appreciation for the gifts they have provided. I am convinced that their action is indicative of the profound admiration felt in this country for the heroic stand of the British people against a barbarous foe.

"You may be assured that we shall cooperate in every feasible way with the American Gifts Committee in order to meet the situation brought about by the increased demand for shipping.

"Very sincerely yours,
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT"

Sources
http://www.rialto.k12.ca.us/rhs/planetwhited/AP%20PDF%20Docs/Unit%2012/WorlWarII/CHURCH5.PDF
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/letters071842.html

dpe · 31-08-2012 01:14PM

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Britain was in no position whatsoever to put any pressure on America while the UK was holding on by the fingertips. If anything it was Uncle Sam who put the pressure on Britain and swopped some clapped out ships to Britain in return for access in exchange for shipping rights in the British controlled Caribbean and also sold munitions etc to Britain for the money that the USA had just loaned to it, a hell of a profit to say the least. The final repayment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million) lend lease loan was made by the UK in 2006. Uncle Sam drives a hard bargain.

Of course Britain was in a position to "put pressure" on America. Its called diplomacy. FDR wanted Britain to stay in the war against Germany even when the Americans themselves weren't directly involved. Plus American business wanted UK and Empire trade (the "Neutrality Acts" of the 30s meant US business couldn't trade with the UK/France or the Nazis; but between 1939 and 1941 American business was allowed to sell to the UK on a "cash and carry" basis), and they wanted American shipping protected by the RN and RCN.

jonniebgood1 wrote:

Of course she was in a position to put pressure on. America did not wish to be left dealing with a Nazi Europe. You need to take off the anti-Brit glasses and deal in reality as opposed to this fictional world. Why do you think America provided pilots to the RAF. How did Churchill get so much military equipment if he was in no position 'put any pressure on America'?

Actually, America did nothing of the sort until after Pearl Harbor. Any American pilots fighting with the RAF were doing so without the approval of Uncle Sam; In fact the Clayton Knight Committee, which was the principle recruiting organisation for Americans to join the RAF or RCAF, was repeatedly investigated by the FBI who tried to shut them down.

jonniebgood1 · 31-08-2012 05:26PM

dpe wrote: »

Actually, America did nothing of the sort until after Pearl Harbor. Any American pilots fighting with the RAF were doing so without the approval of Uncle Sam; In fact the Clayton Knight Committee, which was the principle recruiting organisation for Americans to join the RAF or RCAF, was repeatedly investigated by the FBI who tried to shut them down.

Not withstanding how they may have been investigated it is factual that there were 'eagle' squadrons in the RAF well before Pearl harbour. Following Pearl harbour the USAAF came in. Much shipping was also provided prior to Pearl harbour.

nuac · 02-09-2012 10:36AM

I recall reading about the Eagle squadron, but cannot lay hands on the relevant book at the moment.

However the US did supply significant help to the British well before Pearl Harbour

E.g according to Arthur Bryant's Turning of the Tide, which is based on the Alanbrooke Diaries

(1) by summer of 1940 the US were selling reserves of guns and (2)destroyers to the British

(2) In March 41 when Britains dollar reserves were nearing exhaustion Congress passed the Lease Lend legislation

(3) In 1941 meetings had taken place between US and British officers to work out a strategy for defecting the Germans, even selecting possible bases for US bases in Britain

(4) by summer of 1941 British warships were being repaired in US dockyards, and the US Navy had commenced patrols of the Western Atlantic

(5) US industry re-geared towards war material. In 1941 US sent to Britain 2800 aircraft, 1000 tanks, and almost 13000 lorries

(6) In Aug 41 Churchill and his chiefs of staff met Roosevelt and his military advisers in a US warship off the Newfoundland coast and worked out an agreement which became the Atlantic Charter

Invasion myth created by Churchill in 1940 ?

Comments