WW2 in Europe question

[Vae]

He practically 'liberated' Austria, which I wont go into detail, so they were allied now, - which was also banned through the Treaty of Versailles, He then took a part of Czechslovakia which was called Lebenstrand or something - which means Living space, which yeah - fair enough, belonged to Germany pre-WW1, the Allies allowed it.

I agree with Throd that a lot of people will likely be familiar with the actions. but just to add to your details:

The alliance with Austria was the 'Anschluss'. Thi swas achieved by formenting internal discord and using that as a pretext for moving in and then holding a plebiscite which, unsuprisingly came out overwhelmingly in favour of the Anschluss.

Your reference to Living space was referred to at the time as 'Lebensraum' and the area of Czechoslovakia which Hitler took first was the Sudetenland which, although ethnically German, had been given to Czechoslovakia after WW1 because the Sudeten mountains formed a natural defensive barrier. Once he was able to get that area then the rest of the country was easy to take by force. Again the tactic of formenting internal discord with the native population was used and it was agreed by the Munich Pact (by Chamberlain, Hitler and the French representative - but no Czechslovakian rep!) that Germany could have the Sudetenland as long as he stopped there!

 

[Calaen]

No offence mate, it's just that I suspect anyone reading this thread would have been perfectly aware of everything in your answer

Not being nasty by the way, just showing me age I think

I didn't have a clue about any of that I learned more from Playing Company of Heroes than I did from school!

 

[Gwadien]

Well, as I said, - I wasn't answering you lot, I was answering that american bloke, and we all know what the American Education system on history is - WE WON WE WON WE WON WE WON WE WON

 

[Ormorof]

what throd said, however nice to see people are still being taught right

not neccesarily, we spent 3 weeks in school covering WWI through to end of WWII because it was "politically sensitive", i think the world has a lot of thanks to give to the hundreds of documentaries that are constantly shown on TV

 

[DaGaffer]

not neccesarily, we spent 3 weeks in school covering WWI through to end of WWII because it was "politically sensitive", i think the world has a lot of thanks to give to the hundreds of documentaries that are constantly shown on TV

When I was doing history 'O' Level (yes I am that old) we did WWI extensively, and then the whole inter-war period (Weimar Germany, rise of the Nazis, Russian revolution, Wall St. crash etc. etc.) but didn't do WWII at all. Gets to the first paper in my exam and it turns out our teacher had been teaching us entirely the wrong syllabus for over a year and a good 50% of the paper was about WWII. I still managed to get a C (because I knew a bit about WWII through my own interest), but pretty much everyone else in my class failed. Teacher didn't even get the sack...

 

[throdgrain]

I did history 'O' Level too 1848 to 1913 Europe history. Jolly interesting it was.

 

[Mabs]

i did A level history, UK political history in the 17th century (yay) and US history (almost all of it)

US history is good for studying, dont go more than a few years without a war or something else happening

 

[Shagrat]

my O level history was mainly concerned with the Long Walk and Chiang Kai Sek and Sun Yat Sen bizarrely enough

really enjoyed the A level. European History from 1300-1800 hundred. Wars, crusades, religious persecution, poverty, disease, disasters etc. Set me up for living in the 20th/21st century nicely really

 

[Ormorof]

im actually a bit gutted i didnt stick it out, the A-level history course looked pretty awesome (and i have always been fascinated with history, but learning about sheep production and Henry VIII was not so much fun)

 

[Turamber]

I started doing an OU course on classical history a few years back. It managed to turn a subject I love into 10,000 word essays on the most boring crappy subjects ever to have seen the light of day. How some tutor could have decided that the part of the Battle of Salamis we would concentrate on was the design of the necks of the Greek ships beat me completely.

 

[Bahumat]

Are you asking me? No. Roosevelt realized the Nazi threat and our historical ties to GB, and in fact he and Churchill exchanged over 500 letters during this period of time, and nowhere is the possibility even mentioned we'd have ever allied with Germany. In fact Roosevelt did as much as he could to support the British war effort, including bending our laws to provide said aid prior to our entrance in WW2.

I don't believe the resolve of our leaders, Roosevelt and Churchill, can be questioned. They knew the enormity of the task ahead, and after we entered the war our citizens realized to direness of our task, and sacrificed at home to provide for the war effort.

It was not aimed solely at you, but I made a mistake regardless. I was refering to Hindenburg who originally turned down Hitler's chancellor request. Sorry for the confusion

 

[Vasconcelos]

US history is good for studying, dont go more than a few years without a war or something else happening

And its only 2hundred and something years!

 

[Airhead]

One reason I'm asking is because a Brit I know said America didn't show up until the shouting, and I was curious if this is the general opinion? I was always under the impression our efforts were cooperative, and without each other we both may have lost. Our invasion of Italy is testament to that cooperation, IMO.

Also who mentioned Burma? After Japan took Singapore we were vulnerable in the Pacific, and Japan was taking the Philippines and Midway, and the fear was we'd lose Hawaii. Strategically speaking Burma meant little to the USA.

 

[throdgrain]

Invasion of Italy? The one where Mark Clark abandoned his British allies mid-battle so that he could get to Rome and steal all the glory? So that the Germans could escape back to the next line? This is the same general who ordered guards to shoot at British troops who tried to enter Rome until he'd stolen all the glory? Nice

Standard old-time joke in our country mate when Americans are late is "yeah just like in WWI and WWII"

 

[Gwadien]

Also who mentioned Burma? After Japan took Singapore we were vulnerable in the Pacific, and Japan was taking the Philippines and Midway, and the fear was we'd lose Hawaii. Strategically speaking Burma meant little to the USA.

You see, this is where I don't understand it too, i'd like someone to clear this up, because fair dues, the Americans could of came a little bit earlier, but we didn't do loads to help in the Pacific as Airhead rightly said, and a majority of the soldiers weren't even British, they were actually Burmanese(I guess that's what you call someone from Burma)

We we're badly damaged after the European war, but surely we could of mustered a little bit of a force, and put them on the American ships?

 

[Tuthmes]

One reason I'm asking is because a Brit I know said America didn't show up until the shouting, and I was curious if this is the general opinion? I was always under the impression our efforts were cooperative, and without each other we both may have lost. Our invasion of Italy is testament to that cooperation, IMO.

Also who mentioned Burma? After Japan took Singapore we were vulnerable in the Pacific, and Japan was taking the Philippines and Midway, and the fear was we'd lose Hawaii. Strategically speaking Burma meant little to the USA.

The Americans never wanted to invade Northern Afrika and Italy. They wanted to advance with Overlord as quickly as possible (1943) and saw the invasions of Afrika and southern Europe as a waiste of resourses. The Americans where fighting a war in Asia aswell (as did a lot of Europian countries btw) Also Stalin whas complaining he whas fighting the Germans alone and wanted a second front asap.

The English hade learned it whas nearly impossible to invade Western Europe head on (Dieppe Raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). They wanted to weaken the German forces first and hit "the soft underbelly" first (Southern Europe, invasion of Italy and Dragoon).

All in all there whas a lot of struggle between the staffs of the USA and UK. One of Eisenhower's (amongst others) greatest accomplishments whas to keep everything together and listen to everyone involved.

There are a lot of "what if's" you can ask about WWII.

There's an attitude of we saved Europe in WWII in the USA. Maybe, possibly, perhaps, but the USA didnt do it on it's own. Canadian, Polish, French, Indian, Australian, African, and so on did fight there too. Also the Russian losses where amongst the greatest in WWII. Not all the credit goes to the USA anyway (I'm curious to know of how much the American people know about the other forces involved).

Tbh the Americans did meet the hardest resistance at Normandy (There's another "what if": What if the forces at Omaha (and Utah) weren't the Americans).

They only real conclusion you can have is that there where a lot of brave young men and women out there. Fighting for something I personally think the people of today would have a hard time getting their heads around. Storming the coast of Normandy (like they did), still makes an impression on me every time I think about it.

These people our the true heroes of our time. We honour them atleast once a year and rightly so.



P.s. Spelling and using USA aswell as Americans. I know.

 

[DaGaffer]

One reason I'm asking is because a Brit I know said America didn't show up until the shouting, and I was curious if this is the general opinion? I was always under the impression our efforts were cooperative, and without each other we both may have lost. Our invasion of Italy is testament to that cooperation, IMO.

Also who mentioned Burma? After Japan took Singapore we were vulnerable in the Pacific, and Japan was taking the Philippines and Midway, and the fear was we'd lose Hawaii. Strategically speaking Burma meant little to the USA.

The British will always take the view that America turned up late to both world wars. In the case of WWII, this view is essential to the British national psyche, the fact that we "stood alone" against the Nazis is one of the defining characteristics of the British war. Of course in reality there was co-operation with the US before Dec 41 and the British have the convienient habit of forgetting all the Commonwealth and Empire troops who supported us in Africa and elsewhere.

Invasion of Italy? The one where Mark Clark abandoned his British allies mid-battle so that he could get to Rome and steal all the glory? So that the Germans could escape back to the next line? This is the same general who ordered guards to shoot at British troops who tried to enter Rome until he'd stolen all the glory? Nice

Standard old-time joke in our country mate when Americans are late is "yeah just like in WWI and WWII"

Mark Clark did more to put back allied co-operation than pretty much any other General. He should have been relieved after the Rome debacle (and Italy was one of the few theatres where the British generals were demonstrably better, Leese and Alexander were much better than Clark at melding together troops from 17 countries).

You see, this is where I don't understand it too, i'd like someone to clear this up, because fair dues, the Americans could of came a little bit earlier, but we didn't do loads to help in the Pacific as Airhead rightly said, and a majority of the soldiers weren't even British, they were actually Burmanese(I guess that's what you call someone from Burma)

We we're badly damaged after the European war, but surely we could of mustered a little bit of a force, and put them on the American ships?

Most of the Empire troops fighting in Burma were Indian. As for the Pacific, the Americans didn't want us there. They tolerated a small Australian naval force, but the Australians were more and more marginalised in the Pacific after 1943. Its one of the enduring grievances of the Australian military that after their sacrifices in New Guinea (at least as brave and as important as Guadalcanal), the Americans pushed them aside. When the British offered to send the RN and troops into the Pacific in 1945 as part of operation Olympic (the planned invasion of Japan), the Americans tried to block them out of the invasion plan altogether. Post-WWII the Pacific was going to be an American lake with no limeys allowed. Admiral King in particular was very anti-British, and the RN only went into the Pacific when he was overruled by Roosevelt under a lot of pressure from Churchill to show the British were "doing something" to defeat Japan directly.

The Americans walked a tightrope with Burma; when it helped their interests in China, the Burma theatre got American attention (at least in terms of supplies), but when Burma was only relevant to British interests (stopping the invasion of India for example), the British were on their own, as Roosevelt wouldn't do anything he saw as propping up the British Empire. Fortunately, even though we had few resources, we also had Bill Slim, one of the best generals of WWII, who'll never get the credit the generals in more glamourous theatres got.

 

[Embattle]

British Pacific Fleet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Interesting comparison about carrier differences was why this caught my eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Wingate - Another factor in Burma.

 

[SheepCow]

From a "I've been taught/studied very little of WWI or WWII standpoint", my indoctrinated views are that Europe got battered, stayed up for as long as we could, pulled in as many allies as we could (old Empire etc), but were ultimately going to lose, then the Americans got dragged in - the extra numbers, arms etc allowed the allies to win.

None of this Britain stood alone crap, shit loads of countries were involved, hence the "World" in World War.

 

[DaGaffer]

From a "I've been taught/studied very little of WWI or WWII standpoint", my indoctrinated views are that Europe got battered, stayed up for as long as we could, pulled in as many allies as we could (old Empire etc), but were ultimately going to lose, then the Americans got dragged in - the extra numbers, arms etc allowed the allies to win.

None of this Britain stood alone crap, shit loads of countries were involved, hence the "World" in World War.

After June 1941 (start of Barbarossa), it was very unlikely Britain would have "lost" WWII (there's an argument to say we lost anyway), but Britain never had the resources to go on the offensive without the US. Without the US the best we could have hoped for was a stalemate with the Nazis or possibly worse, Russians on the French coast.

As for "Britain stood alone", well, the British Empire did indeed stand alone, for 12 months; from June 1940 (fall of France) to June 1941 (invasion of Russia).

 

[Mabs]

Most of the Empire troops fighting in Burma were Indian. As for the Pacific, the Americans didn't want us there.

The Americans walked a tightrope with Burma; when it helped their interests in China, the Burma theatre got American attention (at least in terms of supplies), but when Burma was only relevant to British interests (stopping the invasion of India for example), the British were on their own, as Roosevelt wouldn't do anything he saw as propping up the British Empire

Indians, british, ghurkas and south africans if i recall, but it certainly wasnt a "white" army.
the only interest the americans had was to prevent :
Burma falls -> Japanese use Ghandi etc (all the anti UK factions) to rise up and throw us out of India while japanese attacked => china isolated + forced to surrender -=> japanese can concentrate on US
they could give a shit about proping up empire, rightly or wrongly

After June 1941 (start of Barbarossa), it was very unlikely Britain would have "lost" WWII (there's an argument to say we lost anyway), but Britain never had the resources to go on the offensive without the US. Without the US the best we could have hoped for was a stalemate with the Nazis or possibly worse, Russians on the French coast.

As for "Britain stood alone", well, the British Empire did indeed stand alone, for 12 months; from June 1940 (fall of France) to June 1941 (invasion of Russia).

we did lose
however we couldnt have stopped them on our own which is true. there is a famous cartoon from the time which illustrates that which i will try to find.

Orde Wingate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Another factor in Burma.

the Chindits were of almost zero tactical value the only benefit was a morale boost at the time
a side note - the UK had reinforced, i -think- metal , carrier decks, the US was using wooden ones. when the kamikazes hit US carriers they were taken for repairs due to damage from aircraft going through into floors below, when they hit UK carriers, they washed them off the deck and went on operating

 

[throdgrain]

Tbh the Americans did meet the hardest resistance at Normandy (There's another "what if": What if the forces at Omaha (and Utah) weren't the Americans).

This really isnt true. The Americans might have got the worst of day 1, but after that it was the British and Canadian armies that fought the SS Panzer divisions.

The Yanks escaped out from underneath then stole all the glory in Paris. Again

These people our the true heroes of our time. We honour them at least once a year and rightly so.

Agree with you completely

 

[Ctuchik]

Being a "neutral" swede i probably shouldn't comment on this but its my personal opinion that Europe couldn't have acted much more differently they they did. The tactics Hitler used were just to alien to comprehend.

And it wasn't so much that Hitler were really sneaky as much as Europe just couldn't believe he would actually do it.

 

[Embattle]

the Chindits were of almost zero tactical value the only benefit was a morale boost at the time
a side note - the UK had reinforced, i -think- metal , carrier decks, the US was using wooden ones. when the kamikazes hit US carriers they were taken for repairs due to damage from aircraft going through into floors below, when they hit UK carriers, they washed them off the deck and went on operating

Yes to some degree that is true, I wouldn't go as far as zero tactical value and would point out boosting morale at the time was very important.

Yes we did which resulted in the planes doing almost no visible damage, although long term it had warped the hull which wouldn't of been a big issue if we weren't broke but at least it helped save lives.

This really isnt true. The Americans might have got the worst of day 1, but after that it was the British and Canadian armies that fought the SS Panzer divisions.

The Yanks escaped out from underneath then stole all the glory in Paris. Again

Indeed but then that was how it was planned, the idea being for the Americans to break out as the germans threw more and more units against us which kind of gives some people the impression we were just rather slow.

 

[rynnor]

Being a "neutral" swede i probably shouldn't comment on this but its my personal opinion that Europe couldn't have acted much more differently they they did. The tactics Hitler used were just to alien to comprehend.

And it wasn't so much that Hitler were really sneaky as much as Europe just couldn't believe he would actually do it.

Excellent analysis - I think your the closest to the practical reality of the day tbh.

 

[throdgrain]

Yes to some degree that is true, I wouldn't go as far as zero tactical value and would point out boosting morale at the time was very important.

Yes we did which resulted in the planes doing almost no visible damage, although long term it had warped the hull which wouldn't of been a big issue if we weren't broke but at least it helped save lives.



Indeed but then that was how it was planned, the idea being for the Americans to break out as the germans threw more and more units against us which kind of gives some people the impression we were just rather slow.

Agree with all that

My posts make me seem anti-american, which I'm sure most regular people on here will know isnt true. I just do not like the American bullshit machine, i.e the media, from Hollywood to people like Stephen Ambrose, who have convinced the American people, and half the rest of the world, that the Yanks walk on water ...

 

[ford prefect]

One reason I'm asking is because a Brit I know said America didn't show up until the shouting, and I was curious if this is the general opinion?

I think if we are being honest, then yes there is a certain ring of truth there and the reason is simple - Hollywood.

America really had no politcal reason to get involved in the second world until 1941 and when they did, they committed completely to its resolution and did a remarkable job and you are right, it was a cooperative effort.

However I think movies where the likes of Ben Affleck come along in his plane and single handedly wins the war ect, gripe a little and lead to some incorrect assumptions about the US attitude towards the war. The second world war is still a very sore subject in europe, and it is something of a raw nerve in europe - especially in Britain, and dramatic license probably isn't as appreciated as it is elsewhere.

 

[Vae]

i think if we are being honest, then yes there is a certain ring of truth there and the reason is simple - hollywood.

u571....

 

[Wij]

u571....

A fabulous documentary.

...just like Braveheart.

 

[Embattle]

A fabulous documentary.

...just like Braveheart.

Patriot as well.