Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Let's Put this Battle of Britain thing in Historical Context..

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Let's Put this Battle of Britain thing in Historical Context.. (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=20765)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger (Post 256598)

the most appalling thing is that most people forget that "nazi" is an abbreviation in German language fashion for national-socialism, which actually meant a lot of good for the Germans. Germany saw years of incredible recover after the First World War and many remember the pre-war years as times of wealth and happiness.

Oh oh you really mean that? Want to take a guess how that recovery was financed? People from unions, boy scout organisations, other parties, and of course of jewish background from that time, certainly would not share your opinion, on it being a time of wealth and happiness. Also Nazi is the short form, for the abrevation NSDAP, or national socialist German workers party.
People who try and romatisize that time are not very popular in Germany.

Sorry as a German I find that view a bit offencive!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC1980 (Post 256374)

If Hitler had defeated the RAF, he would have given the order to invade Britain. He would have eventually defeated Britain.

That's largely what we're discussing, and most here believe he would not have been able to successfully invade even if he'd won the battle of Britain.

Quote:

Now here is the bit nobody has thought of.

Without the D-Day invasion, the Russian forces would have had to fight the Nazis on their own... and eventually would have forced them back to Berlin... and beyond.

There is no reason to think the Russians would have stopped at Germany.

The Soviet Iron curtain would have covered the whole of Europe.

The entire history of the world would have been very, very different.

If you read just this thread alone, you'll see that of course people have thought of that. This has been studied the world over, it's not likely we're about to come up with some new breakthrough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC1980 (Post 256389)

That's why Hitler decided the Luftwaffe should wipe out the RAF before he would give the command to invade Britain.

As people have explained here, the Luftwaffe didn't have the range to have air superiority over the north of Britain, so even if they won in the south, the RAF would have been able to keep bombers and fighters in the north which, combined with the navy, would have been too much for a German land invasion to cope with.

Quote:

Originally Hitler targeted only British airbases. Things were going well, at one point the English air force was down to only 200 planes.

Then a flight of German bombers accidentally bombed London. In retaliation Churchill ordered Berlin bombed. Hitler wigged it and ordered the destruction of London which gave the beleaguered RAF time to rebuild and change strategy.

This is what we were taught at school 30 years ago, but modern research has suggested that Hitler could have carried on bombing the RAF bases and it would have made no difference. There were too many airfields that were too easy to get back into operation - their success was limited to something like 1 airfield out of action for 1 day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger (Post 256598)

the most appalling thing is that most people forget that "nazi" is an abbreviation in German language fashion for national-socialism

The most appalling thing? What, in a war where millions died, the most appalling thing is that people forget what nazi used to mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wutz (Post 256683)

ok then, you try and find a time in history when EVERYBODY was happy... after the destruction and economic damage of WW1 and the failure of the Weimar Republic, the resurrection of the German nation under national socialism was undeniable.. happy times for the nation maybe, but not for all..

I'm not trying and romanticize those years, I'm looking at it under a historic perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triggaaar (Post 256703)

The most appalling thing? What, in a war where millions died, the most appalling thing is that people forget what nazi used to mean?

I haven't said that. We were talking about regimes, democracies and their misconception. But thanks for the patronising nugget, it's good to know that we still have such enlightened characters in this forum.. :rolleyes:

You say all of this, but if Germany had won the war we'd all be sat here praising how Germany halted the spread of communism and rid the world of the jewish menace. History is written by the victors. Remember that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by csThor (Post 256059)

3.) While I have my doubts about the actual landing and the sea transport situation I am very much doubtful if the British Army could have taken on even a small german force (two or three divisions initially, to be reinforced by mobile formations soon after) in the field once it had passed a certain point. And to exploit the initial weakness of the landing the British Army would have needed excellent Command and Control facilities, quick reaction times both of forces and commanders ... and on top of it all mobile forces. But the British Army wasn't having any of that in 1940, in fact the Wehrmacht always considered them to be rather slow and methodic (Monty turned that into a form of art :mrgreen: ). It had lost most of its best equipment on the continent, its best formations were still in extremely bad shape, it was almost devoid of battle-worthy tanks, it suffered from an acute shortage of motor transportation, AT guns, artillery and ammunition (to make matters even worse). As a result its numerically strength meant little when the essential mobility, support and logistics weren't there.

IIRC the only armored formation in somewhat battleworthy state was 1st Armored which translates into one good shot at the german lodging - after that it had little more than static infantry to man static defense lines ... and the Wehrmacht had made short work of static lines a lot more formidable than anything the Brits could put up in France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Hmm so you are suggesting just two or three divisions could have established and held a beachhead (bearing in mind they themselves would have had no heavy weapons/tanks etc)? I am sorry but get real. It is true the British Army was in a sorry state in 1940 after the previous decade of disarmament and the BEF disaster in France, however it was still a highly professional, well organized and determined adversary. My father was in that army and he retained no doubt what-so-ever that had the Germans invaded they would have got more than they bargained for. At the time the threat of invasion was a galvanizing force, defences and organization were rapidly constructed and arrangements made.

I think all in all the necessary air superiority achieved by the destruction of the RAF would have made the difference. However it would have been a bloody and protracted battle. Bare in mind this is the British, we love a good scrap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chips86 (Post 256737)

Well, I think hitler's goal was to make advantageous truce with uk, don't let usa interfere and pound ussr - the main enemy, without the danger of 2-front war. So operation sea lion was never meant to happen. imho. It was just a bogey for uk inteligence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GnigruH (Post 256917)

I think the invasion would have happened if Hitler thought it was possible. But I think he realized from the start that it was not possible.