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.

 

Lets settle this! Would the UK have survived WW2 without the USA.

page: 13
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
Can I ask a really stupid question? I"m told we don't have time in this segment of the show but I'm gonna ask it anyway.

I did ask my Mom who is the only person I'm in contact with that might actually know and she was also stumped.

How did Britain get involved in WW2? Both of our memory banks are missing that. Was it Germany that started it with bombings because they were there and a enemy(as Germany didn't have a whole load of friends, especially in Europe as they were invading most of them) or was there some other reason?

Just, wow, how can I have forgotten this crap? Damn, I must be losing it because I totally cannot remember what the hell happened. Getting old sucks, apparently.


Britain started rearming properly in 1936 and by the time of the Munich Agreement in late 1938 it was increasingly obvious that Germany was on the road to war and had to be stopped. In March 1939 Germany proved this by ripping up the Munich Agreement and occupying what is now the Czech Republic, having arranged the break-up of Czechoslovakia. This made even Neville Chamberlain realise that Hitler couldn't be trusted and led to the Anglo-French announcement to guarantee the territorial integrity of the obvious next victim - Poland.
In August 1939 Hitler tried to short-circuit this with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, with secret clauses agreeing to partition Poland and in September 1939 he invaded Poland. Much to his horror Britain and France declared war on him.
edit on 1-4-2016 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo




posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake
Transporting tanks across the English channel when you have total naval domination and airfields in range is slightly different from trying to cross the whole Atlantic opposed by the US navy.
If you read my previous posts on this thread you will see my view on who was mainly responsible for defeating Germany. While the US did certainly contribute economically and the effect of bombing by the US and UK is hard to quantify the war was already one prior to d-day by Russian troops and Russian tanks.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker




Or are you implying the U.K. could have pulled off D-Day without the U.S.?


The only thing i am implying is; those who try and make out that The D Day Landings where a U.S. lead operation, are talking through their arse.
edit on 1-4-2016 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


You didn't need them? Really? Then why buy them if you don't 'need' them? If you think that deal was for profit, then why hasn't a 'lend=lease' of that magnitude never occurred before OR after?

Gee, let's lend-lease a couple of our older carriers to, say, Israel or Taiwan....after all we'd 'profit' by it.....Sorry, no cigar on that one.


Here's a more likely scenario, the U.S. likely would have GIVEN them to the U.K.. Lend-Lease was a pretext to avoid a indirect act of war against Germany.....after all it's 'just a business deal'....


edit on 1-4-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker
Fair enough the US was perfectly entitled to trade with whoever it wanted. Just making the point that crazy is right to say that US support to the UK wasn't exactly charity.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

My history teacher used to tell us that Germany annexed Poland knowing that we would declare war on them,because Germany didn't want to be seen to start the next world war.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Russia could not have survived the German onslaught without the aid of American and UK convoys. Consider the fact that German uboat designs pretty much out classed both US and UK designs of the time, what do you think would have happened to any Atlantic US navy fleet should Germany had had access to a lot more of the same? They would also probably brought the UK into the fold regarding manpower and military might and consider the fact that the enigma code would probably not have been broken. I dont see the pond being much of an issue.
edit on 1-4-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Imagewerx
a reply to: nwtrucker

My history teacher used to tell us that Germany annexed Poland knowing that we would declare war on them,because Germany didn't want to be seen to start the next world war.


I'm sorry, but this made no sense. Germany didn't 'annex' Poland, Germany invaded it.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: andy06shake
Transporting tanks across the English channel when you have total naval domination and airfields in range is slightly different from trying to cross the whole Atlantic opposed by the US navy.
If you read my previous posts on this thread you will see my view on who was mainly responsible for defeating Germany. While the US did certainly contribute economically and the effect of bombing by the US and UK is hard to quantify the war was already one prior to d-day by Russian troops and Russian tanks.



The first para, I totally agree.The second? I maintain the threat of the second front AND Russian efforts were required for victory. 55 infantry divisions, 11 armored division were tied up in the west. More than enough to turn the tide back into Germany's favor without the U.S.'s entry.

Fine, it's more a passive/strategic issue than hands on.

A bit off-topic, but I hold Hitler's biggest mistake wasn't going after Russia's food and oil. That was strategically a fairly sound plan. It was declaring war on the U.S. that was the fatal mistake. JMO



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake
While the aid convoys were useful I think there is little evidence that they were vital to the soviet ear effort.
It would have taken Germany years to build up sufficient naval assets to even remotely consider attacking across the Atlantic. (during which time I doubt the US would have sat on their hands). D-day was one one the most difficult and complicated military projects ever and that was a fraction of the distance, with air and sea supremacy conducted by the two great naval powers of the time with several previous landings for experience and facing an enemy already loosing the war.
The idea that Germany could have invaded the US is frankly laughable.


edit on 1-4-2016 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Thanks. Don't know why I didn't remember how this came to be.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I wonder if the indigenous population of America thought the same when the Spanish arrived on there shores. Look at it this way America and the allied invasion force managed to land and occupy Europe, cant see why an Axis force including the U.K with what quite possible amounts superior to technology could not do the opposite. As to the convoys, i think rather a few Russians may disagree but ile star you for the fact that its at least debatable as to the impact said convoys had.
edit on 1-4-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker




Here's a more likely scenario, the U.S. likely would have GIVEN them to the U.K.. Lend-Lease was a pretext to avoid a indirect act of war against Germany.....after all it's 'just a business deal'.



Yes i believe they could well have given them F.O.C. However:-


The words of Joseph Kennedy



It's all a question of what we do with the next six months. The whole reason for aiding England is to give us time ... As long as she is in there, we have time to prepare. It isn't that [Britain is] fighting for democracy. That's the bunk. She's fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us..... I know more about the European situation than anybody else, and it's up to me to see that the country gets it


en.wikipedia.org...


Yes to give The U.S. time to prepare for war.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker
In 41 the divisions from the west would have made a difference. By 43 they would have just delayed the inevitable



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Double Post

edit on 1-4-2016 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Any answer, not spanning at least 10.000 pages of reading, is to noninclusive for anyone that is expecting to give an accurate answer to this qestion. There are SOOoo many variables related to what happened, unimaginable for most human beings I think.

I for one really don't know.
edit on America/Chicago27Fri, 01 Apr 2016 13:27:11 -0500100000001 by eirgud because: Grammar



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx


Hmmm, your teacher of German decent?


At a guess, I'd say it was Chamberlain's apparent appeasement of Germany's acts, combined with the deal with Stalin to split Poland between the two countries.


Again, a guess, Hitler is supported to have had an admiration
for Britain and thing British. I rather doubt he foresaw or desired England to declare war....Just a guess on my part.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong


Hmmm, never was a fan of that clan....LOL. I'm sure there was a pragmatic side to it. It also implies that without those ship there would be less time to prepare??


A telling statement in and of itself....



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

You ask how britain got involved in the war, it was for the same reason as France, we had warned Germany not to attack Poland which was our allie, Germany invaded poland anyway and we both declared war on Germany, after the deceleration of war however there was a period of time in which there was no aggression by either side and this was called the phoney war.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Later at the battle of Britain the German's had not originally intended to attack British city's but after a German bomber dropped it's bomb's by accident (or perhaps the intent of the air crew and not there command) on a British civilian target Hitler ordered Churchhill ordered the RAF to carry out a retaliatory strike on a German city and in response Hitler ordered his air force to attack British city's instead of RAF airfields starting the Blitz, this was the chance the RAF so desperately needed, they were heavily outnumbered by the German air force and had fought for survival hanging by only a slim thread but now they were able to regroup and regain there strength as british civilian's were sacrified for the survival of the nation.

Germany's failure, DUE TO THIS switch to civiliant targets, to eliminate the RAF left there hastily planned invasion of Britain's south coast in a sate of limbo from which it never recovered and operation Sea Lion as the german name for there Planned invasion of the British isles was effectively a non starter, there were claims that a partian invasion did take place and it was a disaster for the German's though this is denied by the historical records of both side's.

There was one man whom spoke about some German POW's in Belfast being shipped to Canada he had overheard whom had mentioned there beach head in Britain and how the British army guard had spoken sharply to these POW's, from a personal source my mother whom lived through the war and is still with us today tells' a story about how she met an old man in a pub in liverpool, he told my mother "you don't know girl, they were here and it was only by an act of god that we were not invaded, the old men had built defences in secret and the German's never got off the beach they were slaughtered", by that my mother always took it to mean that this old man was talking about first world war veteran's, there are story's about german body's washing up down south, badly burned and unrecognizable in most cases except for the remnant's of there uniform but this has now been partially explained as potentially casualties from a german training excercise that went wrong across the channel.

However we did have a secret weapon that was designed to set the sea on fire, pipes running out under the sand into the sea were designed to pump large amounts of flammable oil which would then float up and be ignited with a flare gun or flare gun's and this was only one potential method that these men may have been incinerated.

In my mind it is possible a rogue gung ho SS platoon may have tried to steal the glory for themselves and charged ahead before the german's had finalised there position in france but that is only speculation.

edit on 1-4-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-4-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I think you should be looking at who funded hitters war machine before you start posts asking such stupid questions!




top topics



 
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join