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.

 

The Battle Of Britain Aircraft?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I am sure many here will correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression (read it in AI many years ago) that it was very easy to determine if the planes in the BoB film were the real deal or the Spanish 109 plus merlin.

This is due to the fact that the original engine in the 109 was mounted inverted ( fuel injection so no probs) and so the exhaust outlet pipes were at the bottom of the engine cowling. The merlin griffon etc was not so mounted even in the 109 and so the exhaust outelts were at the top of the engine cowling. See easy ....

What do you think Waynos ??




posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Quite right Deharg, the Me109 was indeed powered by an inverted 'V12' engine and the Spitefire's (like the later Mustang's) Merlin was a 'right way up' V12.

You can also spot the difference easily with the whole front nose arrangement as far as the radiators etc go.....once you've seen the 'real thing' there's no way you should mistake the Spainish planes.....but it's not like there were a couple of dozen Me109's to be had for the movie so they really were the best thing they could come up with.

A little suspension of disbelief required - but it was a movie afterall.

I've heard there are a couple of proposals knocking about to remake a couple of war-time classics (the dambusters is one I've seen mentioned); with modern CGI (and I mean modern - ie the kind where it really doesn't look so fake) some of the results might be incredibly impressive.

The start of 'Enemy at the Gates' shows what can be done.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Waynos and Wombat (should I now refer to the two of you as WW2?
),
Thankyou both for a quite riveting discussion. You have almost convinced me to buy a copy of the book. If it wasn't for my short attention span I would read it and... "Oh look a pretty coloured ball on a string, he he he". Where was I?


Seriously I think I might try and track down a copy and read it (in short bursts) as I have always found this aspect of the second world war fascinating.

I would contend however that the what ifs that you have both thrown up may well have had a broadly simillar end to the reality that was. As Wombat has eluded too, Japan always had her eye on foreign possesions. Her invasion and occupation of Manchuria and Korea in the 30's pointed to this. Once it was clear to her millitary govt that the US would threaten her oil supply a conflict with the US was a fait accompli. Given that Hitler would never have resisted his urge to roll into Russia a union of some sort with the US even without Britain, was always likely. Rooseveldt implicitly trusted Stalin for reasons that are not entirely clear, so an alliance between the two was always likely.

Had Britain sued for peace with Germany, operation Sea Lion would in the end have only been delayed. It became patently clear post war in the captured records and testimonies of former third reich officers that the Nazis (or at least some of the more fanatical party hierachy) always intended to occupy the whole of Europe including the neutral territories. It is very likely that British intelligence and the Churchill govt had correctly concluded this. Given that word of the development of the "Amerika bomber" was not exactly a well kept secret, it wasn't hard for the soon to be trans Atlantic allies to see what the down stream plans of the Nazis were and what a divided future would bring.

The only unknown card in the deck early on was Stalin and what would result from the Russian/German non aggression pact. Churchill however had correctly concluded that the whole thing was a Nazi ruse, designed to give Berlin more time until her forces were of sufficient strength to deal with Russia. And we know what the end result was.

LEE.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos


1. Shifting the bombing offensive away from Fighter Command and on to London (Whatever disruption it was causing Fighter Command was removed from them by the switch) [Hitler's decision, I believe],


Through the historical record it can now be seen that the change of targets was irrelevant, whether the airfields were the target or whether it was London, the loss rate was always the same, the disruption caused to the airfields by these attacks was negligible as the robustness of the system meant that none of the airfields was put out of action. The switch to London was a deliberate militery move as the RAF were picking and choosing when to intercept, by attacking London the plan was to draw the RAF into the fight so they could be shot down. The record show that the Luftwaffes most successful days, Sep 11, 14 and 28 all came after the switch to attacking London.


Dang can't believe I missed this thread while I was gone on my honeymoon. You wait for a thread like this to come up and get discussed and you gone laying on the beach all day. Dang it I'm a hopeless nut. Anyways to the thread

One thing that I don't think has been flushed out waynos was the details of this shift of tactics. As much as people say it doesn't matter that they switched and the airfields where able to stand up to the attacks. I think its fair to say you can shoot better when you are able to attack with hight correct?

In my research the RAF was always having trouble when they were attacking the German bomber forces as try as hard they could to climb they still ended up under the bombers and the fighter cover. This is your worse attacking position and as shuch fighter command couldn't inflict the the damage they wanted too.

When the Germans changed the tactic they also had to fly a farther distance only 10min of fighter cover and all german pilots stating at the fuel gauge or risk bailing in the channel. Even today the task is to get the pilots head free of cockpit and calculations the germans and the exact opposite. Also not the RAF with the increased warning had the time to get the fighters (big wing or not) up in the air and counter the attack. You mentioned that the highest german victories where after the change of tactic I would guess at the increase in the faitgue and younger pilots by this time in the RAF since the RAF wasn't wanting to tap in the BCATP for there pilots just yet and as Winstion said 1000 pilots later is better then 10 pilots now.

Just some thoughts wondering what you guys thing about the position of attack and how important it is to the outcome to a dogfight/engagement.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Waynos and Winged Wombat =WW2 - very good thebozeian

Unfortunately (from the perspective of an aviation thread), war is not merely a contest between military forces. It is a contest of economies. I used to have a book titled 'The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe' (my library is in disarray at the moment due to renovations, but I think I loaned it and it was never returned). This book, rather than discussing air tactics, looks at the Luftwaffe (and the Reich in general) from the perspective of economics and natural resources and makes the point (somewhat laboriously) that Germany did not have the resources to fight WWII. In turn it sheds some light on Hitler's tactics and thus the timetable that economics and resources forced upon him.

Viewed that way, Hitler would have been unable to go to war in the first place, had he not been able to get the natural resources need to build up Germany's war industry. In hindsight we can see that he got those resources from Russia by entering into the pact with Stalin. History has viewed this pact as being an attempt to keep Russia out of the conflict until Hitler was ready to attack them, but it was much more than that when you consider the resources that Germany was able to buy from Russia.

When you consider that one of the major causes of Japan going to war (before Hitler attacked anyone), was that other countries (principally the USA) were starving Japan of natural resources (ie:- economic reasons - incidentally a reason for going to war reintroduced into the Japanese constitution in the late 80s or early 90s), I can see that Stalin possibly didn't want to go down the road that would lead Germany to attack Russia for those resources. That Germany still attacked Russia is a proof that Germany vitally needed those resources. (In a parallel situation, Australia's then Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies allowed exports of iron ore to Japan before WWII - earning himself the nickname 'Pig Iron Bob' - but it was not enough to stop Japan's quest for more resources. I guess it is a snowball effect - you need the resources to expand your economy, so you attack someone to get them, then you need more resources to counter retaliation, and if you are successful you start to think you can continue the cycle. When it becomes obvious that you can't, and there is no option but total collapse and defeat, you get labeled as 'mad'.

Looking at the way Hitler planned WWII, he was anything but mad. His military conquests on an 'economic shoe-string' were brilliant, but also an incredible gamble, because unless the tight resources timetable could be maintained (which it wasn't) then the whole 'house of cards' comes tumbling down (which it did). I think people often see a defeated enemy as stupid or incompetent, but to do that is to not learn anything from the fight.

Canada_EH,

Congratulations, by the way. I'm pleased to see that there are still some who put love before war.

The height and speed theories of dogfighting were pretty much established during WWI and have stood the test of time. Over time they have been clouded by mismatches between aircraft types (read capabilities), tactics and state of training, but still hold true.

More recently 'height and speed' have been re-phrased as 'energy state' and the theory, basically, is that, given a similar level of training, the opponent with the highest energy state has more opportunity to apply tactics which will win the encounter.

Where the aircraft have similar capabilities, such as the Me 109 and Spitfire, then height and speed advantage are the key items to gaining a superior energy state.

The theory is equally applicable to fighter v bomber engagements, such that if the fighter is climbing to intercept, then the bomber may have a superior energy state (by virtue of the kinetic energy bestowed by its height) and be able to dive away at a speed greater than the interceptor is climbing - thus 'winning' the encounter. Therefore, energy state is also a term which explains the design and employment of high altitude, high speed bombers such as the Mosquito without the need for defensive armament. Equally you can describe an encounter between an aircraft and a SAM or AAM in terms of energy state just the same way. Hence the continued interest in high altitude, high speed aircraft (hypersonics). It is all a matter of energy state.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 24/7/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Oh Wombat, (waynos and CanadaEH as well) I so want to carry on this discussion as it is one of the best I have seen (or participated in) on ATS in quite a while. I do wonder however if we are benevolently hijacking a thread? Its a pity we are all not in the same city we could get together and discuss this over a few coldies.


LEE.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Hopefully we are still broadly within the subject of the BoB (well maybe).... OK, so we expanded a bit..... er, sorry about that! (it was Waynos' fault - he cast the bait
)

At least the board allows us to have the discussion. Because we are geographically distant, it would not be possible at all, otherwise.

Who knows, perhaps regionally, we might get the opportunity to sink a few tinnies together, some time. It's a small world.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 25/7/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Sorry for missing all your replies, I've just come back from a week in Skeggy, which was nice and relaxing. I also had an unexpected treat today as I was wandering along the Beach I was treated to an A-10, two Tornadoes, four Typhoons (in close formation) a C-47 and then, best of all, four Spitfires, also in close formation. All in quick succession and all at tantalisingly low level. The four Spitfires coming 'home' from over the North Sea (just like the Typhoons did too in fact) was just like a scene from the movie that started this thread.Wicked!

I'll have to catch up on the threads tomorrow as I'm worn out.





[edit on 27-7-2007 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   


Hmmm, that certainly brings up quite a number of 'what ifs'.


The basic premise that Bungay draws is that firstly Hitler never wanted to fight Britain, it is noted at one point how several German commanders wrote that they felt the war was lost on Sept 3rd 1939, the day Britain declared war. Mein Kampf is awash with glowing references to Great Britain - in Hitlers view Germany's closest brothers in the world - and her empire. Hitler never truly believed the Britain would fight, and when France fell was certain that a peaceful solution would be found allowing him to turn his attention east to Russia.

Negotiations/plotting to overthrow Churchill and install a pro German govt under Lord Halifax (with a surprising amount of support within parliament) continued right up until early September, right in the middle of the Battle of Britain. This was not because these people were pro-Nazi traitors, but because they had been taken in by the pre war propaganda and truly believed that Germany was unstoppable and the British Empire would be destroyed and were desperate to try and save it by coming to the table and negotiating, the reluctance to wipe out the British at Dunkirk and the express forbidding of attacks on London by Hitler are symptomatic of this period. The change of tack marks the point where Hitler gave up and new Churchill was going nowhere.

Had it gone the other way the UK would have been left unmolested while Germany and Russia fought each other alone (notwithstanding any Japanese involvement here and any effect THAT might have had on the USA, but without Britain as a combatant, either by negotiation or as a result of invasion, the US could never have contributed to the fight in Europe, D-Day could never have happened at all and an undistracted Germany may have eve3n conquered the Soviet forces before the winter set in, on the other hands a resurgent Soviet advance might have rolled right up to the English Channel, and then what?

Even so, an all Soviet or all-Nazi Europe with the UK sitting off shore as an independant democracy, with a massive and intact empire, is a situation that would have been a great discomfort to everyone and we can only guess at what would have happened after that. The USA however would have concentrated entirely on the Pacific region and a US-Japanese war might have broken out as a completely separate conflict, with the Russians too concerned with Germany to get involved on that side.

I'm not so sure that the US would have joined with Russia against Germany as Lee suggests because Churchill himself worked extremely hard to get the US into the war on Britains side without success even before the BoB took place. The popular American view was that Germany was unstoppable and Britain was doomed (with Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy going so far as to say this was a good thing) and that US involvement was pointless. This was also explored on a TV documentary a couple of years ago where Chrchill recieved intelligence about Japanese fleet movements towards Pearl Harbour from observing Royal Navy ships in Dec 1941 and delayed passing this intelligence on to Washington deliberately and is quoted as saying 'Good! Now they will HAVE to fight!' (taken from documents released under the 60 year rule in 2001).




Had Britain sued for peace with Germany, operation Sea Lion would in the end have only been delayed.


Now this I am in complete agreement with, as I alluded to earlier, even IF Germany had conquered Russia and taken control of the whole Euroasian landmass with Hitler as its pro-British overlord, tensions would inevitably rise, not least due to British nervousness about this huge empire right on its doorstep while our own was flung far and wide over the globe, war would be inevitable, if not immediately, then surely after Hitlers death and his succession by a leader who was not such an anglophile.

Maybe that the war was fought when it was is for the best, otherwise I can easily envisage a Nazi Empire v British Empire conflict around 1950-55 in which America might well have been persuaded to weigh in on the British side. In this situation Britain and Germany would have been the world powers, constantly rearming since the 1930's in a cold war of their own, while America would have remained economically very strong but politically isolated, possibly even resented by Britain for her inactivity in 1940. Importantly however, both the British and Germans would have had atomic bombs and the means to deliver them by this time (Vulcans and Junkers EF132's most likely) and that is truly terrifying.

If you couple this with ongoing US-Japanese tension that possibly never erupted into war in the 1940's you can imagine a war between allied and axis powers that would leave the world a burning cinder. Best then to get it out of the way early with Spitfires and B-17's eh?



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Waynos,

I see your little holiday has refreshed you.

I agree with most of your synopsis, especially that the fight was better fought as the BoB.

If Yamamoto was correct (and I feel that he was), then it was inevitable that the US would enter a war with Japan over Japan's expansions in the Pacific (not least because of their planned attack on the Philippines - a US protectorate). What was not inevitable was that the US would enter the European war on Britain's side.

I agree that if Hitler had not attempted to invade Britain than perhaps the Western front could have (at least) just come to a stalemate - with or without a peace settlement. I feel that this would have happened even with Churchill at the helm.

Given Churchill's often expressed preoccupation with the Soviet Union (he almost derailed Operation Overlord in his ongoing compulsion to 'drive though the soft underbelly of Europe - all the way to Moscow', I can see other possibilities.

Consider that if.....

1. Hitler had left Britain unmolested, and

2. Attacked Russia in 1940.

With the possibility of Germany being defeated and handing Europe to the Soviets, I feel that Churchill would have sided with Hitler against Russia (something that Germany suggested to Britain right up to the end of the war - was that the message that Rudolf Hess flew to Scotland with on the eve of Operation Barbarossa?). America, if not preoccupied with Japan, may well have joined in, rallying to Churchill's rhetoric (which found full public voice after WWII - he coined the term 'Iron Curtain' for those unaware.), or simply that the idea of Europe under the control of the Soviets would be just as unpalatable to the US as it would have been to Britain.

Just a note on Churchill for the benefit of all who might not be aware (You may not be totally aware of some of this waynos). The general public in Australia tend to hold Churchill in much the same esteem that the Brits do, however, those of a military and/or historical bent do not hold the same view. I and many others consider him a drunken incompetent fool, who was thrown out of the British Government (quite rightly) before WWII. Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time of the debacle which was the Gallipoli landings in Turkey (WWI), upon which the Australian and New Zealand ANZAC military traditions are based. While he was not personally responsible for landing the troops on the wrong beaches (that was a British Navy stuff up!), the whole operation was his plan. (that soft underbelly of Europe again).

Early in WWII, as a member of the British Commonwealth, Australia committed our forces to Europe and North Africa in support of Britain, including squadrons operated as part of the RAF (like the Canadians and South Africans, we provided the personnel and the Brits provided the aircraft). When Australia was threatened by the Japanese (Darwin and Broome were bombed in 1942), we needed those units back here to defend ourselves, but Churchill flatly refused, even going so far as withdrawing the RN escort of our troopships carrying our troops from the middle east, and ordering our ships to head for India instead of coming home. In defiance (and in an incredible gamble), the Australian Government ordered the troopships to continue un-escorted across the Indian Ocean, which was then under the control of the Japanese. Fortunately they were not intercepted by the Japanese. After the fall of Singapore (another British stuff up - the heavy artillery could not be turned to face inland as they had only planned for an attack from seaward!), Churchill's attitude was that everything east of India should be abandoned to the Japanese. Thanks cobber, that's a great attitude when you're willing to go to war over Poland and at the same time do everything you can to stop a member of the British Commonwealth (and former British colony) from even defending itself with its own forces.

Up until that time, Australia bought British by preference and under pressure from Government (airlines, for instance were not allowed to buy aircraft from other than Britain), but this marked a turning point for us, and opened the market towards the US and away from Britain (and we have never turned back).

So do we love Churchill? We rue the day the SOB was born!!!!

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 28/7/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Anyone ever heard of the Wellington? Only two are left in the whole world and I am very proud to say that my Great Grandfather flew one of the two existing ones.
Can you confirm if this is a wellington or a lancaster with a spitfire in my photos? Maybe your grandfather flew this one? Thanks for any details.


[edit on 28-7-2007 by wigit]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Firstly wigit, your photos show a Lancaster and a Hurricane


Wombat; wow, feel the anger!

But seriously, I cannot disagree. Churchill had a long, but far from glittering career prior to his becoming PM and was not liked at all. His attitude over the Anzac forces and their deployments is an area I have not studied at all I'm afraid so cannot comment, but my gut response is that it sounds true to form.

Churchill only became PM at all by dint of the fact that Chamberlain felt personally betrayed by Hitler and had himself come to the conclusion that he must be fought at all costs, knowing his time was up he had to choose between the stubborn and obstinate Churchill who had been banging on about the Nazi threat ever since Hitler came to power, and Halifax, who it was widely known would sue for peace at the first opportunity.

Despite his many failings (and I think 'drunken fool' is taking things too far) it was nevertheless this sheer bloody minded determination to fight to the bitter end whatever the cost (apparently shared by nobody else in government) and his rousing use of rhetoric, rivalling that of Hitler himself and being so intelligent and masterful that he deliberately used only words of anglo saxon origin to describe the strife ahead, only using one word of French origin, 'surrender' in the context of it being that which we would never do.

In this sense he was indeed heroic and the saviour of the country, but I would never pretend he was a great tactician or humanitarian.

edit, why does this post not send the thread back to the top? the two posts immediately above this reply currently show posting times well before this one and they aren't sticky's. Its a conspiracy!



[edit on 28-7-2007 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by wigit
Can you confirm if this is a wellington or a lancaster with a spitfire in my photos? Maybe your grandfather flew this one? Thanks for any details.
[edit on 28-7-2007 by wigit]


Neither surviving Wellington is airworthy -

N2980, recovered from the bottom of Loch Ness in 1985, lives in Brooklands museum without its skin.

MF628 lices at the RAF museum intact.

Its a sore pity, aircraft like these deserve to be flying.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

I'm not so sure that the US would have joined with Russia against Germany as Lee suggests because Churchill himself worked extremely hard to get the US into the war on Britains side without success even before the BoB took place

Possibly, possibly not, I'll give you that. But from historical evidence it seems that Rooseveldt fell for Stalin's rough charm during one of the big conferences, seems he had a blind spot(forget which one, Tehran or Yalta). Churchill felt very locked out by this after all the hard work he had put into wooing Rooseveldt and the American public for which he alone can largely take credit. And so it is reasonable to sumize in an alternate history, that if Stalin and FDR had felt the need to discuss what would be seen as a worrying Nazi trend, that the same might have happened anway. But your right, I am hypothesising.

As for Wombat

Yes I think history has shown Yamamoto to be absolutely correct and a visionary. It is indeed sad that like his Nazi parallel Rommel, he was an outstanding leader, fought the honourable fight but did not survive when they both deserved better than many of their lesser peers.

And now to throw a little further light for waynos and others on antipodeian attitudes regarding WS Churchill.

I have a slightly softer view of Churchill. He was a great leader when he needed to be, but a deeply flawed character for whom history (inevitably) glosses over both his true strengths and weaknesses. He quite rightly should be condemned for screwing up the Dardanelles campaign of 1915. He placed a chinless idiot in charge and should have seen it. Having said that it was a bold move that if executed properly, would have opened another front on Germany that could have lessened the true horror that was to come on the western front. Had it worked, the sacrifice of all those British, Australian, NZ, Indian, Turkish etc, forces would possibly have saved hundreds of thousands if not millions in France and Belgium. It was a potentially great plan that he did not manage properly.

Wombat, you mentioned his preoccupation with the Communists. Given that he also fortold the Nazi menace, is it not fair that, his Brandy habit aside (which has been overplayed according to his private secretary), he was reading the situation to come correctly when so many others including Rooseveldt and Menzies were not (at least publicly)?

waynos, as a quick historical lesson, the Australian government found itself in a similar political crisis early on in the war and ended up with a bipartisan Labour led coalition cabinet after a vote of no confidence in the (first) Menzies administration. Ironically like Rooseveldt, PM John Curtin who was a very reluctant leader, ended up dieing before wars end, if memory serves me, within weeks of each other and both succeeded by a deputy who went on to be good leaders in their own right.

I can only totally back Wombats comments regarding the almost treacherous behaviour Churchill personally displayed towards Australia's fate, and his callous, selfcentred and arrogant decision in thinking HE had the right to decide where the 2ndAIF should be. Rooseveldt did nothing to help the situation by essentially backing Churchill when asked for support, untill he received a very threatening, no "BS" telegram from an enraged PM Curtin. In the end Curtin did his duty, Churchill did what he should, not stand in the way of someone elses sovereign right, and Rooseveldt agreed to send troops to help Australia. It was in fact this single act of impulsive bastardry by Churchill that layed the foundation of the modern Australia/US alliance and drove the final nail, in Australia seeing herself as a mere dominion of Britain. Having said that we still sent tens of thousands of our lads to fly in or with the RAF including the BoB, with coastal command and bomber command. That is why an RAAF Lancaster holds pride of place at the AWM in Canberra.

As a point of order on Singapore. The now notorious "we couldn't turn the heavy guns to the enemy" routine is something of a falacy. There are various other versions of the story including that they only had armor piercing shells, but the real reason is sheer panic and paralysis that lead to the guns not being fired at all and instead in the breakdown of millitary discipline and control, they were blown up. From what I have heard there was no reason why the guns couldn't be traversed around and infact this had been suggested by both British and Australian troops on the island. Seems the story was concocted to cover someone's ass! As a further point, Darwin was not bombed just the once, but 64 times. This information remained a state secret for many years, and only in the last ten or so has the full story come out, so you can seen why Curtin was a little displeased with Churchill.

Like many leaders Churchill was far from perfect, he had many personal flaws and could be an arrogant, dissmisive SOB, but I feel he arrived at the right time for Britain, and in a way he is indirectly more responsible for the modern foundation of Australia than any other person. His blunder at Gallipoli forged the modern myth of the ANZAC and the Australian/New Zeland soldier. His legally claimless refusal to send Australian troops home when ordered by their supreme commander led to the modern Australia/US alliance and ANZUS. And his actions in both world wars forced our politicians to take charge of their country.

LEE.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
With regard to Churchill's 'drinking'. This is historically quite controversial, however most chroniclers who side with Churchill appear to suggest that while he drank daily and often during the day (quite openly and verifiably), that he 'watered' his drinks.

I find this quite strange.

Why would a person in a responsible public office and indeed throughout his life want to give the impression that he was a drunkard? Yes, I can understand such a practice in a forces mess being conducted by a young officer wanting to impress (even 30 years ago, if you weren't 'seen' in the bar by your CO - basically you weren't seen - and that didn't make for a good annual assessment!), but the argument makes no sense whatsoever for a politician.

Therefore, I feel justified in dismissing the arguments of Churchill's apologists in the matter.

I acknowledge that it was Churchill who's rhetoric put some backbone into an otherwise spineless parliament, and bolstered the spirits of the British people, however it is also true that many within the British military and industry of the time dreaded his interference with some of the outrageous and ridiculous plans that he'd formulated.

It is well to remember that others such as Dowding and Beaverbrook contributed in great measure to the result of the BoB, perhaps more so than Churchill's rhetoric. Churchill was not in government when the foundations for the victory were being laid down.

Finally, had Britain not gone to war with Germany, or had Hitler not attempted to invade Britain, then perhaps (if Britain had sided with Hitler against Russia) Britain might well still have an empire and be the predominant naval power in the world today and the 'Cold War' might never have happened. Should Britain praise Churchill for this or condemn him?

When one remembers the effects of the Depression in the US in the 30s, America might not be the power it is today without the vast 'profits' it made during WWII as the industrial powerhouse of the free world. When one considers that the US then (and still now) does not see employment of the masses as a government concern (but rather as a matter for private enterprise) in contract to just about every other government in the world, it is ironic that it was government spending on military contracts (both for America and on behalf of Britain and other allies - Lend-Lease) that turned America's economy around and laid the financial foundations for America's Superpower status (or if you prefer, the establishment of the American Empire). Equally ironic is the fact that Germany escaped many of the more extreme social effects of the Depression by Government spending on major infrastructure projects to create employment, eg the Autobahns. How rich or poor a country is, is not a matter of how much money the country has in its banks (or how much you can borrow) - it's a matter of how often it changes hands! Something that might well be a lesson to be learned by those who seek to accumulate money above all else.

Sorry, this is getting far from the BoB.

thebozeian,

It's difficult to know just how much paranoia of the Soviets (either from Churchill or successive American administrations) contributed to the reality of the 'Cold War'. Certainly the current 'terror' situation the world finds itself in is one fueled by political paranoia on all sides. Often the public forecasts of political leaders (especially if repeated ad infinitum) tend to become somewhat self fulfilling.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 29/7/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Finally, had Britain not gone to war with Germany, or had Hitler not attempted to invade Britain, then perhaps (if Britain had sided with Hitler against Russia) Britain might well still have an empire and be the predominant naval power in the world today and the 'Cold War' might never have happened. Should Britain praise Churchill for this or condemn him?


It's an irrelevant and rather thoughtless question. Nazism was defeated, and I think we are all thankful for that.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Great leaders are few and far between, and despite the various stains on Winston Churchills record the man stood up to the plate and made the really tough decisions. Its easy to knock him for them, but I know for one I would not have had to face the realities of life that he did when he came to power.

Imagine WW2 with Blair/Brown in charge?

Mind you, thats a whole different thread. Maybe I should go start it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join