The British Empire

[Az]

[Serb]

Sleep well.

[Demerzel]

Without the British still fighting in the early days of Barbarossa the Germans could have deployed even more troops, planes and tanks. We all know how close the Germans actually came to taking Moscow, if they had the extra forces - who knows where they might have got to...?

More importantly for Russia's survival in WW2 was the fact that the Japanese were too busy fighting the Chinese to deploy troops against Russia's eastern regions. This allowed Russia to transport a whole army from that region and use to defend itself against Germany. Without that army and being attacked on two fronts, I can't see how Russia would have survived.

Regarding the convoys to russia, I'm pretty sure most historians believe they were important in helping the Russians fight back the Germans though without direct statistical sources I'd be hesitant to claim to what degree.

Oh and in WW1, the Russians had plenty of men, very little guns and totally incompetent Generals. If it wasnt so tragic, their continuous blunderings in the face of an inferior sized enemy would make you laugh.

--

Never knew that Congress might have voted German as its working language. What was the reasoning behind that?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Demerzel
Without the British still fighting in the early days of Barbarossa the Germans could have deployed even more troops, planes and tanks. We all know how close the Germans actually came to taking Moscow, if they had the extra forces - who knows where they might have got to...?

Facts please. Which German forces are you talking about. How big those forces were and where exactly they were fighting British forces. Germans concentrated a five million army on Soviet border in 1941. And already outnambered Soviet forces located beyond the German-Soviet frontier. I doubt they had more or less sugnificient forces that could be used in Barbarossa and that were critical for their success.

More importantly for Russia's survival in WW2 was the fact that the Japanese were too busy fighting the Chinese to deploy troops against Russia's eastern regions. This allowed Russia to transport a whole army from that region and use to defend itself against Germany. Without that army and being attacked on two fronts, I can't see how Russia would have survived.

I don't see how credit for this goes to GB or USA. It was SU who supported China in its war vs. Japan. It was Soviet instructors and soldiers who fought in China vs. Japan and it was Soviet bombers who sunk Japanese cruisers and bombed their ports and finnaly it was Red Army who defeated IJA on Hassan lake and Khalkin-Gol river when Japanese were trying to test combat strengh of regular Soviet forces.
So, your point?

Regarding the convoys to russia, I'm pretty sure most historians believe they were important in helping the Russians fight back the Germans though without direct statistical sources I'd be hesitant to claim to what degree.

There is a huge difference between "important" and "critical for Russia survival". Even if it was critical (WHICH IT WASN'T) it doesn't give right to Yanks to shout everywhere that they saved everyone asses.

Oh and in WW1, the Russians had plenty of men, very little guns and totally incompetent Generals.

I wouldn't call Brusilov an incompetent general.

If it wasnt so tragic, their continuous blunderings in the face of an inferior sized enemy would make you laugh.

I wouldn't call Russian summer offensive of 1916 a blundering also, because it was in many ways revolutionary and was very well planed and well executed.
I still don't receive answer about at least aproximately close success of American army in WW1 (infliction of 1,5 million casualties to enemy with kill/loss ratio of 3/1).

The end of threadjack.

[Richelieu]

Let me put it this way, no nation will ever be able to conquer the U.S. by direct military action.

Never is a mighty long time...

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Serb
Facts please. Which German forces are you talking about. How big those forces were and where there were fighting British forces. Germans concentrated a five million army on Soviet board in 1941. And already had outnambered Soviet forces located beyond frontier. I doubt they had more or less sugnificient forces which could be used in Barbarossa and wich were critical for their success.

how many troops were based in Western Europe, how many tanks and possibly most important, how many fighter & bomber squadrons? If there was no need to guard Western Europe from the British ( & later ) US forces then they could have deployed far more firepower against the Russian formations. Plus Hitler had a tendancy to make generals deviate from their strategic objectives to seize other tactical targets he thought better ( e.g. the encircling of millions of russians in the first few weeks/months of the operation ), with more units they'd not have been forced to do so. The panzers might have arrived at Moscow up to 4 to 6 weeks earlier making the capture of it far more likely to succeed.

Originally posted by Serb
I don't see how credit for this goes to GB or USA. It was SU who supported China in its war vs. Japan. It was Soviet instructors and soldiers who fought in China vs. Japan and it was Soviet bombers who sunk Japanese cruisers and bombed their ports and finnaly it was Red Army who defeated IJA on Hassan lake and Khalkin-Gol river when Japanese "tested" combat strengh of regular Soviet forces.
So, your point?

sheeh, i put no spin on it but just mentioned the facts. you're the one who is being defensive about this seeing criticisms and barbs where none exist. the plain fact is that without that eastern army being there to defend moscow, then the russian army would have been extremely hard pressed to hold off the german invaders.

Originally posted by Serb
There is a huge difference between "important" and "critical for Russia survival". Even if it was critical (which it wasn't) it doesn't give right to Yanks to shout everywhere that they saved everyone asses.

I dislike the Americans claiming they solely won WWI and WWII as much as anyone, especially when they claim WWI was 1917-1918 or the recent spate of gung-ho american history re-write films

Originally posted by Serb I wouldn't call Brusilov an incompetent general.

I wouldn't call Russian summer offensive of 1916 a blundering also, because it was in many ways revolutionary and was very well planed and well executed.

from what i remember of the history books I've read they let an inferior sized german army trounce two russian armies piecemeal because of poor generalling and non-existant communications security ( giving the germans vital tactical information ). I'd reread and quote the relevant bits but im at work so it'd be have to wait til > 5pm.

remember im not trying to prove that the British or US won the war, just quoting the facts as best I know them ( being a major history buff and devourer of many books on this subject ).

[Solly]

It certainly meant that Americans don't need to learn a foreign language. Probably for the best.

[Main_Brain]

The US Congress almost voted to use German as its working language. I believe it failed by only a few votes.

Thats an Urban Legend to protect 'American Culture'

http://www.watzmann.net/scg/german-by-one-vote.html

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Demerzel
Without the British still fighting in the early days of Barbarossa the Germans could have deployed even more troops, planes and tanks. We all know how close the Germans actually came to taking Moscow, if they had the extra forces - who knows where they might have got to...?

The German did not take Moscow because they needed extra forces, but simply because they were not properly clothed and equipped for the Russian winter.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


The German did not take Moscow because they needed extra forces, but simply because they were not properly clothed and equipped for the Russian winter.

That's not true, panzers ( under Guderian? ) were racing towards Moscow but were forced by Hitler to turn south and assist in encircling enemy formations. it was a full 4 weeks I believe before they were able to resume their drive on the Russian capital. If they had not been diverted, they would have reached Moscow far earlier and thus before Russian reinforcements did and before the population of Moscow was drafted in to build anti-tank defences around the city.

[Andemagne]

Re: The British Empire

Originally posted by David Floyd
British had a right to an empire

had a right to a empire.

I have never believed in right-ethics, but do some nation/country/state have/other a right to a empire?

[Harovan]

I doubt that Guderians Panzergruppe 2 would have taken Moscow, even if it was not diverted. First, you can't take a city like Moscow with tanks and motorized infantry only, you need lots and lots of infantry for that, and somehow I doubt that the Soviets would have given up their capital without fight this time (like they did with Napoleon). Second, the supply path was already long enough and the infantry was lagging far behind. Third, for the same reason, there was no hope for an adequate help from Luftwaffe.

The panzer armies were good for deep blows in open terrain, but not for taking big cities.

[Tolls]

WW1...my fave...

LordMerciless:
"Had the US stayed stayed out of WW1, the Entente would have never beaten Germany. British morale were crushed after the defeat after the 3rd battle of Ypres and 2/3 of French army mutinied in 1917. A stalemate at Western front implied German victory since they grabbed the entire Ukraine."

The British army of 1918 was a considerably better force than previously. If morale was so low then how come we managed to stand against the German assaults in March and April? Similarly with the French. The restructuring of allied command under Foch changed the war far more than the appearance of the US.

Finally a stalemate in the West would have been a disaster for Germany, which is why they tried to win outright in 1918. A stalemate would have ended with a German revolution in 1919 through starvation, even with the Ukraine, never mind the shakiness of Austria-Hungary.

"Despite Americans entering the war in the following year and supporting the Entente with almost unlimited weapons, you Russkies still collapsed in 1917."

Of these weapons bugger all got to the Russians...more importantly the US was rubbish at even supplying the weapons the Russians ordered in the first 2 years of the war. Quick at taking the money, but incredibly slack at supplying the goods...not that we were much better.

As for unlimited weapons, the entente provided all its own weaponry, and a lot of the US ones as well. To the extent that the British and French forces had to cut the number of horses per supply carriage so that they could give the distinctly ill-equipped US army some.

Demerzel:
"...from what i remember of the history books I've read they let an inferior sized german army trounce two russian armies piecemeal because of poor generalling and non-existant communications security."

Somewhat correct, but that was August 1914...Serb is talking about summer 1916, during which Brusilov used a strategy that was later to be picked up by Ludendorff and used at Caporetto in '17 and the western front in '18. Brusilov recognised the problems with launching offensives on narrow fronts against modern weapons, before anyone else did.

Sadly the Russian Empire was already in big trouble internally by that point. Going through what amounts to an industrial revolution at high speed at the same time as fighting a major war is not a good thing.

"If it wasnt so tragic, their continuous blunderings in the face of an inferior sized enemy would make you laugh."

Believe me, there was pretty much no one on either side who wasn't incompetent when it came to that war.

Serb:
"And this war wasn't a major factor for victory of Bolshevick's revolution."

Bull...the continuation of the war by Kerensky was the main factor for Bolshevik success. They wouldn't have had a cat in hells chance if he'd pulled out of the war.

[Demerzel]

the panzers could have enveloped the city with their supporting infantry preventing russian reinforcements and then awaited follow up infantry.

the german airforce would obviously be dependant on its support units leapfrogging forward to create new airstrips as fast as possible.

i agree that the suppy lines were pretty tenuous indeed but I think without Hitler's continual interference and more airpower, the Germans would have succeeded.

[Cruddy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The British Empire

Originally posted by Serb

Yes it was, but in the first place- if there were no British colonists and British setlements on North American continent they would never declared independence and would never formed their own state.


Of course you can't blame USSR for Taliban. All credit for this goes to USA and CIA.

Gotcha sucker!

So, the US wouldn't exist without British colonists? What about Spanish, French, Dutch, German and Irish colonists? Don't they ever form breakaway colonies?

So, which side is which? The side that initiates the conflict, or the side which supports ir? Or the side which does neither?

The Taliban would not exist without the USSR. Action and reaction. But to BLAME the USSR for the formation of the Taliban is a mistake.

It's the same one you made, oh narrow minded Serb.