|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
17th July 2017, 06:20 AM | #201 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Fascism was no more opposed than communism. What was opposed was continued Nazi aggression in Europe.
This signature is intended to irradiate people. |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
17th July 2017, 08:00 AM | #202 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
That has to be true. Fascism flourished in Portugal and Italy, then in Spain, but these countries at first abstained from aggression in Europe (although they perpetrated it in Africa); and consequently remained unmolested by the Entente powers, or other European democracies.
|
18th July 2017, 01:52 AM | #203 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I didn't know until recently that there was a Spanish division on the Russian Front. I don't think that is given much publicity nowadays. That was in addition to the Italian and Rumanian and Croatian and Waffen SS troops from Belgium and Holland and, I think Norwegian troops, and of course Finland troops, which I did know about.
|
18th July 2017, 01:57 AM | #204 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,229
|
The division included Portuguese as well.
And then there were the SS volunteer units, which came from all over the place. |
18th July 2017, 04:30 AM | #205 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
Prior to these fascists' participation in the Nazi invasion, none of their countries had been at war with the USSR, except Finland which had been the victim, not the perpetrator, of aggression in that earlier conflict. These anti-Soviet interventions were done by puppet governments, responding to German pressure, or by individuals who were particularly attracted by Nazi aggression and triumphalism.
|
18th July 2017, 09:40 AM | #206 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
The Spanish or Blue Division was a German Army division manned by Spanish volunteers and to which the Portugese Legion was later attached.
The Norwegian unit was a unit of Norwegian, Danish and Swedish volunteers with the German SS. It was not a part of the Kingdom of Norway's military. These units can be looked at in a similar way as the French Foreign Legion. The Romanian, Italian, Croatian and Finnish units were part of those country's actual armies serving as allied forces with Nazi Germany. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
19th July 2017, 01:58 AM | #207 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,229
|
|
19th July 2017, 02:27 AM | #208 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Hungarian forces were also involved in the invasion of Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union in 1941.
There was a John Amery, who was the son of the politician Leo Amery, who made a speech in the Norway debate in 1940 in the House of Commons telling Chamberlain "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing, depart I say and let us have done with you. In the name of God go." This despite the fact that Norway was Churchill's responsibility. John Amery went to Germany in 1942 to recruit British and Commonwealth prisoners of war to join the Nazi army. He was an appeaser and he was hanged after the war. There were about 8000 Ukrainian migrants to Britain after the war, who lived in places like Wimbledon, and who all categorically denied they were fleeing war criminals. I don't think that matter was ever properly or thoroughly investigated. I'm beginning to think Churchill and Eden were Big Soft Things. |
25th July 2017, 08:10 AM | #209 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I can't quite see how you can say there was appeasement when Chamberlain was involved in rearmament at the time.
|
25th July 2017, 08:26 AM | #210 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
|
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
27th July 2017, 02:54 AM | #211 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
That's rather misleading. He was not charged with "appeasement" so whether he was an appeaser or not is not relevant to his trial or execution. Wiki relates that
Amery's sanity was questioned by his own father, Leo, but all efforts to have the court consider his mental state were unsuccessful. Further attempts at a defence were suddenly abandoned on the first day of his trial, 28 November 1945, when to general astonishment, Amery pleaded guilty to eight charges of treason. He was immediately sentenced to death. The entire trial lasted just eight minutes from start to finish.So he confessed to being a traitor, not an appeaser, and his father dissociated himself from his son's ideas on the grounds of the latter's insanity. Your post names both father and son, and may give the impression that they acted together in a common enterprise, which is completely false. |
27th July 2017, 03:04 PM | #212 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
|
Because if you did any research you would know that the two ran side by side. Britain wanted to rebuild its defensive strength to discourage aggression while at the same time offering concessions to Nazi Germany to tie it into the normal process of international diplomacy. Both strands of policy were ultimately aimed at preventing war and if they had been dealing with a rational leadership the plan would probably have worked. Reading the Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze and he points out that in 1936-37 Nazi Germany was seemingly the most reasonable of the dictatorships, given the actions of Mussolini, Franco, and the Militarists in Japan.
|
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX |
|
28th July 2017, 02:32 AM | #213 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I don't think that's quite correct.
Diplomacy has been described in the past as lying on behalf of your government. What is now described as appeasement by Chamberlain was in fact just diplomacy. I agree that Chamberlain seemed to have attempted to split Musso in Italy from Hitler before the war. In 1935 Musso had protested about German rearmament. In one book Chamberlain is quoted as chiding Eden with regard to Musso that "You have missed chance after chance, Anthony. You simply can't go on like this." It was only with the fall of France that Musso finally threw in his lot with Germany. There are people who think that Chamberlain's strategy was for Germany to invade Russia. That's what I believe as well. Chamberlain knew from our secret service that this was going to happen, if not from the public and House of Commons who only understood straight lines. Chamberlain wrote a memo in about 1937 insisting that the Spitfire was developed so that any ordinary pilot could fly it. That's common sense. Chamberlain encouraged radar for air defence. In that World at War TV documentary Eden is quoted as saying that he visited the Home Counties in 1940 and that the British army had no tanks or anti-tank guns. That's a serious matter. The German army and navy were quoted as saying that they were against an invasion of Britain unless the Luftwaffe had air superiority which thankfully never happened. This so-called appeasement policy is relevant to events today. This is from a Wikipedia about the matter:
Quote:
|
28th July 2017, 02:41 AM | #214 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
It's rather critical to ask, at what point in 1940? It's well-known that a large amount of materiel was left behind in France after the evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk, though rather less well-known that there were subsequent evacuations of forces further south that also resulted in abandonment of vehicles and guns. It's not surprising that the British army was short of tanks and guns immediately after suffering a major defeat in the Battle of France in which they lost a lot of them.
As far as I'm aware, as soon as possible after Dunkirk, the First Armoured Division was brought up to something like full strength with whatever tanks could be found, though many were initially lacking some fairly important equipment (for example, a lot had a main gun but no co-axial MG), and stationed in the south-east as the main counter-invasion striking force. Second Armoured was then equipped with whatever ragtag mixture of light tanks and Bren Carriers was left over and stationed in East Anglia in case of an attack north of the Thames. Depending on where you're referring to as the Home Counties (not a very exact geographical location), it may be that the army had no tanks or AT guns there because they were all concentrated where they might actually be needed. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
28th July 2017, 05:24 AM | #215 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
An interesting note is that the only division in Britain with a full complement of trucks and artillery pieces was the First Canadian.
And that only because the CO of their artillery regiment defied orders to load his guns and trucks back onto the ships that had just brought them to France. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
28th July 2017, 07:31 PM | #216 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
|
[quote=Henri McPhee;11937007]I don't think that's quite correct.
And which episode of 'World at War' do you base that on?
Quote:
is nonsense?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX |
|
29th July 2017, 02:38 AM | #217 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
It was Stalin who was the appeaser, and who signed a piece of paper with Ribbentrop with amazing complacency, and even stupidity, just because he didn't believe a word the British told him about proper warnings. Stalin had previously killed off 90% of his Generals and 80% of his Colonels. That was not good for any very efficient army. There was nothing Chamberlain could have done to help the Czechs, and not much Chamberlain, or Churchill, or Roosevelt, could do to help Poland.
With regard to the proposed German invasion of Britain, the German air force was all for it, but I think only amateur strategists and internet posters would think it would have been a good idea unless the Germans had air superiority. I agree the British Army mainly only had rifles after Dunkirk. There is a bit about what one of Hitler's best Generals, Von Manstein thought about the matter on the Wikipedia internet:
Quote:
|
29th July 2017, 03:34 AM | #218 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
|
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
29th July 2017, 04:34 AM | #219 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
Does criticising Chamberlain imply support for Stalin? You write as if there could only be one appeaser. But there were more than one. Stalin was desperately afraid of attack from Germany, for which he was unprepared, and did all kinds of things to avert or at least delay a Nazi onslaught. Not only did the British warn him prior to Barbarossa; so did his own intelligence services, and he didn't believe them either.
Main problem was, people had been warning him of an attack in May, which was correct at the time; but the attack was postponed by a month because of the crisis in Yugoslavia, so May passed without incident, and Stalin's informants started predicting June, which by then was correct too. But the false alarm in May gave Stalin the opportunity to disparage his informants and ignore their warnings. Churchill specifically referred to the "Serbian Revolution" in his warning to Stalin, but this was fruitless. Stalin ignored him too. He was unappreciative of British warnings, because the British had been taken by surprise by the recent German offensive against UK forces in Crete. If they're so damned good at foreseeing invasions, he observed, why couldn't they see one coming when they themselves were the target? |
29th July 2017, 05:57 AM | #220 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
|
So Stalin makes a deal with Hitler and that's appeasement, but when Chamberlain does the same its not?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX |
|
30th July 2017, 01:32 AM | #221 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's baloney and lack of vision. The French High Command was in a bad state. The French troops were physically unfit. They were only interested in the Maginot line. Helping, or giving practical encouragement, to the Czechs or Poland was the last thing on their mind.
The fact is that there was an invasion scare after Dunkirk. General Alan Brooke, who knew what was going on, is on public and historical record as saying he expected a German invasion any day now in September 1940, even if Garrison's ancestors didn't understand what was going on. I agree with you that opposed landings are not an easy task and that the German Army had some deficiencies, like having to use a lot of horse drawn transport. It's just that the Germans were optimistic about defeating Britain in the same way as they were optimistic about defeating Poland and Russia and France, and they nearly succeeded. It was touch and go, and a close shave, whatever some scholars may say about it. |
30th July 2017, 01:36 AM | #222 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
No, the fact is that people at the time, lacking a full appreciation of Germany's naval weakness, underdeveloped anti-shipping aviation capability and complete lack of practical landing craft, thought it was a close shave. In the context of the time it's perfectly reasonable that they thought that, but looking back with a fuller understanding of both sides' strengths and weaknesses it's clear that there was never really a practical way Germany could mount an invasion with any chance of success.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
30th July 2017, 01:42 AM | #223 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
Henri, the World at War *was* groundbreaking, but it didn't have many of the sources that are now available. For example, we now have access to a lot of the Soviet information, and secondly the World at war was broadcast before the thirty year rule had come up.
|
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
30th July 2017, 01:52 AM | #224 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
Alan Brooke's concern and prudence do him credit, but he was wrong. As we now know. German optimism as regards defeating the UK and Russia was misplaced. As we now know. The scholars are right, because they have the benefit of hindsight, and access to data, unlike Garrison's ancestors.
|
30th July 2017, 03:39 AM | #225 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
|
Well I can't speak for my ancestors, but scare is the key word here. After the Blitzkrieg in France people were indeed afraid of invasion, how could crossing the Channel be an impediment to a force that had swept aside the largest in army in Europe?
The facts though were very different. We have information about the real capabilities of the Germans that Alan Brooke would have sold his grandmother to get his hands on. The reality is the Germans were ill-equipped to mount an amphibious assault and if they had done so it would have ended in disaster. It isn't just that the Alan Brooke and others lacked knowledge of German capabilities, they also lacked an understanding of the complexity of amphibious operations that they would slowly develop during the course of the war and with some painful lesson, like Dieppe, along the way. Some of the German generals may have been optimistic in public and made grandiose statements after the war, but at the time we know, courtesy of records that Alan Brooke had no way of accessing, that there was endless arguing over Sealion amongst the various military branches of the Wehrmacht and they never really go past the point of simply massing troops in the coastal ports. |
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX |
|
30th July 2017, 08:55 AM | #226 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I just think that's being an armchair admiral and armchair strategist many years later. There were very real concerns at the time about the German Navy and German Army and German air force, however weak later data suggests they might have been. It's a bit like now with dealing with half-mad communist fascists in North Korea threatening Los Angeles with oblivion.
This matter is discussed on the internet: http://www.s134542708.websitehome.co...ion_plans.html This is a quote from that article:
Quote:
|
30th July 2017, 09:14 AM | #227 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
You are misreading what we are saying. It was reasonable at the time for the British to be concerned about an invasion. However we now know that there was no serious German plan for an invasion. It is true that air superiority would have been vital for an invasion, which the Germans did not get, but which at least they were working on. However, Operation Overlord also showed that the Germans were nowhere near the naval supremacy needed for a landing and even if they did, they hadn't the logistics to keep such an invasion force supplied. It would have been a fiasco. With the benefit of hindsight, and wargames played out at Sandhurst - this is what we now know. As Garrison said below, this is not armchair generalship, but hindsight. Also, Henri, you seem to be relying on out of date sources. |
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
30th July 2017, 09:14 AM | #228 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
|
No, it's called having access to a wealth of information those expressing opinions at the time didn't have. you are entitled to your opinion, but since you seem resolutely determined to base it on a 40 year old documentary series and Wikipedia you are unlikely to persuade anyone else to take it seriously
Quote:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/for...hreads.180901/ ETA: Also the 1974 war game made the assumption that the RN would not inflict major losses on the invasion force while it was at sea. They did this so they could play through the events of a landing, but they were fully aware that there was almost no chance that the invasion force would survive to get ashore after the RN engaged them. |
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX |
|
1st August 2017, 04:00 AM | #229 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I just think our secret service at the time had access to little pieces of information about Hitler's proposed invasion of Britain which was never given to the public, or House of Commons, or the media, at the time. This was because it might have affected the attitude of the workers, or cause a loss of confidence, or even panic. It's all very well for scholars to talk now about modern data, and a what if scenario, but if the RAF had not scared the Germans off Britain would have been invaded. The Germans had U boats for a start which caused a lot of British losses until about May 1943.
There is some background to this on the internet:
Quote:
|
1st August 2017, 04:27 AM | #230 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
The problem is that the Germans had very little chance of getting a large force ashore. And then supplying it if they did.
The Home Guard was ill-equipped - because the weapons that had been intended for them had been re-allocated to the British Army. While there was a shortage of tanks, there was no shortage of small arms, ammo for the small arms, and while there was a lower concentration of artillery then what was normal for Commonwealth forces later in the war there was more then enough artillery to do the job of fighting a containment action, followed by driving an ill-supported force into the sea. You also might be interested to know that U-Boats are something close to useless in supporting amphibious operations, save as a screen for the surface ships. And the RN is far more likely to have ignored any losses due to subs to get at the Kriegsmarine surface fleet then to have been kept away - you are ignoring the logistics of keeping a seaborne invasion going - all of which has to come across water, into a functioning port, and be delivered, while the RN is throwing everything but your pram at them. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
1st August 2017, 04:40 AM | #231 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,229
|
Of course they did. I don't see anyone arguing that the Secret Service didn't.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. U-Boats operating int he open Atlantic are not the same as U-Boats operating as (presumably) a screen for an invasion force. They're not really designed for the latter. |
1st August 2017, 05:06 AM | #232 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
I was going to reply, but I already said all that needs saying about this back in post #142; Germany never had anywhere near the capability it needed to invade successfully, which is something we know quite certainly now but which may not have been clear given the limited knowledge in Britain in late 1940 of exactly what resources Germany actually had.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
1st August 2017, 05:07 AM | #233 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
1st August 2017, 05:15 AM | #234 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Nor did the Allies use submarines of their own much to support the invasion.
This signature is intended to irradiate people. |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
1st August 2017, 09:47 AM | #235 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There is an interesting opinion about all this on the internet with some FACTS and not just a war game. U boats and the German air force were a danger to the British Navy at the time. I agree that there is not much point in Germany attempting an opposed landing unless you intend to stay there. That was what was wrong with the Dieppe raid, and the American proposal for a cross channel invasion in 1942:
Quote:
|
1st August 2017, 09:58 AM | #236 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
The source of your "opinion" there has no credibility - given that his claim to authority is being "johnincornwall".
The Dieppe Raid was not intended to create a foothold on the continent, it's problems had nothing to do with reinforcing an opposed landing. Dieppe's issues started with the intelligence gathering (or lack thereof) during the planning stages, and were compounded High Command taking away supporting resources (naval ships for supporting fire and air support), the political need to get the Canadians stuck in, and a lack of appreciation of the shore conditions and its effects on both landing craft and tanks. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
1st August 2017, 10:11 AM | #237 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
Indeed. And given Cunningham's comment about it taking the Navy three years to build a ship and three centuries to build a tradition, it is pretty sure that the RN would have intervened in force.
I note that johnincornwall does accept that the RN had stationed "a force many times larger than the naval escorts that the Germans had available" Even if the Germans did land they had no way of supplying their troops. It was bad enough after D-Day even with the Mulberry harbours and DUKWs. |
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
1st August 2017, 11:52 AM | #238 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
To the best of my recollection, the entire strength in ships of destroyer or larger classes available to the Kriegsmarine in June 1940 comprised one heavy cruiser, two light cruisers and four destroyers; everything else was either damaged and under repair, refitting or sitting on the bottom of Narvik Fjord. Henry, your source lists 71 destroyers, 11 cruisers, 5 battleships and an aircraft carrier in home waters, all within less than a day's steaming of the invasion area - the German invasion fleet would have taken at least 24 hours to cross the channel, the strings of towed barges were so slow - which is enough to outnumber quite comfortably every German warship put together throughout WW2, even if they'd all been in commission at the same time. It's a little difficult to reconcile the numbers in your source with its assertions, but it's clear that at the very least the Navy could have had dozens of destroyers in amongst the barges.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
1st August 2017, 05:03 PM | #239 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
|
You think? Do you have any facts to back this up? The reality is if the British had been in possession of accurate information about the likelihood of a German invasion far from panicking they would have known they didn't need to hold back so many troops, ships and equipment for the defence of the UK and could have committed resources elsewhere.
Quote:
|
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX |
|
1st August 2017, 05:13 PM | #240 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
|
The quote conveniently ignores the point that much of the naval losses at Dunkirk were suffered by ships that were at anchor or taking on troops out at sea, the Luftwaffe's poor rate of return on their attacks against stationary targets would suggest they aren't going to have a lot of luck against Destroyers flotillas moving at maximum speed and probably laying smoke and of course as you say the plodding invasion force would have taken so long crossing the channel there would have been nothing to stop the RN mounting a night attack, rendering Luftwaffe intervention moot.
There have been endless books written on the subject, but yet again Henri falls back on an internet quote that fails to offer any sources or accreditation. |
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|