It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Before and after views of D-day

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

as their supply lines would have been obliterated behind them by the Royal Navy.


Aircraft always win against ships. The outcome of an air-sea battle might have taken some time to evolve, but ships alone against aircraft always lose.

Germany would have occupied England if had wanted to.




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: hellobruce

But somehow you make out that was France and Britain's fault!


England didn't have treaty with Poland until March 3, 1939.

England let Poland fight alone in 1919 against the Soviet Union.

Someone in England wanted a war.




The UK signed that treaty with Poland after Hitler smashed the Munich Agreement and sent his troops into Bohemia-Moravia, areas that had never been a part of Germany.


Same as England invading Ireland.




In 1919 British troops were already fighting in Russia against the Soviets.



England never declared war on the Soviet Union, even though the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1919.





Chamberlain did not want a war. Unfortunately he realised that Hitler could not be trusted.


I appreciate Chamberlain a lot more as I get older.

Hitler could be trusted to do what he said he was going to do for 10 years. Which was the conquest of Eastern Europe, war against the communists.


I fail to understand your point about the English and Ireland. They also invaded Wales. Neither has anything to do with this topic. Hitler had no business taking over what remained of the Czech Republic.

Germany had as much right to claim the Czech Republic (no right IMO) as England had to keep Ireland (no right IMO)
The same rational in both cases.


The moment he did that he tore up the Munich Agreement and showed that he could NOT be trusted in any way.
England conquered 70% of the planet. You say England never violated a treaty?


As for your comment about the UK declaring war on the Communists - see my comments above on the Russian Civil War.
England knew the Bolsheviks were invading Europe. No declaration of anything against the Bolsheviks.



Finally Hitler did not just talk about taking over Eastern Europe. He talked about tearing up the Treaty of Versailles. He invaded neutral countries, he sent in the scum of the SS, he persecuted minorities and he started the Holocaust. I am uncertain as to why you are defending him. The man was a mass-murdering piece of vileness.


I'm not defending Hitler. I'm saying that war with NAZI Germany was not necessary. Hitler didn't invade France until after France declared war on Germany. Hitler offered peace to England and never tried to invade England.

The Treaty of Versailles was victor's justice, after 4 years of the British Navy starving German and Belgian civilians.

The Germans invaded Norway one day ahead of the Anglo-French Invasion, England tried to invade neutral Norway.

The Communist Soviet Union did everything the NAZIs did, killed 20 million in a different way, but no shooting war against the USSR.




The English first invaded Ireland in the Twelfth Century. Standards were somewhat low at that time. The UK let the Irish go their own way after the First World War. There's a bit of a disconnect between the two there. Hitler had no right to Bohemia-Moravia, by the standards of international behaviour in the 1930's. Unfortunately there was nothing that the outside world could do about it at that time. However, the British and French could offer to guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland, which was Germany's likely next victim. Hitler was apparently too stupid to realise that by taking Bohemia and Moravia he had burnt his bridges behind him. By committing aggression and invading Poland he started the war. Not the UK. Not France. He did.
The Soviet invasion of Poland was defeated. No invasion of Europe therefore.
As for no invasion of the UK, what was the Battle of Britain all about then?
And finally can I ask what the hell Germany was doing in Northern France and Belgium in World War One again? Oh yes - invading and occupying it!



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

as their supply lines would have been obliterated behind them by the Royal Navy.


Aircraft always win against ships. The outcome of an air-sea battle might have taken some time to evolve, but ships alone against aircraft always lose.

Germany would have occupied England if had wanted to.





No. This is a very, very complicated subject. In a nutshell, the Germans were proposing to send over thousands of men in barges. Not landing craft, barges. The German Navy had been gutted by the Norwegian Campaign and would have been no match at all for the Royal Navy. As for the Luftwaffe, yes, planes do sink ships. But the Germans didn't have any large shipkilling bombs at that time, had only a handful of torpedo planes and didn't have any divebomber pilots who were skilled at hitting fast-moving ships at sea. Plus the Luftwaffe would have been pulled to pieces on too many missions. It would have had to:
a) Keep away the RAF from the bridgehead.
b) Act as artillery for the troops that got ashore.
c) Keep the RAF away from the Channel.
d) Attack any Royal Navy incursion from the North and the West.
All of the above would have been an impossible task.
Look, people frequently bring up Operation Sealion on the AltHist website, where it is so infamous that it has become known as the Unmentionable Sea Mammal.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg


However, the British and French could offer to guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland


No, England couldn't guarantee Polish territorial integrity, and subsequently England gave Poland to the Soviets.

Hitler assumed that England wouldn't ruin its empire and economy to save communism.

Why did England ruin its economy and empire to save Bolshevism?

Either England's leaders are stupid, or something other than the popular government alone is running England.


edit on 4-6-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

as their supply lines would have been obliterated behind them by the Royal Navy.


Aircraft always win against ships. The outcome of an air-sea battle might have taken some time to evolve, but ships alone against aircraft always lose.

Germany would have occupied England if had wanted to.





No. This is a very, very complicated subject. In a nutshell, the Germans were proposing to send over thousands of men in barges. Not landing craft, barges. The German Navy had been gutted by the Norwegian Campaign and would have been no match at all for the Royal Navy.

The Germans didn't have a navy, relatively speaking. The Germans had yet to build a navy. They could have built a naval force specifically to conduct and invasion of England as easily as any other kind of navy.


As for the Luftwaffe, yes, planes do sink ships. But the Germans didn't have any large shipkilling bombs at that time, had only a handful of torpedo planes and didn't have any divebomber pilots who were skilled at hitting fast-moving ships at sea.


Because Germany wasn't planning to conquer England.

Germany had a window of few years to deal with England before invading the USSR. Germany had plenty of time to make anti-shipping and sea-lift forces. Stalin was supplying the raw materials and greatly enjoyed the thought of the capitalists killing each other.



Plus the Luftwaffe would have been pulled to pieces on too many missions. It would have had to:
a) Keep away the RAF from the bridgehead.
b) Act as artillery for the troops that got ashore.
c) Keep the RAF away from the Channel.
d) Attack any Royal Navy incursion from the North and the West.
All of the above would have been an impossible task.
Look, people frequently bring up Operation Sealion on the AltHist website, where it is so infamous that it has become known as the Unmentionable Sea Mammal.


Ships would be a lot easier to hit in the confines of the English Channel.

Actually ships in the English channel would be vulnerable to shore based artillery, now and then. Shore based torpedoes and mines would work in the channel also.

Of course a stratagem or tactical doctrine would be cheaper. Resources limit the planning at some point.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: AngryCymraeg


However, the British and French could offer to guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland


No, England couldn't guarantee Polish territorial integrity, and subsequently England gave Poland to the Soviets.

Hitler assumed that England wouldn't ruin its empire and economy to save communism.

Why did England ruin its economy and empire to save Bolshevism?

Either England's leaders are stupid, or something other than the popular government alone is running England.



You're totally failing to understand the mentality of the time. Poland was not a communist country and Hitler was the immediate threat. He had invaded neighbouring countries. He couldn't be trusted to keep his word. He was rearming at a staggering pace. And his internal domestic policies were as disgusting as Stalin's were. Stalin, for all his faults, wasn't doing what Hitler was doing.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

as their supply lines would have been obliterated behind them by the Royal Navy.


Aircraft always win against ships. The outcome of an air-sea battle might have taken some time to evolve, but ships alone against aircraft always lose.

Germany would have occupied England if had wanted to.





No. This is a very, very complicated subject. In a nutshell, the Germans were proposing to send over thousands of men in barges. Not landing craft, barges. The German Navy had been gutted by the Norwegian Campaign and would have been no match at all for the Royal Navy.

The Germans didn't have a navy, relatively speaking. The Germans had yet to build a navy. They could have built a naval force specifically to conduct and invasion of England as easily as any other kind of navy.


As for the Luftwaffe, yes, planes do sink ships. But the Germans didn't have any large shipkilling bombs at that time, had only a handful of torpedo planes and didn't have any divebomber pilots who were skilled at hitting fast-moving ships at sea.


Because Germany wasn't planning to conquer England.

Germany had a window of few years to deal with England before invading the USSR. Germany had plenty of time to make anti-shipping and sea-lift forces. Stalin was supplying the raw materials and greatly enjoyed the thought of the capitalists killing each other.



Plus the Luftwaffe would have been pulled to pieces on too many missions. It would have had to:
a) Keep away the RAF from the bridgehead.
b) Act as artillery for the troops that got ashore.
c) Keep the RAF away from the Channel.
d) Attack any Royal Navy incursion from the North and the West.
All of the above would have been an impossible task.
Look, people frequently bring up Operation Sealion on the AltHist website, where it is so infamous that it has become known as the Unmentionable Sea Mammal.


Ships would be a lot easier to hit in the confines of the English Channel.

Actually ships in the English channel would be vulnerable to shore based artillery, now and then. Shore based torpedoes and mines would work in the channel also.

Of course a stratagem or tactical doctrine would be cheaper. Resources limit the planning at some point.



???? No, they had the Kriegsmarine. And most of it was sunk around Norway. The Twins were in dock being repaired and Bismark and Tirpitz were still being fitted out.
Sealion only had a chance in 1940, when the British Army was still being re-equipped after Dunkirk and when the RAF was still building up. By 1941 Sealion wouldn't have had the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. The RAF was far too strong and the Army would have had any invading forces for breakfast. By the way, shore based torpedoes have a limited range - and it would have been madness to launch them blindly into the Channel. What about the German barges?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

???? No, they had the Kriegsmarine. And most of it was sunk around Norway. The Twins were in dock being repaired and Bismark and Tirpitz were still being fitted out.


The Kriegsmarine didn't have even one aircraft carrier. A few battleships and battlecruisers are not a navy, relative to France, Great Britain, Japan, the USSR, or America.


Sealion only had a chance in 1940, when the British Army was still being re-equipped after Dunkirk and when the RAF was still building up.


Dunkirk would not have happened if Hitler had wanted to invade England.

Hitler didn't want to invade England.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

???? No, they had the Kriegsmarine. And most of it was sunk around Norway. The Twins were in dock being repaired and Bismark and Tirpitz were still being fitted out.


The Kriegsmarine didn't have even one aircraft carrier. A few battleships and battlecruisers are not a navy, relative to France, Great Britain, Japan, the USSR, or America.


Sealion only had a chance in 1940, when the British Army was still being re-equipped after Dunkirk and when the RAF was still building up.


Dunkirk would not have happened if Hitler had wanted to invade England.

Hitler didn't want to invade England.



Well, but they were building an aircraft carrier. It was called the Graf Zeppelin and it wasn't a brilliant design (it had a list when it was launched). Goering's short-sighted stupidity meant that it was never operational. By the way, the non-existence of functional aircraft carriers is not a sign that the Kriegsmarine wasn't a navy. It wasn't until 1942 that naval experts started to realise that the battleship was being supplanted by the carrier as the queen of the seas.
And please don't forget about Plan Z. That was Hitler's plan in early 1939 to create a navy capable of taking on the Royal Navy.
And Hitler DID want to invade the UK. What do you think Operation Sealion was about?
edit on 4-6-2014 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

What about the German barges?


Barges need good channel weather.

Barges do have some advantages, they can transport a lot of stuff.

They are easier to sink than transport ships, but they are harder to hit, smaller.

As I recall, there weren't enough barges on hand in 1940.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

What do you think Operation Sealion was about?


Seelowe had benefits other than a real invasion of England. It fooled the Russians. The Wermacht was able to station invasion troops on the eastern border. Hitler told Stalin that the panzer divisions were avoiding English bombing and reconnaissance.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

What about the German barges?


Barges need good channel weather.

Barges do have some advantages, they can transport a lot of stuff.

They are easier to sink than transport ships, but they are harder to hit, smaller.

As I recall, there weren't enough barges on hand in 1940.



Yes, but the barges really needed a port, and Dover and Folkstone were rigged to blow sky-high in the event of an invasion. The Nazis emptied France and Western Germany of barges - there were almost 2,500 in Calais and Boulogne.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
So ya...interesting pictures...



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Just bumping this thread to add some more very well done "then and now" images...

www.theguardian.com...







top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join