It's not quite correct because Soviets inflicted the major defeat upon the German troops during Moscow battle (late fall-winter of 1941). Moscow defeat was by far more painful to Germans than El Alamein. Soviet paid heavily for it though. BTW, Desert Fox just ran out of supplies, he was not defeated in the pure military sense, Italians were.
Okay then, a revision to my previous post. "because it showed everyone that the Western Allies could win." El Alamein was the perfect ambush. Rommel thought Monty was retreating his 8th army back further then they actually were and then Monty unleashed a great, not perfect, ambush. If I recall Rommel was chasing Monty so he was not out of supplies yet.
It wasn't perfect at all. Rommel was goaded into action in the sure knowledge that the US had entered the war and that a quick victory was required before they had a chance to have an impact. Witness Kasserine. If you want your enemy to make a mistake, push him into doing something he doesn't want to do. It worked. Rommel knew it but there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it. He was forced into using what he had in a desperate gamble which failed to come off. Rommel was an asset the Germans failed to utilise effectively, a good general who might have shaved a year off the entire war had he been fighting on the other side. Montgomery had the advantage of supply and time, the knowledge that all he had to do was hold on, he had reinforcements, and political commitment. He was, in a word, overrrated - a man who used his advantages effectively but otherwise not notably militarily brilliant. I might add that the Western Desert wouldn't have even been possible without Dunkirk, but I've been there and apparently wasted time.
Monty's brilliance lay not so much in the fact that he won an important battle by sitting on his arse and letting the enemy throw their inferior forces against his well-defended positions: it lay more in holding a demoralised army together, re-energising it, avoiding giving battle when he would lose, and getting himself into a position where he could win before accepting battle. In short, he forced Rommel to give battle on his terms, and only on his terms. Given that Rommel was arguably the finest general in the world at the time, this is not what I would call the achievement of an inferior general. But back to the non-events: if only Mussolini had taken out Malta when he could, Rommel woulf NOT have been starved of supplies whereas Monty WOULD. And Rommel would have been in Cairo, no questions asked.
Imho it was Dunkirk -had the germans captured the transports and troops they could easily ride straight across La -Manche and capture britain very easily - British land Army was no competition for germans whatsoever. Without Britain there would be no place for americans to act from . Russia balanced on the verge of defeat quite a few times and with germans ruling whole Europe I dont think we would have a chance. But then again americans were first to have A-bomb and that could the victory into their hands even if germans conquered whole europe. As about D-day.... -I think it actually contributed very little to germany defeat - at this point Russia would win even if they would have to fight allies and germany together. D-day allowed usa though to keep influence in europe.
Except that the Germans didn't think they COULD transport an army across La Manche without first destroying the RAF. While that belief existed, the Battle of Britain was always goign to happen no matter how victorious the Germans had been at Dunkirk.
Wrong. Britain would not have been in a position to fight on had it lost the bulk of its army at Dunkirk, regardless of whether they had the will to do so or not. As I mentioned, RAF fighters shot down German aircraft at a rate of 4:1 during the battle for France prior to the battle of Britain - had this not been achieved, the RAF would not have been in a position to fight the Battle of Britain at all (during which, incidentally, they only managed about 2.5:1). The Germans were not truly "victorious" at Dunkirk. They failed to eliminate Britain from the war, and allowed too many British and French troops to escape across the channel to Britain. The BEF held the Dyle River alongside the channel until it was clear that French forces to the south east had collapsed and they were in danger of being encircled - only then did they retreat. Bear this in mind - the blitzkreig did not have the same effect on the British forces as it had on the French. Do yourselves a favour and have a look at this animation - it's significant when you see how the BEF along the Dyle were not overrun in the same manner as the French, blitzkreig or no blitzkreig. : http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/launch_ani_fall_france_campaign.shtml I reiterate : Perhaps the most important and most often overlooked effect of the blitzkreig and the Battle for France was the loss of far too many experienced German aircrews at the hands of the RAF. Not only this, but in failing to eliminate Britain's capacity to fight on, they changed the battlefield from a relatively equal one over France, to one of a extreme disadvantage for the Germans over Britain. One of the overriding factors of the Battle of Britain was the overall innaccuracy of the German bombing - even on those occasions where the RAF failed to stop them from reaching their objectives, they didn't do as much damage as they should have. They failed to destroy radar towers and fighter bases repeatedly, even in the face of limited opposition. This is often laid at the door of panicked German aircrews, but those same aircrews were no longer experienced survivors of the Spanish Civil war - they were hurriedly trained replacements for losses suffered in France. Consequences, consequences...
Loss of troops at dunkirk most probably would resulted in Churchill governement political collapse . And even if not Germans at that point would easily storm shores of Britain - with naval support ,aerial support and overhelming Germany army advantage britain simply had no way to counter major offencive operations on their shores.
Quite so. That is more or less what I have been saying all along. Even WITH the miracle fo Dunkirk, Britain had no way of countering a major offensive operation on her shores. BUT a major offensive operation on her shores could not be conducted until the necessary forces had GOT TO her shores. If the Germans had reckoned that they had the naval and air superiority necessary to do this in the late summer / autumn of 1940, do you not think they would have done it? They didn't because they didn't. They understood that they needed to control the skies over the channel in order to protect their invasion fleet and THEY NEVER WON THAT CONTROL. Whether they would have done, had the Fuhrer not ordered the offensive to change its main target from the airfields to London is an interesting question. Quite possibly they would. However ... Whether Churchill's government could have survived the Fall of France without the success of the Dunkirk evacuation is an intrigueing question. You may be right in saying that it couldn't - but I am not entirely convinced. If the country would rally round while a defeated army that had lost all its heavy equipment was rebuilt, would it really not have equally rallied round while a wholly new army was built?
The question becomes more one of "Would it have had time to do so?". Time. Time to reorganise, time to train and replace losses, time to make sure your pilots are capable of doing the job they've been asked to do. Now read again what I've said regarding the German air losses during the Blitzkreig. All coming together now? Do you see it?
No - the question does not become that at all. The RAF clearly DID have the time to train enough additional airmen to win the Battle of Britain, because it did so. It would still have had enough time if the army had been left on the shores of Dunkirk and the task had been to build a whole new army rather than to reorganise and re-equip a defeated and disorganised army. Yes, the period during which we would have been vulnerable to an invading army HAD IT REACHED THE SHORES would have been greater. But the crucial question would still have been COULD THAT ARMY REACH OUR SHORES. And the answer would still have been that the German perception in 1940 was that the answer was "We cannot be confident of it until the RAF has been neutralised and we have mastery of the skies". And the answer to the question "Could the Luftwaffe neutralise the RAF and gain mastery of the skies?" would still have been no - as history shows they did not - PROVIDED the other historical events such as the switch to daylight bombing of London are not tampered with.
And the answer to the question "Could the Luftwaffe neutralise the RAF and gain mastery of the skies?" would still have been no - as history shows they did not - PROVIDED the other historical events such as the switch to daylight bombing of London are not tampered with. Well the real switch was the switch from attacking British AB’s, and other military-industrial installations to the cities. Should Hitler have maintained his bombing of RAF bases things would have been much easier (for Hitler at least).
I change my vote. I think Stalingrad was the most important (before I said D-Day). Sure Dunkirk was important, but even if Germany had taken Britain, it would of only changed D-Day really. The Americans and Canadian forces would of went through Russia instead. If he had taken it, there would be very little change on the Eastern Front since most of the strongest and well-trained soldiers were there anyways.
Cob, generally when one is having a discussion, you would read what the other has written. Clearly, in this instance, you have not done so.
I've read it, Mr Wolf. And found it to be incoherent. I think it's you that needs to go back and re-read what has been said, if anybody does.
Why would the US even care about the European theatre? They were only really in it because the brits wanted them there. The US would have concerntrated on the Pacific theatre and let the Soviet Union deal with the european axis.
Surely though, if the RAF had been wiped out, the Royal Navy could have launched a 1 way ticket assualt on the ports that were harbouring the invasion craft???? I cant see the British army being beaten too easily if the Germans had of invaded.
Ah but what you have to consider is that the Germans could have invaded from any direction so the placement of troops is vital. Since it was impossible to determine where they would invade troops would either be spread too thin or bunched in one area then before they can counterassault, the germans would've had a foothold and been impossible to defeat.
Germany had no significant fleet to attact England. U-boat tactics was chosen because of the German naval weakness. Germany would have needed 3-4 years of the constant naval build up to have a chance with Britain. England had radars in 1940, Germans had little chances of the surprise attack. So they've decided to attack Soviets. There were no serious preparations to invade England.
No serious preparations? How come the invasion of the United Kingdom (GB back then) was almost implimented yet was not as the Luftewaffe took too long to gain air superiority over british skies (thanks to the airmen of GB and various other nationalities)? When I say 'almost' I mean if the Luftewaffe was like a few days to a few weeks faster there would've been hostile Germans on GB soil. Or summat.
