Britain Going it Alone (off topic, split) - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14174452
The most important part of warfare which is the most ignored part as well.


Amateurs study tactics, armchair generals study strategy, but professionals study logistics


#14174455
fuser wrote:Fanboys. Every major country had developed jet planes but they were smart enough unlike Nazis to discard them during war period as they couldn't be produced in mass numbers required for war and as the result of aerial war showed us, it was a great decision.

Yes, just like they produced the assault rifle and the first rockets that would form the basis of the space program before anyone else.

What the fuck is an Indian doing defending Britain anyway?

Voltaire wrote:When asked but their Russian captors what the turning point in the war was, German generals answered: "the Battle of Britain"
whether this was said to irk the Soviets or whether it was a genuine appraisal is up to you, but it demonstrates how important that event was.

Important my ass. The true turning point was at Smolensk. With the Russians kicked beyond the A-A line, Britain would be toast in a matter of years.
#14174470
What the fuck is an Indian doing defending Britain anyway?


He's defending historical fact.

What he is saying is as objectively correct as say saying the sky is blue. Nationality and his view of Britain doesn't come into it.
#14174500
Preston Cole wrote:Yes, just like they produced the assault rifle and the first rockets that would form the basis of the space program before anyone else.


Actually yes.

First assault rifle :

Russian

Rockets used in space programme

Tsiolkovsky equation and first soviet rocket long before Nazis will be a good start as Soviet space programme were indigenous contrary to what fanboys belief but who cares for the historical facts, right?

Then, do you have anything at all to say about my points about jet planes and Nazis stupidity regarding that but let me help diminish more myths :

American Jet plane : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star
British Jet Plane : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor
Soviet Jet Plane : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_I-250_%28N%29

But they were smart enough to not pursue it as it would hadn't been possible to produce them in mass numbers required to win the war as the results showed.

What the fuck is an Indian doing defending Britain anyway?


Fascists. Because everything must have to do with nationality, historical facts can go fuck themselves.

With the Russians kicked beyond the A-A line, Britain would be toast in a matter of years.


Nope, see my previous posts other than that this above post is a meaningless statement with nothing in it to substantiate this claim.


Edit : Ah, yes decky I have seen that quote and here is another one probably by Churchil (not sure) :

An army is like a peacock, all tails.
#14174555
fuser wrote:First assault rifle :

Russian

Key words: considered by some, and predecessor to the modern assault rifle (which was initiated with the Sturmgewehr). Don't twist facts around. I'll give you that Kalashnikov perfected what the Germans started, though.

American Jet plane : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star
British Jet Plane : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor
Soviet Jet Plane : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_I-250_%28N%29

Yes, so? The Me-262 remains the first jet fighter in history.

Fascists. Because everything must have to do with nationality, historical facts can go fuck themselves.

No, it has more to do with you two being fucking Stalinists and Britain's alliance with the "USSR." This thread, as all threads started by Allied-sympathetic commie [redacted - SD], is meant to stroke the dicks of "Stalin" and Churchill.
#14174582
Key words: considered by some, and predecessor to the modern assault rifle (which was initiated with the Sturmgewehr). Don't twist facts around. I'll give you that Kalashnikov perfected what the Germans started, though.


And your point is? Certainly the existence of that rifle disprove the myths that it was the Germans who came up with the idea as you mentioned in your previous post.

Yes, so? The Me-262 remains the first jet fighter in history.


Have you even read this thread or just saw a ww2 related title and came all guns blazing? John rawls mentioned that Nazis had jet planes giving them advantage in hypothetical 2nd BoB, surely he was wrong as the existence of jet planes in various different allies countries shows.

Beside Me-262 is not the first, that will be Heinkel He 178, granted German but being first here is irrelevant as in that hypothetical 2nd BoB, this isn't providing any advantage to Luftwaffe over RAF.

No, it has more to do with you two being fucking Stalinists and Britain's alliance with the "USSR." This thread, as all threads started by Allied-sympathetic commie cocksuckers, is meant to stroke the dicks of "Stalin" and Churchill.


What a mature response. Try to think less of cocks and dick of Stalin, it will be good for your health, fascists.
#14174596
JohnRawls wrote:If there was no soviet union and america in WW2 the nazi fleet of 700 u-boats alone would have been enough to surround great britain and starve you to death without even mounting any invasion in couple of years. Not to mention that the nazis developed jet power planes faster than anybody. If mass produced you would have lost the 2nd battle of britain fore sure. Your standing army on the isles was also tiny compared what the germans could throw at you. There is no single chance you could have won the war or did anywhere near good in WW2.


I don't think anyone is arguing that Britain could have won the war alone. We know they could not have. But your U-boat starvation blockade theory is ridiculous.
Germany's naval fleet was paltry and incapable of defeating the British navy, and certainly not capable of an amphibious invasion without air superiority.
#14174603
AuContraireVoltaire wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing that Britain could have won the war alone. We know they could not have


Actually by my count, two people are arguing just that, Britain will surely had won the war not a complete victory as historically but nevertheless a win. What was impossible was German chance of any sort of victory against British Empire. I have explained my scenario in first page already.
#14174607
fuser wrote:Actually by my count, two people are arguing just that, Britain will surely had won the war not a complete victory as historically but nevertheless a win. What was impossible was German chance of any sort of victory against British Empire. I have explained my scenario in first page already.


Germany coming to negotiation tables because of continued blockade and defeats in periphery, losing all her gains at least in western Europe, a healthy possibility.

Britain would not "win" anything alone. What the fuck are you on? They would at most keep their British Empire somewhat intact save for Japanese annexations, and win the Battle of Britain ensuring they don't become a German puppet. If saving your ass from conquest constitutes "winning," it's pathetic. At most, returning to the status quo.

El Alamein was the result of Hitler focusing on the Eastern Front instead of Rommel. The Afrika Korps had like, what, 2 divisions? Give Rommel some more troops and he'd have smashed his way through Egypt.

And then, where the hell did you pull the crap about losing all German gains in western Europe without an American-backed D-Day?
Last edited by Cartertonian on 17 Feb 2013 07:34, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Rule 2 violation
#14174610
Preston Cole wrote:Britain would not "win" anything alone. What the fuck are you on? They would at most keep their British Empire somewhat intact save for Japanese annexations, and win the Battle of Britain ensuring they don't become a German puppet. If saving your ass from conquest constitutes "winning," it's pathetic. At most, returning to the status quo.


Did you read what I wrote? Germany will have to give up all their gains at least in west i.e. defeat for Germany.

El Alamein was the result of Hitler focusing on the Eastern Front instead of Rommel. The Afrika Korps had like, what, 2 divisions? Give Rommel some more troops and he'd have smashed his way through Egypt.


And from where will these magical divisions get their supplies from? Magic or still believing in superhuman Germans. They were having nightmares in supplying the tiny africakorps which was never fully battle ready or 100% supplied at any moment of the time. With complete superiority of RN in Mediterranean, it was impossible to do anyway. Give them more divisions and you are making things worse not better.

And then, where the hell did you pull the crap about losing all German gains in western Europe without an American-backed D-Day?


Yeah, you didn't read what I wrote, I will have to spell it out once again, fascists.

1. Continued Blockade
2. No foreign reserve for Germany, a economy dependent on War Booty.
3. Defeats in periphery, Africa, Norway etc.

Germany comes to negotiation table and gives up her gains. was it simple enough?
#14174620
fuser wrote:Germany will have to give up all their gains at least in west i.e. defeat for Germany.

No, they wouldn't.

Yeah, you didn't read what I wrote, I will have to spell it out once again, fascists.

Do you have a problem counting?

1. Continued Blockade
2. No foreign reserve for Germany, a economy dependent on War Booty.
3. Defeats in periphery, Africa, Norway etc.

How would a blockade magically force Germany to negotiate? Norway wouldn't fall because you'd put the British Army against the Wehrmacht (not a good idea considering France and Crete). A British blockade of metal shipments from Sweden would be impossible since Germany could just bring in the supplies through southern Sweden to Denmark via a narrow strait. Furthermore, if Finland remains in the Axis, assuming victory over the Soviets, RN would be powerless in this regard.
#14174630
Preston Cole wrote:Do you have a problem counting?


Dafaq that's suppose to mean, I had already explained my scenario which you had ignored ergo I had to repeat my same argument, so yeah fascists.

How would a blockade magically force Germany to negotiate?


Really you have to ask that? What was the condition of Germany in 1918 because of blockade, not very good, was it? There is more to a war than just men.

Norway wouldn't fall because you'd put the British Army against the Wehrmacht (not a good idea considering France and Crete)


Germany had almost lost in Norway in 1940s only, it was the invasion of France that forced allies to relocate their troops from Norway. Beside we are talking alternate history where there is no DDay, UK could use their troop to invade Norway and it can maintain a sustained effort unlike the Germans as she rules the sea.

Then one of my point is still left uncontested.
#14174638
fuser wrote:Really you have to ask that? What was the condition of Germany in 1918 because of blockade, not very good, was it? There is more to a war than just men.

Blockade would work if Soviets pushed from the East, in which case Germany's fucked anyway. Otherwise it's useless considering self-sufficiency in oil and food from Russia.

Beside we are talking alternate history where there is no DDay, UK could use their troop to invade Norway and it can maintain a sustained effort unlike the Germans as she rules the sea.

There's nothing to guarantee the British Army's success. They had few tanks and the Germans already kicked their asses twice before.
#14174642
Preston Cole wrote:Blockade would work if Soviets pushed from the East, in which case Germany's fucked anyway. Otherwise it's useless considering self-sufficiency in oil and food from Russia


What? there is no success of Barbarossa in this scenario as far I know but if you are talking about trade as outlined in MR pact then it was no guarantee that the deal will exist throughout the war and soviets won't simply break that off even without going to war.

There's nothing to guarantee the British Army's success. They had few tanks and the Germans already kicked their asses twice before.


Actually as the campaign of 1940 showed, Britain was poised to a victory in Norway as she can bring more men equipment and tanks their i.e. at the front than Germans again the reason being sea. Germans simply didn't had the shipping capacity to ferry and supply that many troops as England can in Norway. This is the precise reason why there was never a "Panzer Division" in Norway.
#14174652
What? there is no success of Barbarossa in this scenario as far I know but if you are talking about trade as outlined in MR pact then it was no guarantee that the deal will exist throughout the war and soviets won't simply break that off even without going to war.

Well, if the MR was kept, I have a hunch the Soviets would prefer to remain allied to Germany and help it clobber Britain, a greater capitalist enemy. Stalin was a lot more hostile to the Brits than the Germans.


Actually as the campaign of 1940 showed, Britain was poised to a victory in Norway as she can bring more men equipment and tanks their i.e. at the front than Germans again the reason being sea. Germans simply didn't had the shipping capacity to ferry and supply that many troops as England can in Norway. This is the precise reason why there was never a "Panzer Division" in Norway.

That's a good point, but that still leaves transportation through Sweden in narrower waters. I imagine a land battle over Sweden would commence. With Soviet assistance, or German victory in Russia, this point's moot anyway. The Brits could have harmed a vulnerable Germany which didn't achieve any diplomatic or military victory with Russia to ensure its survival, otherwise they would just have to wait it out.
#14174667
Preston Cole wrote:Well, if the MR was kept, I have a hunch the Soviets would prefer to remain allied to Germany and help it clobber Britain, a greater capitalist enemy. Stalin was a lot more hostile to the Brits than the Germans.


Stalin would had preferred both side fighting and exhausting themselves to be easy pickings for the great cause of International Revolution.
But at the same time wary of any of the parties involved becoming too strong. He was maddened when he heard the news of fall of France as he expected that France will hold on more bleeding Germans and themselves dry.

That's a good point, but that still leaves transportation through Sweden in narrower waters. I imagine a land battle over Sweden would commence. With Soviet assistance, or German victory in Russia, this point's moot anyway. The Brits could have harmed a vulnerable Germany which didn't achieve any diplomatic or military victory with Russia to ensure its survival, otherwise they would just have to wait it out.


If Britain secures Norway, she can "force" Sweden to join allies or an outright invasion is also not an impossibility. After all they did had such plans for Norway.


Finally the point is Britain can wait indefinitely while Germany can't, hardly Americans will want Britain to sign peace treaty with Germany while France is still occupied. There was no peace for Germany until she leaves France and she has no means to bring the war at British doorsteps forcing or knocking them out of the war.
#14174689
fuser wrote:
Actually by my count, two people are arguing just that, Britain will surely had won the war not a complete victory as historically but nevertheless a win. What was impossible was German chance of any sort of victory against British Empire. I have explained my scenario in first page already.


Sorry, I assumed people on here were not that foolish.
#14174696
Yeah obviously that's a very mature thing to say specially when there are tons of argument in favor of that statement but who cares just bypass them and declare anyone who doesn't support your position as foolish.

Now, that's smart.

or will you care to explain how magical superhuman beings that were Germans will defeat Britain overcoming all the obstacles as explained in this very thread?
#14174708
fuser wrote:Yeah obviously that's a very mature thing to say specially when there are tons of argument in favor of that statement but who cares just bypass them and declare anyone who doesn't support your position as foolish.

Now, that's smart.

or will you care to explain how magical superhuman beings that were Germans will defeat Britain overcoming all the obstacles as explained in this very thread?


You are positing that Britain could have won. When you are only providing evidence that points to the possibility of them only avoiding defeat, and therefore eventually concluding a peace.
#14174715
And how did you mange to overlook the "blockade part", the "Victories on Periphery part" and Germany coming to negotiation table and giving up all her gains at least in Western Europe, how it doesn't translate in victory.

Victory doesn't always have to be = unconditional surrender.
Election 2020

In the "Fair And Balanced Department" […]

Trump and Russiagate

He only listed instances in which Trump might hav[…]

Damn, there's a lot of off-topic stuff in here. […]

Trump, Oh my god !

@blackjack21 Fascism is NOT friendly towards l[…]