Hi Lankir,
That just tends to show (1) the disproportionate long term consequences of a minor piece of stupid hooliganism and (2) the danger of drawing national stereotypes from a single incident!
Perhaps if your grandfather had been captured by the British he might have had a higher opinion of them. In fact, German prisoners in British Commonwealth hands had a lower mortality rate than in any other hands, including American, and this despite the fact that the British had more German prisoners than anyone else and less resources with which to look after them than the Americans, at least. In reality I doubt that there was much difference in British and American treatment of Germans generally, the Americans were just richer.
It is, moreover, a very common thing for youths to force people off pavements. It is a distateful but universal from of immature macho posturing that we have all probably undergone at some time.
That said, it was the norm in British India. My father was in the Indian Army from 1944-1948. He had black hair and tanned easily. As a result he looked very Indian when in uniform. He told me that on more than one occasion he was glared at by British women for not getting off the pavement as they passed.
Your point that the fact of defeat alone is enough to create resentment in the losing party, no matter how benignly they may be ruled by the victor afterwards, is well made and perfectly understandable. However, many of the charges made against the British Empire by the likes of "Manstein" are fuelled by such hurt pride and the inherited resentment of past defeat, not by the facts. One cannot at this stage do much about the former, but one can still address the facts.
Cheers,
Sid.
Would Hitler have conquered the world if England fell?
Moderator: sniper1shot
Thanks Sid,
I appreciate your input and insight. Don't misunderstand me, I personally have no problem with the English. I grew up around old Germans, and they can be very difficult. I know my Dad was. I'm a German Canadian. During my professional experience, I have gladly sworn allegiance to the crown as a law enforcement officer and as an army reservist. My country has been good to me and it was good to my father. Dad never complained about life in Canada. I used to have a portrait of the Queen near my desk at work until some other recent immigrants vandalized it. What bastards!
The concept of not allowing people to walk on sidewalks does seem to be a British thing. RCMP cadets in Regina are forbidded to walk on the sidewalks until they graduate. They are told that sidewalks are for human beings and not them.
I appreciate your input and insight. Don't misunderstand me, I personally have no problem with the English. I grew up around old Germans, and they can be very difficult. I know my Dad was. I'm a German Canadian. During my professional experience, I have gladly sworn allegiance to the crown as a law enforcement officer and as an army reservist. My country has been good to me and it was good to my father. Dad never complained about life in Canada. I used to have a portrait of the Queen near my desk at work until some other recent immigrants vandalized it. What bastards!
The concept of not allowing people to walk on sidewalks does seem to be a British thing. RCMP cadets in Regina are forbidded to walk on the sidewalks until they graduate. They are told that sidewalks are for human beings and not them.
-
Doktor Krollspell
- Patron
- Posts: 2474
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:57 am
- Location: Sweden
Hello Manstein all others on this thread!
This thread leans heavily towards complications or not with the british colonies. I think that the European angle is more relevant. IF Germany would have won the Battle for Brittain and successfully launched "Operation Seelöwe" in the late summer or autumn of 1940, thus occupying Great Brittain, the following could have happened:
1. An intact, exiled Royal Navy or not, the british would have had a difficult time supplying english troops and equipment to North Africa, thus giving the Italian a better chance (with German help) of succeding in the Mediterranean.
This would give Adolf Hitler and Germany a much more secure and stable south and south-east Europe and MAYBE the could have launched "Barbarossa" earlier in the spring of 1941, winning precious weeks of good and dry weather for their attempt on Leningrad and Moscow.
2. German control of the British Isles means a much more effective attempt to try and control the Atlantic (aircraft, u-boats and maybe even the Surface units of the Kriegsmarine). One effect of this could be that the massive allied convoys of lend-lease war materials was potentially dampered or even stopped, thus giving the Russians less equipment.
3. The massive English and American bomber offensive against German industry and civilian areas from 1943 and onwards would not have happened.
4. The U.S.A. would have assaulted Nazi occupied Europe from... where? Launching "Overlord" from southern England to the Normandy coast is one thing. Travelling over the entire (and maybe less secure) Atlantic ocean to assault the British Isles or continental Europe is a completly different logistical endeaveor.
Beating the English could maybe have given the Germans a chance to win on the Eastern front, or at least reach a controlable situation, thus making Hitler the Master of Europe.
America is a completely different matter...
Regards,
Krollspell
This thread leans heavily towards complications or not with the british colonies. I think that the European angle is more relevant. IF Germany would have won the Battle for Brittain and successfully launched "Operation Seelöwe" in the late summer or autumn of 1940, thus occupying Great Brittain, the following could have happened:
1. An intact, exiled Royal Navy or not, the british would have had a difficult time supplying english troops and equipment to North Africa, thus giving the Italian a better chance (with German help) of succeding in the Mediterranean.
This would give Adolf Hitler and Germany a much more secure and stable south and south-east Europe and MAYBE the could have launched "Barbarossa" earlier in the spring of 1941, winning precious weeks of good and dry weather for their attempt on Leningrad and Moscow.
2. German control of the British Isles means a much more effective attempt to try and control the Atlantic (aircraft, u-boats and maybe even the Surface units of the Kriegsmarine). One effect of this could be that the massive allied convoys of lend-lease war materials was potentially dampered or even stopped, thus giving the Russians less equipment.
3. The massive English and American bomber offensive against German industry and civilian areas from 1943 and onwards would not have happened.
4. The U.S.A. would have assaulted Nazi occupied Europe from... where? Launching "Overlord" from southern England to the Normandy coast is one thing. Travelling over the entire (and maybe less secure) Atlantic ocean to assault the British Isles or continental Europe is a completly different logistical endeaveor.
Beating the English could maybe have given the Germans a chance to win on the Eastern front, or at least reach a controlable situation, thus making Hitler the Master of Europe.
America is a completely different matter...
Regards,
Krollspell
"Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist"
Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886)
Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886)
-
Schachbrett
- Member
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Zagreb,Croatia
dear sid
what about the wonderful mess that the british empire left in the near east? israel-arab conflict?
One who dies like a man, lives forever
I don't think that Britain's defeat would have guaranteed Hitler's success in Russia. It would have helped, but I think that ultimately Hitler's own meglomaniacal generalship would still have resulted in defeat by the Soviet Union. Certainly this would have happened a lot later than Spring 1945 and with much heavier losses for the Soviets.
However, if you include a scenario where Britain falls early (1940) & Hitler is so impressed with his Generals generalship that he leaves well alone for the rest of the war. Who knows? Just maybe?
As for the U.S. (Assuming an Axis alliance). The U.S will declare war after Pearl Harbour, but there will be no "Europe First" policy. They will have their hands full with the Japanese for at least 3 years. And it would still probably take 2 atomic bombs to achieve a victory. After that, I can't see the American government or people being too keen on embarking on another war, this time against Japans Allies Italy & Germany. Regardless of whether Germany has successfully conquered the Soviet Union.
Good, thought provoking question though.
Thanks for posting it.
However, if you include a scenario where Britain falls early (1940) & Hitler is so impressed with his Generals generalship that he leaves well alone for the rest of the war. Who knows? Just maybe?
As for the U.S. (Assuming an Axis alliance). The U.S will declare war after Pearl Harbour, but there will be no "Europe First" policy. They will have their hands full with the Japanese for at least 3 years. And it would still probably take 2 atomic bombs to achieve a victory. After that, I can't see the American government or people being too keen on embarking on another war, this time against Japans Allies Italy & Germany. Regardless of whether Germany has successfully conquered the Soviet Union.
Good, thought provoking question though.
Thanks for posting it.
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
back to the plot........
hi guys
I need to clean up a few things in the posts above. the Boer "concentration camps" were exactly that - not camps in the WW2 sense. They - like similar in the late '40s in Malaya and later in Kenya - were simply where sympathetic civilian populations were closeted to prevent them giving succour to insurgents. The Boer Commandos could not live off the land as such, they were highly mobile but had to resupply from home villages and farms. So no population to feed them - no fight. The fatalities were due indeed to unsanitary conditions, poor food - but still the same rations as the British soldiers were living on! - all exacerbated by the near-desert conditions.
As for the success of Sealion - not a hope. it would have been an infantry invasion primarily, with heavy equipment and tanks being disembarked ONLY at secured,captured port facilities. The idea of even shallow-draft river barges - 30% ONLY of which had engines! - making it up the long,low beaches of Kent and Dorset is a non-starter. I have NOWHERE seen any pictures of German preparations for waterproofing tanks etc like Allied vehicles were prep'd in 1944 for D-Day. The only hope the Germans had was that their relative scarcity of tanks on English turf would have been balanced by the fact that the BEF had left ALL of theirs in France! But Armstrong-Vickers, Nuffield etc were churning cruiser tanks out by the hour... I've seen the British Army plans for the GHQ stop line running from Bristol to south of London. It wouldnt have been impenetratable, not at all, but it would have taken weeks of stockpiling resources on the coast, just as the Allies had to do to secure the final breakout from the Normandy beachhead.
Huge convoys of equipment flowing from the USA to Russia?? Er, don't think so! What the Russians got was huge convoys coming from BRITAIN, filled with outmoded and Lend-Lease equipment that was on hand and to spare - Bell Airacobra fighters, old-model Hurricanes, Matilda tanks etc. All stuff that would have been so much more useful in North Africa. And it served ONLY to plug a gap until the Russians got their own new designs coming ex-factory in quantity. After that it tapered off sharply. And at the end of the war a significant amount was dumped off the piers in Murmansk and Archangel where it had never been uncrated.
Rommel winning in the desert because the British couldnt resupply? No. Read your history books - the reason that offensives in the desert ran out of steam - on BOTH sides - was the incredible logisitcal problems of bringing EVERYTHING up to the front line, as so as that front line moved further and further away from home base the supply of essentials - food, water, petrol, ammunition - petered out. Its why the British and Commonwealth forces never finished off the Italians in Tripolitania, and why Rommel never made it to Suez. Does noone realise that at the closest point to Alexandria of his advance, exactly how few and badly-supplied the Allied defenders that stopped him there really were? A LOT fewer than the writer above assumes.
The Americans not being able to lauch an amphibious operation directly from The continental US? Well, what about Operation Torch? the invasion of North Africa - launched straight from the USA! And nearly faultless. Ok, it would have taken MANY years' more preparation, but they WOULD have come, and in big enough numbers, honed by the experiences of amphibious operations in the Pacific AND armed with the A-Bomb, B36 Dominators for intercontinental bombing etc.
The japanese taking over Dutch possessions without a fight in the Far East after their home governments collapsed? No. The Dutch government was in London and still controlling its overseas possesions in 1941. The Dutch Airforce with its 3-4years' out of date Fokkers and Curtiss Hawks gave an incredible account of themselves in the Dutch East Indies before being just outnumbered.
The German High Seas fleet and the Royal Navy holding the Atlantic agsint the US Navy? Again - no. the US Navy on the eve of the war in 1939 was merely three times bigger than the Royal Navy, was of very modern construction apart from the older battleship/battlecruiser elements. Imagine an invasion fleet escorted by the rump of the Pacific Fleet, fresh from defeating Japan......For it was the US who defeated the Japanese in the Pacific; Australians in New Guinea and the Indians and British in Malay and Burma held the line in a loooooong-drawn out but essentially defensive campaign.
I'll not even mention Ireland - becuase I live there, back in the 17th century lol But i'll give you a parable. Nationalists talking about British atrocities love going back to Cromwell butchering thousands of civilians during the siege of Drogeda...when in fact 300 POWS were killed - and in those days it was de rigeur for both sides to kill POWS! Baaaaaad propaganda. And as for the Famine - wasnt mismanagement or ANYTHING - it was three years bad harvests combined with adverse weather conditions bringing on an outbreak of Potato Blight that destroyed what spuds WERE grown. The British first gave a lot of people a living wage to buy food by organising vast public works - a huge number of harbours were improved and roads built - THEN indeed brought food aid into the country.
Right its late, thats enough of a rant for now!
Phylo
I need to clean up a few things in the posts above. the Boer "concentration camps" were exactly that - not camps in the WW2 sense. They - like similar in the late '40s in Malaya and later in Kenya - were simply where sympathetic civilian populations were closeted to prevent them giving succour to insurgents. The Boer Commandos could not live off the land as such, they were highly mobile but had to resupply from home villages and farms. So no population to feed them - no fight. The fatalities were due indeed to unsanitary conditions, poor food - but still the same rations as the British soldiers were living on! - all exacerbated by the near-desert conditions.
As for the success of Sealion - not a hope. it would have been an infantry invasion primarily, with heavy equipment and tanks being disembarked ONLY at secured,captured port facilities. The idea of even shallow-draft river barges - 30% ONLY of which had engines! - making it up the long,low beaches of Kent and Dorset is a non-starter. I have NOWHERE seen any pictures of German preparations for waterproofing tanks etc like Allied vehicles were prep'd in 1944 for D-Day. The only hope the Germans had was that their relative scarcity of tanks on English turf would have been balanced by the fact that the BEF had left ALL of theirs in France! But Armstrong-Vickers, Nuffield etc were churning cruiser tanks out by the hour... I've seen the British Army plans for the GHQ stop line running from Bristol to south of London. It wouldnt have been impenetratable, not at all, but it would have taken weeks of stockpiling resources on the coast, just as the Allies had to do to secure the final breakout from the Normandy beachhead.
Huge convoys of equipment flowing from the USA to Russia?? Er, don't think so! What the Russians got was huge convoys coming from BRITAIN, filled with outmoded and Lend-Lease equipment that was on hand and to spare - Bell Airacobra fighters, old-model Hurricanes, Matilda tanks etc. All stuff that would have been so much more useful in North Africa. And it served ONLY to plug a gap until the Russians got their own new designs coming ex-factory in quantity. After that it tapered off sharply. And at the end of the war a significant amount was dumped off the piers in Murmansk and Archangel where it had never been uncrated.
Rommel winning in the desert because the British couldnt resupply? No. Read your history books - the reason that offensives in the desert ran out of steam - on BOTH sides - was the incredible logisitcal problems of bringing EVERYTHING up to the front line, as so as that front line moved further and further away from home base the supply of essentials - food, water, petrol, ammunition - petered out. Its why the British and Commonwealth forces never finished off the Italians in Tripolitania, and why Rommel never made it to Suez. Does noone realise that at the closest point to Alexandria of his advance, exactly how few and badly-supplied the Allied defenders that stopped him there really were? A LOT fewer than the writer above assumes.
The Americans not being able to lauch an amphibious operation directly from The continental US? Well, what about Operation Torch? the invasion of North Africa - launched straight from the USA! And nearly faultless. Ok, it would have taken MANY years' more preparation, but they WOULD have come, and in big enough numbers, honed by the experiences of amphibious operations in the Pacific AND armed with the A-Bomb, B36 Dominators for intercontinental bombing etc.
The japanese taking over Dutch possessions without a fight in the Far East after their home governments collapsed? No. The Dutch government was in London and still controlling its overseas possesions in 1941. The Dutch Airforce with its 3-4years' out of date Fokkers and Curtiss Hawks gave an incredible account of themselves in the Dutch East Indies before being just outnumbered.
The German High Seas fleet and the Royal Navy holding the Atlantic agsint the US Navy? Again - no. the US Navy on the eve of the war in 1939 was merely three times bigger than the Royal Navy, was of very modern construction apart from the older battleship/battlecruiser elements. Imagine an invasion fleet escorted by the rump of the Pacific Fleet, fresh from defeating Japan......For it was the US who defeated the Japanese in the Pacific; Australians in New Guinea and the Indians and British in Malay and Burma held the line in a loooooong-drawn out but essentially defensive campaign.
I'll not even mention Ireland - becuase I live there, back in the 17th century lol But i'll give you a parable. Nationalists talking about British atrocities love going back to Cromwell butchering thousands of civilians during the siege of Drogeda...when in fact 300 POWS were killed - and in those days it was de rigeur for both sides to kill POWS! Baaaaaad propaganda. And as for the Famine - wasnt mismanagement or ANYTHING - it was three years bad harvests combined with adverse weather conditions bringing on an outbreak of Potato Blight that destroyed what spuds WERE grown. The British first gave a lot of people a living wage to buy food by organising vast public works - a huge number of harbours were improved and roads built - THEN indeed brought food aid into the country.
Right its late, thats enough of a rant for now!
Phylo
-
Lt. Schindler
- New Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 2:37 pm
- Location: Canada
I'm really not sure if he would have or not, North and South America would still be left, and the British would still carry on the war from Canada. But Hitler would almost have all of Europe if not all of Europe.
I believe regardless if he did obtain Great Britain he would I suppose run of of soldiers. I don't think everyone would simply "bow down to him" and its good they didn't. And that was a deciding factor near the end of the war, the Germans had become so good a losing and retreating and losing men that it was impossible to carry on.
Thank god for Winston Churchill.
I believe regardless if he did obtain Great Britain he would I suppose run of of soldiers. I don't think everyone would simply "bow down to him" and its good they didn't. And that was a deciding factor near the end of the war, the Germans had become so good a losing and retreating and losing men that it was impossible to carry on.
Thank god for Winston Churchill.