Most Significant Battle In Britain.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Mosley not only met Hitler, when he was married to Diana of the infamous Mitford sisters, Hitler and Goebbels were the only invited guests (though it is strange to call Goebbels a 'guest', given that the wedding took place in his living room).

[Gaius Octavius]

Phil25, I don't think that you have misrepresented anything. I think that you leave the USA, the USSR and the Empire out of the equation. The fleet was intact. The USSR needed additional fronts. The USA would have had to supply the British army (as it did for El Alamein) and the navy (as in Lend-Lease). I don't think that the British people would have been so spineless as to allow Germany to be their suzerain.

 

Think of it in these terms. Could the USA allow the entire world, save for the Americas, come under the rule of the Axis powers, even if there wasn't a Pearl Harbor?

[phil25]

My answer, is absolutely YES!!

 

The US was NOT in the war, and unless hitler gave it the excuse by himself declaring war, I doubt that Congress would ever have gone to war, or FDR have made that decision.

 

As for Stalin and Russia - it was almost a year between the Bof B and Operation Barbarossa. Until the invasion by Germany - and even after for a while, the Russians were desperate not to do anything that might aggravate Germany.

 

Alamein by the way was in 1942, a long time after the Bof B and required a continuance of the war in Africa, which would not have happened had the Uk sued for peace.

 

Look at your timings - I think your chronology is out of sync with reality somehow.

 

Phil

[Gaius Octavius]

My answer, is absolutely YES!!

 

The US was NOT in the war, and unless hitler gave it the excuse by himself declaring war, I doubt that Congress would ever have gone to war, or FDR have made that decision.

 

As for Stalin and Russia - it was almost a year between the Bof B and Operation Barbarossa. Until the invasion by Germany - and even after for a while, the Russians were desperate not to do anything that might aggravate Germany.

 

Alamein by the way was in 1942, a long time after the Bof B and required a continuance of the war in Africa, which would not have happened had the Uk sued for peace.

 

Look at your timings - I think your chronology is out of sync with reality somehow.

 

Phil

Timing is not the essence of my view. That matter has been addressed earlier and, I believe that you were corrected. There is no need to go through it again. Let me try it this way. The US was not threatened by Central America militarily in the '20's and '30's. The United Fruit Co. was. Marines were landed. Same for Viet Nam. Germany did not threaten the US prior to WWI. British interests in the US, which were substantial, carried the day - quietly. Hitler and Stalin had a pact. They shared Poland. They hated each other. Each knew that it was only a matter of time before war broke out between them. There were Fords, Kennedys and Lindbergs, but the likes of Rockefellers trumped them. Ford, the capitalist, built an auto factory in the USSR. His economic interests trumped his pseudo-capitalism.

 

If you think that Great Britain was a nation of cowards, then think about the fleet of boats that went to the rescue of her troops at Dunkerque. These were not cowards. If you feel that the US would not have entered the war, enjoy yourself.

[phil25]

You are hung up on legand, GO, NOT fact.

 

Get into the facts of Dunkirk and you'll find the small boats were important but not crucial to the operation. I'm afraid i don't rely on "Mrs Miniver" for my research. If you want to true guage of British public opinion, look at the attitudes around Munich and the archive of Mass Observation (the organisation that got individuals to keep regular diaries). look at the evidence that much of the population of London would have done ANYTHING to stop the war during the Blitz and cowered in the underground system and shelters. Look also at the emerging material on the Hess mission that indicates a strong will to find a negotiated peace in the UK as late as 1941.

 

What relevance Vietnam has to our discussion I cannot think - different world, different "Cold War" ethos and political doctrine, with the US in her post-war-victor/nuclear power mode. Intervention in Latin America was in the US backyard and part of US imperialism (of which of course we do not speak!!). No relevance to taking on Europe.

 

In the 30s the US was in isolation - it had not joined the League of Nations. It had come into WWI only late and under deep German provocation (unrestricted submarine warfare etc). It had, only with reluctance and at a huge price, undertaken "lend-lease". I see no evidence of a US preparedness to enter a war that had ended with no easily identifiable aim.

 

(Things are different now!)

 

Face the facts, in 1940 - and I stress the year - had Britain sought a negotiated peace (as France did) there would have been NO WAR in which the US could have engaged.

 

Are you really saying that in mid 1941 (and without Pearl Harbor having happened) the US would have supported a COMMUNIST state against a victorious Germany? Sorry the logic doesn't wash with me.

 

What, I ask again, would have been its base of operations? But above all what would have been the casus belli? (In fact Hitler was so frenzied that he MIGHT have given one, but I assume he would not until or unless he decided to support the Japanese.

 

On internal US politics, would the interveners have won out in the face of a wholly victorious Reich? My view is that I doubt it. We perhaps have to disagree.

 

I have given a lot of time to this thread, and I see no sign that my words serve any purpose other than to rile you, GO. I have other things to do, but will continue to try to get the facts across if you insist. So do you want to draw a line or carry on?

 

Phil

[WotWotius]

If you want to true guage of British public opinion, look at the attitudes around Munich and the archive of Mass Observation (the organisation that got individuals to keep regular diaries). look at the evidence that much of the population of London would have done ANYTHING to stop the war during the Blitz and cowered in the underground system and shelters. Look also at the emerging material on the Hess mission that indicates a strong will to find a negotiated peace in the UK as late as 1941.

 

True, at this time, Churchill's 'we 'must never surrender' attitude was by no means reflexive of the Britain's populace. I think Britain's previous Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlin, embodied the view of her public (a public desperate to avoid any form of war). If he were not doing it because public opinion dictated him to, why else would he have launched his 'appeasement' policy?

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if Chamberlin opted for the weaker willed Lord Halifax over Churchill as his successor.

 

In the 30s the US was in isolation - it had not joined the League of Nations. It had come into WWI only late and under deep German provocation (unrestricted submarine warfare etc). It had, only with reluctance and at a huge price, undertaken "lend-lease". I see no evidence of a US preparedness to enter a war that had ended with no easily identifiable aim.

 

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with you there. Prior to 1941, America was taking a firm anti-Nazi stance: unlike in WWI, 'lend-lease' was limited to the Allies only; FDR gave frequent talks on how the USA was the 'great arsenal of democracy'; many political pressure groups (including many civil rights organisations) were actively against the atrocities taking place in Europe--the CR campaigner Phillip Randolph at this point was already talking of launching a 'double V campaign' (Victory over tyranny, and Victory over the civil administration); and come Operation Barbarossa, the USA extended 'lend-lease' to the USSR as she was now an ally of Britain. I admit that all of this was before Britain and the USA's 'special relationship', but you cannot assertively say that the US viewed the UK as just a neutral partner to sell arms to.

 

Pearl Harbour was only a catalyst for further military support--in other words the USA would have entered eventually.

[Rameses the Great]

In the 30s the US was in isolation - it had not joined the League of Nations. It had come into WWI only late and under deep German provocation (unrestricted submarine warfare etc). It had, only with reluctance and at a huge price, undertaken "lend-lease". I see no evidence of a US preparedness to enter a war that had ended with no easily identifiable aim.

 

Well yes, the U.S. did not have the best army in the world at that time, and just a boast about navy but look at how the sides shifted in power. It needed to supress the Germans to regulate trade and stop the killing. If Europe fell to Germany, the U.S. would have a hard time trying to put an end to further destruction.

 

Are you really saying that in mid 1941 (and without Pearl Harbor having happened) the US would have supported a COMMUNIST state against a victorious Germany? Sorry the logic doesn't wash with me.

 

There were political reasons certainly involved. They say that is why the American did not provide relief to the Eastern Front but the going to the war is beeing missed. In war time you do anything to win a war.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Gaius Octavius]

phil25, the irrefutable force of your research, sage wisdom and monumental knowledge of facts, forces me to leave the field battered and in disgrace.

 

Where does one register for courses at the 'phil25 College of Research, Facts & Charm'? I am in sore need.

[Ursus]

This thread is one step away from being sent to the Arena.

 

Additionally, let's all remember to use a modicum of tact. Becoming heated over hypothetical crap that cannot ultimately be proven should be beneath your collective dignitas.

[phil25]

My apologies if i have failed to "use a modicum of tact".

 

I have simply sought to assert what I had thought was a pretty conventional view of the period (obviously not) if my posts have been read as "heated".

 

Time to leave this thread, methinks and maybe take a breather from UNRV.

 

Phil

[Gaius Octavius]

My apologies if i have failed to "use a modicum of tact".

 

I have simply sought to assert what I had thought was a pretty conventional view of the period (obviously not) if my posts have been read as "heated".

 

Time to leave this thread, methinks and maybe take a breather from UNRV.

 

Phil

 

That would not be in anyones interests.

[Pertinax]

I now intend to move the thread to the arena, the discussion has not proceeded in appropriate manner for the Forum

[Ursus]

No single person was being targeted, although it does seem throughout the site lately there have been some heated arguments from the same personalities. Perhaps, in the future, agreeing to disagree would prove the better solution. Especially on topics that are purely subjective and have nothing to do with Rome anyway.

 

Having said that, if someone needs a breather, then by all means take one. I would rather see that than someone become too abrasive, forcing the Legati to place them on moderated status.

[The Augusta]

Battle of Britain for me. And as I speak as a person of Jacobite heritage, Culloden was a foregone conclusion. Charles Edward's bid for the throne ended when his ridiculous advisers persuaded him to turn back at Derby. I speak with some emotion. I had an ancestor hanged, drawn and quartered.

 

phil25, the irrefutable force of your research, sage wisdom and monumental knowledge of facts, forces me to leave the field battered and in disgrace.

 

Where does one register for courses at the 'phil25 College of Research, Facts & Charm'? I am in sore need.

 

Forgive me...it is my birthday and I can be accused of levity, but that is a brillitant post, husband! It is the kind of wit I appreciate. And I mean no disrespect to Phil. As well as the more serious discussion on other threads, little gems like this are why I am so addicted to this Forum.

Edited October 17, 2006 by The Augusta

[Urbs Aedificator]

Most significant battle in Britain? Overheard in an unamed pub in Brighton by two imbibed blokes: 'Stout'! 'No Porter'! 'Stout I said'!...

Alex...pale ale anyone?