Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 1st, 2015, 02:24 PM   #21
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,192

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers View Post
How? How does beating the BEF defeat the Royal Navy or erase the whole of the might of the British Empire...
Had the BEF been captured and no Dunkirk evacuation - then Britain would have suffered a major defeat

The BEF would be a hell of a bargaining chip for Hitler

Britain was close to giving up in the Spring of 1940...a catastrophic defeat in a few weeks, where a generation earlier the British had held their own for 4 years would be a hammer blow to British morale

It might well have led to Churchill being ejected from office

Military defeats tend to bring down governments - and Churchill was hanging on at the time
Poly is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 1st, 2015, 02:30 PM   #22

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,724

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Had the BEF been captured and no Dunkirk evacuation - then Britain would have suffered a major defeat

The BEF would be a hell of a bargaining chip for Hitler

Britain was close to giving up in the Spring of 1940...a catastrophic defeat in a few weeks, where a generation earlier the British had held their own for 4 years would be a hammer blow to British morale

It might well have led to Churchill being ejected from office

Military defeats tend to bring down governments - and Churchill was hanging on at the time
So what precisely was Gazala, the Dodecanese Campaign, the first time Rommel encountered the depleted Eighth Army in North Africa, Greece and Crete and all this? What was the U-Boat Peril? The UK had plenty of defeats, and a nigh-unbroken chain of them for a time focusing on the strategic genius of Mr. Churchill. That did nothing to win Germany the war. Not one of Churchill's poor strategic decisions did this. And why precisely would the UK take any peace offer from Adolf "This is my last territorial claim in Europe" Hitler worth the breath it took him to lie about it?
Underlankers is offline  
Old January 1st, 2015, 02:54 PM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,192

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers View Post
So what precisely was Gazala, the Dodecanese Campaign, the first time Rommel encountered the depleted Eighth Army in North Africa, Greece and Crete and all this?
Minor setbacks with zero significance

Quote:
...what was the U-Boat Peril?
The closest Germany came to defeating Britain - but well after any threat to Churchill's government

Quote:
...the UK had plenty of defeats, and a nigh-unbroken chain of them for a time focusing on the strategic genius of Mr. Churchill. That did nothing to win Germany the war.
Because none that you listed were significant in any way

The loss of the entire BEF would have been shattering AND at the worst possible time

No, Dunkirk was a major defeat for Germany and a major victory for Britain - it meant Britain stayed in the war
Poly is online now  
Old January 1st, 2015, 06:29 PM   #24

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,724

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Minor setbacks with zero significance
On what criteria are these minor setbacks while Dunkirk is a shattering defeat for Germany? Dunkirk was a magnificent German victory, the claim that it was a defeat is the crowning triumph of British propaganda, no more and no less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
The closest Germany came to defeating Britain - but well after any threat to Churchill's government
Because only Churchill fought Hitler and had the willingness to fight him, eh? Here's a question for you: who was British PM when the UK declared war on Hitler?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Because none that you listed were significant in any way

The loss of the entire BEF would have been shattering AND at the worst possible time

No, Dunkirk was a major defeat for Germany and a major victory for Britain - it meant Britain stayed in the war
Driving the UK out of Europe three times in two years isn't significant? Shattering the UK's lines in North Africa to the point that Churchill had to ask Roosevelt for help wasn't significant? What criteria do you define as significant then?
Underlankers is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2015, 06:14 AM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,192

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers View Post
On what criteria are these minor setbacks while Dunkirk is a shattering defeat for Germany?
Dunkirk was not a shattering defeat for Germany BUT it was hugely significant

The defeats you listed earlier that Britain suffered like Crete were just setbacks - they had no significant bearing on the outcome of the campaign nor the war as a whole

A catastrophe at Dunkirk could easily have been the end for Churchill's government ... and with that, the probability that Britain pulls out of the war

So no BoB, no Battle of the Atlantic, no Bomber offensive, no Desert War or Italian campaign, No D-Day

You don't think that's significant ?

Quote:
...because only Churchill fought Hitler and had the willingness to fight him, eh? Here's a question for you: who was British PM when the UK declared war on Hitler?
Basically correct...the whole country wanted peace. Without Churchill, Britain would probably not have fought on after Dunkirk

It was Chamberlain and he was an appeaser


Quote:
...driving the UK out of Europe three times in two years isn't significant? Shattering the UK's lines in North Africa to the point that Churchill had to ask Roosevelt for help wasn't significant? What criteria do you define as significant then?
Significant means it affected the course of the war and / or outcome

Just what was significant about any of the above - the BEF was saved, the Norway and Greece episodes were small scale affairs and frankly doomed from the start - Churchill was known as an adventurer and wouldn't listen to his commanders telling him that he couldn't win there


The Battle of the Atlantic might well have decided the outcome - but as you say, the USA intervened so losses weren't significant as they could be replaced
Poly is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2015, 07:04 AM   #26

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,724

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Dunkirk was not a shattering defeat for Germany BUT it was hugely significant

The defeats you listed earlier that Britain suffered like Crete were just setbacks - they had no significant bearing on the outcome of the campaign nor the war as a whole

A catastrophe at Dunkirk could easily have been the end for Churchill's government ... and with that, the probability that Britain pulls out of the war

So no BoB, no Battle of the Atlantic, no Bomber offensive, no Desert War or Italian campaign, No D-Day

You don't think that's significant ?
No, not by comparison to getting kicked out of Europe in Norway, France, and Greece/Crete. Each single time that happened the Soviets became the indispensable factor to the Grand Alliance because they were the only Ally fighting a European war in Europe. And that they were is purely the doing of the British in getting driven out of Europe not once, not twice, but three times. The feats of withdrawing from Norway and Greece and then Crete were all amazing too, but nobody tried a propaganda snow job with those to make them into anything but epic failures of British arms. Strategically, the democracies ran into a buzzsaw by their inability to sustain a land war in Europe until the USSR did the bloody work for them first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Basically correct...the whole country wanted peace. Without Churchill, Britain would probably not have fought on after Dunkirk

It was Chamberlain and he was an appeaser
In other words, people besides Churchill could lead the UK in a war. Thank you for admitting that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Significant means it affected the course of the war and / or outcome

Just what was significant about any of the above - the BEF was saved, the Norway and Greece episodes were small scale affairs and frankly doomed from the start - Churchill was known as an adventurer and wouldn't listen to his commanders telling him that he couldn't win there
As said above, it left the Red Army the only Allied military force fighting the Wehrmacht in Europe until October of 1943, and the only one making major advances until June of 1944. If this is your idea of insignificant, what precisely is your idea of significant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
The Battle of the Atlantic might well have decided the outcome - but as you say, the USA intervened so losses weren't significant as they could be replaced
I was talking about Gazala, not the Battle of the Atlantic. Which, BTW, wouldn't have disrupted the Soviet Union as its chief supply lines were in the Pacific and to a lesser degree in jointly occupied with the UK Iran.
Underlankers is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2015, 07:40 AM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,192

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers View Post
No, not by comparison to getting kicked out of Europe in Norway, France, and Greece...
So you're saying that if Britain had withdrawn from the war after a disastrous Dunkirk, this would NOT have been significant to the course or outcome of the war ?

The defeat in Norway was a major factor in Chamberlain losing office, a defeat at Dunkirk would probably seen Churchill lose office too

But as history showed, none of these defeats were significant in the slightest...indeed a British victory in Norway or Dunkirk or Greece was impossible anyway so I'm not sure how you can say they held any significance at all to the final outcome


Quote:
...in other words, people besides Churchill could lead the UK in a war. Thank you for admitting that...
How did you come by that conclusion ?

There really was no-one except Churchill to lead Britain in the war...there were others who could (and in some cases actually wanted to) lead Britain out of the war

Quote:
...it left the Red Army the only Allied military force fighting the Wehrmacht in Europe until October of 1943...
Yes it did but what is the SIGNIFICANCE of this ?

The allies still won - are you saying Britain was capable of a second front before and without the USA ?
If your answer is no, then Norway, Dunkirk and Greece have zero significance

Quote:
....I was talking about Gazala
The British army had some defeats in North Africa yes but none were significant - because ultimately they won
Poly is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2015, 08:18 AM   #28

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,724

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
So you're saying that if Britain had withdrawn from the war after a disastrous Dunkirk, this would NOT have been significant to the course or outcome of the war ?

The defeat in Norway was a major factor in Chamberlain losing office, a defeat at Dunkirk would probably seen Churchill lose office too

But as history showed, none of these defeats were significant in the slightest...indeed a British victory in Norway or Dunkirk or Greece was impossible anyway so I'm not sure how you can say they held any significance at all to the final outcome
The British expected to lose the whole of the BEF, so that expectation being confirmed leads to just that, the expectation being confirmed. The UK kept fighting after the bloodsoaked nightmare of Ypres destroyed a previous BEF, so why does this one quit immediately? I repeat to you the strategic logic, but I can only lead the jackass to the water, I cannot compel it to drink.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
How did you come by that conclusion ?

There really was no-one except Churchill to lead Britain in the war...there were others who could (and in some cases actually wanted to) lead Britain out of the war
You base this assertion on what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Yes it did but what is the SIGNIFICANCE of this ?

The allies still won - are you saying Britain was capable of a second front before and without the USA ?
If your answer is no, then Norway, Dunkirk and Greece have zero significance
Yes, I am arguing precisely that it was capable of maintaining boots on the ground if its generals had the slightest clue how to direct troops in combat. That you seem to think I was arguing otherwise is a good revelation of how well you read other posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
The British army had some defeats in North Africa yes but none were significant - because ultimately they won
They were all very significant because they needed the USA to finally bail them out of their generals' inability to fight an enemy as well-armed as they were that knew how to fight back. Massacring Palestinians and Africans is no preparation for fighting a well-led enemy.
Underlankers is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2015, 08:59 AM   #29
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,192

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers View Post
The British expected to lose the whole of the BEF, so that expectation being confirmed leads to just that, the expectation being confirmed. The UK kept fighting after the bloodsoaked nightmare of Ypres destroyed a previous BEF, so why does this one quit immediately?
Prior to Dunkirk, the best hope was to save a few thousand - but the majority were saved
However had the majority been lost (perhaps even all of them) then the British government would have probably fallen

The fact that it was anticipated given the failure of the Anglo-French command to stop the Germans would make no difference

The previous BEF was largely destroyed in that most combat soldiers who went to war in 1914 were dead by Christmas but reinforcements arrived and the BEF was still in the field and fighting NOT in a German POW camps

I'm afraid you are arguing for arguments sake here - either that or you are just plain ignorant about the early history of WWII


Quote:
...but I can only lead the jackass to the water, I cannot compel it to drink...
I will let the moderators deal with this

Quote:
...you base this assertion on what?
Chamberlain was finished politically by May 1940
Halifax was the main alternative to Churchill and he favored appeasement before the war and advocated an armistice in 1940

The following year, Hitler still believed that there was a significant swell of opinion at the highest level to agree a peace and it's claimed that he actually drawn up a detailed peace treaty that Rudolph took the Britain. Basically Germany pulls out of France and the Low Countries and Britain stops fighting:

How the Nazis offered a peace treaty in World War II (but it would have meant selling out the Russians) | Daily Mail Online


Quote:
...I am arguing precisely that it was capable of maintaining boots on the ground if its generals had the slightest clue how to direct troops in combat...
And the fact that Britain was ejected three times from Europe by superior German forces doesn't alter your opinion of this at all ?

Tell me where you would have advocated the British invade Europe ?
Churchill certainly wanted to and I think British generals knew how to direct troops in combat (they were the ones trying to tell Churchill it was impossible Btw)

I think you're digging in a dried up river bed for water there

Your views on the British military seem to sum you up - for some reason you are very bitter and angry against America's closest ally

Quote:
...they were all very significant because they needed the USA to finally bail them out...
So Britain won anyway (with assistance from the USA) ... but somehow the defeats in North Africa hold some significance to the eventual outcome of the campaign and/or war as a whole ?

Do you even understand the word SIGNIFICANT ?

Britain also sought help from the empire - there were ANZACS, South Africans, Jewish soldiers, Indian army soldiers at El Alamein ... is their presence another significant example of British defeat ?

Quote:
...massacring Palestinians and Africans is no preparation for fighting a well-led enemy.
Would you also consider that massacring Native Americans at Sand Creek and Wounded Knee was no preparation for Kasserine Pass ?

(Despite the fact that US soldiers fought so bravely at Wounded Knee that, to this day, it remains the record for the most number of Medal of Honor awards (20) in a single action)
Poly is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2015, 09:45 AM   #30

SSDD's Avatar
Aryaputra
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: India
Posts: 3,538

Not moving 2nd Panzer Division, 12th Panzer Division in right time to crush Allied Landings during D-Day, I know they were under Hitler's command, still.

Postponing Moscow Offensive and instead attack on Kiev in 1941 seems to me a strategic fault.
SSDD is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
defeat, tactical or strategic, wehrmacht, worst



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your three favourite tactical battles. harbinger War and Military History 111 October 31st, 2017 10:42 AM
Teutoburg Forest - The Worst Defeat in Roman History MafiaMaster Ancient History 318 May 8th, 2015 06:41 AM
Tactical mistakes at Normandy brucew56 War and Military History 24 November 17th, 2014 07:22 PM
Top 10 greatest tactical and strategic masterpieces. THE MASTER War and Military History 186 September 12th, 2012 01:35 PM
Rome's Worst Defeat? Salah Ancient History 44 January 29th, 2010 12:07 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.