Britain stop the USSR?

[IRONMAN]

Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:

1. They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany's behavior.

2. Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.

3. Paratrooped every available man outside of Berlin after the end of the battle of Britain.

[LargeBrew]

Your problems are starting to show, go to the C rations thread and take the advice

[BDL]

Could the Allies in WW2 have won a lot quicker if America hadn't sat on the sidelines making money from the war for the first three years (as usual)?

[IRONMAN]

Could the Allies in WW2 have won a lot quicker if America hadn't sat on the sidelines making money from the war for the first three years (as usual)?

You have no asnwer to the question I see, nor the intellect to try.

Next.

[BDL]

You have no asnwer to the question I see, nor the intellect to try.

Next.

Ok, here we go - the UK was more prepared for war than any other country at the start of WW2 (apart from Germany of course). We were the only country in the world to have a completely mechanised army and the only country in the world to have a fully integrated air defence system (i.e. radar and fighters to attack what the radar saw).

The tactics used by the British Army at the time were, unfortunately, not good enough to counter the Blitzkreig doctrine used by the Germans, however you'll find that the US also suffered some heavy defeats from the Germans when they first entered the war (look up Kassarine Pass). It's a fact of life that Generals from armies that won their last war prepare to fight that war again. The Germans had lost their last war and came up with a new plan that no one expected.

The British did see war coming, the Munich Agreement was signed because Chamberlain knew that Britain was not strong enough to fight Germany at that time. By the time Poland was invaded in 1939, the RAF had re-equipped virtually all of their squadrons with new aircraft (particularly the Spitfire and Hurricane that would be so important in 1940). The radar system was now fully funtional and the mechanisation of the army and the training on the equipment was also complete.

I doubt we had 100,000 spare troops to send to France in 1940, those we had spare, we did send. Why would 100,000 troops have made any difference anyway? The French army in 1940 was the biggest in Europe, the British and French combined outnumbered the Germans. We were beaten by far superior air power and land forces organisation, not by numbers.

Why would we paratroop every man we had to Berlin after the Battle of Britain? All that would have happened is that the whole army (without any heavy equipment, which couldn't be paratrooped) would have been surrounded and wiped out - look what happened at Arnhem, and that was onlt a couple of Panzer Divisions, not the whole Whermacht. That's even if the transport planes would have survived all the way to Berlin without being hacked from the sky by Flak and Luftwaffe fighters.


editted to add - feel free just to quote the bit about Kassarine Pass and then accuse me of anti-Americanism. See? I'm even helping you find the three words from half a page you need to quote now.

[Firefly]

Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:

1. They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany's behavior.

2. Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.

3. Paratrooped every available man outside of Berlin after the end of the battle of Britain.

Man how many of these are you going to start?

1. As stated before they were about as prepared as they could be.

2. I think we had more than 100,000 troops in France, as we somehow managed to lift 300,000 and more from the beaches at Dunkirk.

3. No british paratroopers existed in 1940, and even if they had Im not sure any nation on earth could drop 100, 000 men.

I find these questions a bit childish in their nature to be honest. A bit of reading on the subject before posting them would have told you all the information.

[1000ydstare]

THEBESTSOLDIERTHATNEVERWAS wrote

Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:

1. They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany's behavior.

2. Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.

3. Paratrooped every available man outside of Berlin after the end of the battle of Britain.

Answer to 1. And the Yanks were obviously better prepared. Two words PEARL HARBOUR.

Answer to 2. Take it you don't know about BEF and Dunkirk then.

Answer to 3. Shame you werent our General IRONMAN, you could have got the remainder of our populace to wrap Britian up in gift wrap and presented the now Defence less Island to the Nazis.

Try and drag yourself away from inane comics, and computer games. How would they have got there? In what planes? The Luftwaffe was still quite strong after the Battle of Britian.

Why didn't the yanks get their arses in to the war quicker? They seem to make sure they there at the kick off at everyone since!!!

Maybe airdroping all of the Doughboys in on Berlin would have worked.

Or maybe not.

Try and keep your computer game tactics to yourself, you can't hit restart when you start losing a war.

http://www.gotterdammerung.org/film/reviews/v/virus/virus-09.jpg

[festamus]

Could the Allies in WW2 have won a lot quicker if America hadn't sat on the sidelines making money from the war for the first three years (as usual)?

You have no asnwer to the question I see, nor the intellect to try.

Next.

Will you now answer that quite simple question posed to you now that people have answered your (quite frankly, rather disingenuous questions in that Britain was trying it's best to prepare in the years before WWII, that they did send as many troops as could be spared to France, and that no parachute troops existed to go on a logistically unsupportable suicide mission to Berlin) questions,

Or do you lack the intellect to try?

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

Could the Allies in WW2 have won a lot quicker if America hadn't sat on the sidelines making money from the war for the first three years (as usual)?

Americans would resent that. We had no need for our country to go to war until Pearl Harbor.

[Firefly]

Could the Allies in WW2 have won a lot quicker if America hadn't sat on the sidelines making money from the war for the first three years (as usual)?

Americans would resent that. We had no need for our country to go to war until Pearl Harbor.

I would agre wth this as well. I would go further, if Germany hadnt declared war on the US, I dont think public support would have been there for the US to declare war on Germany.

[FluffyBunnyGB]

I'm not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that's open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it's the right thing, not because you HAVE to.

None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.

Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn't have joined in to stop it?

[Firefly]

I'm not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that's open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it's the right thing, not because you HAVE to.

None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.

Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn't have joined in to stop it?

Nope. I agree with you. The thing is that in 1939 neither we (the free world) nor the general public, at that time, had any inkling of the final solution (nor I suspect did most Nazis). We thought it was another German Land Grab.

[ww2fanatic1944]

the UK did need to join the war, because it was being fought right on their doorstep, they didnt know if germany would invade them or not. better safe then sorry. as for the US, they did need to declare war on Japan, because Japan attacked them, and germany declared war on them...so the US was right to go to war with both of the countries.

[IRONMAN]

Ok, here we go - the UK was more prepared for war than any other country at the start of WW2 (apart from Germany of course).

More? Doubtful, but more is not the same as adequately. Historians say otherwise. No relevance to the questions. Still haven't ansered them.

We were the only country in the world to have a completely mechanised army and the only country in the world to have a fully integrated air defence system (i.e. radar and fighters to attack what the radar saw).

Yes and no. Radar yes. Only with fully mechanized, no. No relevance to the questions. Still haven't ansered them.

The tactics used by the British Army at the time were, unfortunately, not good enough to counter the Blitzkreig doctrine used by the Germans, however you'll find that the US also suffered some heavy defeats from the Germans when they first entered the war (look up Kassarine Pass). It's a fact of life that Generals from armies that won their last war prepare to fight that war again. The Germans had lost their last war and came up with a new plan that no one expected.

No relevance. Still haven't answered the question.

The British did see war coming, the Munich Agreement was signed because Chamberlain knew that Britain was not strong enough to fight Germany at that time. By the time Poland was invaded in 1939, the RAF had re-equipped virtually all of their squadrons with new aircraft (particularly the Spitfire and Hurricane that would be so important in 1940). The radar system was now fully funtional and the mechanisation of the army and the training on the equipment was also complete.

No relevance. Still haven't answered the questions.


doubt we had 100,000 spare troops to send to France in 1940, those we had spare, we did send. Why would 100,000 troops have made any difference anyway? The French army in 1940 was the biggest in Europe, the British and French combined outnumbered the Germans. We were beaten by far superior air power and land forces organisation, not by numbers.

No relevance. You have not explained why, once the Germans were pushed to Berlin, the british did not attack the Soviet Union and prevent them from being naughty in Eastern Europe.

Why would we paratroop every man we had to Berlin after the Battle of Britain? All that would have happened is that the whole army (without any heavy equipment, which couldn't be paratrooped) would have been surrounded and wiped out - look what happened at Arnhem, and that was onlt a couple of Panzer Divisions, not the whole Whermacht. That's even if the transport planes would have survived all the way to Berlin without being hacked from the sky by Flak and Luftwaffe fighters.

So, you are saying that the british felt no need to attack the Soviet Union? It was not necessary? You are not being very clear.


editted to add - feel free just to quote the bit about Kassarine Pass and then accuse me of anti-Americanism. See? I'm even helping you find the three words from half a page you need to quote now.

No relevance. You have not answered the questions:

Why did britian not attack the Soviet Union at the end of WWII to prevent them from doing what they did?

[IRONMAN]

Could the Allies in WW2 have won a lot quicker if America hadn't sat on the sidelines making money from the war for the first three years (as usual)?

Could the Allies have won WWII if the british had put an army in France before the Germans invaded? I mean, everyone in Europe saw the war coming for several years beforehand. They knew Germany was going to start a war somewhere soon. Did the british not have enough foresight to defend France or did the age old France vrs England crap stand in their mental way?

That's a good point. It could be that britain failed to come to the aid of France because of stupid pride. Maybe they would have rather watched France get clobbered than help. That is certainly a very, very posiible cause of why britain failed to support France at any time before D-Day.

[IRONMAN]

The British did see war coming,

So why the failure to properly prepare or support France instead of watching France get over-run?

[Firefly]

TROLL POST

All your questions were directed at 1940.

All your rebutalls seem to be directed at 1945.


REASON

You have changed the goalposts (if you dont understand this - you have changed the original criteria) to suit your objective.

DEFINATE change of initial thrust.

You need to explain whether or not your questions pretain to 1940 or 1945.

If they are 1945, then you need to change your initial questions, which have been aswered.

Your choice?

[FluffyBunnyGB]

IRONCHILD

You have not yet been issued an opinion on this topic. Shouldn't you be out in the street with the other kids, playing in the sunshine?

[IRONMAN]

2. I think we had more than 100,000 troops in France, as we somehow managed to lift 300,000 and more from the beaches at Dunkirk.

...after D-Day, perhaps.

3. No british paratroopers existed in 1940, and even if they had Im not sure any nation on earth could drop 100, 000 men.

What about at the end of WWII? Could britain have stopped the USSR if they had attacked them at the end of WWII?


I find these questions a bit childish in their nature to be honest. A bit of reading on the subject before posting them would have told you all the information.

Why? Why childish when you have been posting arguments that the US could have attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why is it any different to wonder the same thing about Britain? It's not. You just don't like it.

[BDL]

The British did see war coming,

So why the failure to properly prepare or support France instead of watching France get over-run?

How was Britain not properly prepared?

How did we not support France?

[Firefly]

2. I think we had more than 100,000 troops in France, as we somehow managed to lift 300,000 and more from the beaches at Dunkirk.

...after D-Day, perhaps.

3. No british paratroopers existed in 1940, and even if they had Im not sure any nation on earth could drop 100, 000 men.

What about at the end of WWII? Could britain have stopped the USSR if they had attacked them at the end of WWII?


I find these questions a bit childish in their nature to be honest. A bit of reading on the subject before posting them would have told you all the information.

Why? Why childish when you have been posting arguments that the US could have attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why is it any different to wonder the same thing about Britain? It's not. You just don't like it.

TROLL POST

You know firstly that I have answered your Britian Vs Soviet union question. And agree with you.

Secondly, you are going over territory that has been gone over countless times already even after the majority here agreed on the facts of Potsdam.

REASON

Well, its obvious, you continue to try for the same reaction to somehow increase your ego (Idont know why though).

[IRONMAN]

Answer to 1. And the Yanks were obviously better prepared. Two words PEARL HARBOUR.

So, you are saying that Britain should just leave it up to the US right? Kinda like Korea and Vietnam?

Answer to 2. Take it you don't know about BEF and Dunkirk then.

No relevance. Not relevant to why britain did not attack the USSR at the end of WWII.

Answer to 3. Shame you werent our General IRONMAN, you could have got the remainder of our populace to wrap Britian up in gift wrap and presented the now Defence less Island to the Nazis.

No relevance. You have yet to provide an answer.


Try and drag yourself away from inane comics, and computer games. How would they have got there? In what planes? The Luftwaffe was still quite strong after the Battle of Britian.

Why didn't the yanks get their arses in to the war quicker? They seem to make sure they there at the kick off at everyone since!!!

Maybe airdroping all of the Doughboys in on Berlin would have worked.

Or maybe not.

Try and keep your computer game tactics to yourself, you can't hit restart when you start losing a war.

No relevance. You have not provided an answer.

[IRONMAN]

Will you now answer that quite simple question posed to you now that people have answered your (quite frankly, rather disingenuous questions in that Britain was trying it's best to prepare in the years before WWII, that they did send as many troops as could be spared to France, and that no parachute troops existed to go on a logistically unsupportable suicide mission to Berlin) questions,

Or do you lack the intellect to try?

The question was why did not Britain attack the USSR at the end of the war to prevent them from doing what they later did.

Do you remember the question?

[Firefly]

The British did see war coming,

So why the failure to properly prepare or support France instead of watching France get over-run?

TROLL POST

It has been stated that the BEF wasfully deployed to France. Total numbers in excess of 200000.

REASON

You know this and you are obviously trying to gain a reaction.

If you dont know this - Google BEF.

A better post may have been:

Why, with the strength that the BEF deployed to France didnt tey achieve more?

[IRONMAN]

Could the Allies in WW2 have won a lot quicker if America hadn't sat on the sidelines making money from the war for the first three years (as usual)?

Americans would resent that. We had no need for our country to go to war until Pearl Harbor.

I would agre wth this as well. I would go further, if Germany hadnt declared war on the US, I dont think public support would have been there for the US to declare war on Germany.

That's where you are wrong.

[FluffyBunnyGB]

1000ydstare wrote:
Answer to 1. And the Yanks were obviously better prepared. Two words PEARL HARBOUR.


So, you are saying that Britain should just leave it up to the US right? Kinda like Korea and Vietnam?

TROLLING again IRONCHILD.

Reason - nothing to do with the previous posting



1000ydstare wrote:
Answer to 2. Take it you don't know about BEF and Dunkirk then.


No relevance. Not relevant to why britain did not attack the USSR at the end of WWII.

TROLLING again IRONCHILD

Reason - nothing to do with your previous posting ref. why Britain wasn't helping the French. Which we were.

Now sonny, the grown-ups are talking, so be a good boy and don't interrupt.

[IRONMAN]

I'm not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that's open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it's the right thing, not because you HAVE to.

None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.

Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn't have joined in to stop it?

The UK didn't have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don't know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?

[IRONMAN]

I'm not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that's open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it's the right thing, not because you HAVE to.

None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.

Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn't have joined in to stop it?

Nope. I agree with you. The thing is that in 1939 neither we (the free world) nor the general public, at that time, had any inkling of the final solution (nor I suspect did most Nazis). We thought it was another German Land Grab.


Again, Germany attacked Britain. Do they not teach that in school in britain?

[FluffyBunnyGB]

FluffyBunnyGB wrote:
I'm not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that's open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it's the right thing, not because you HAVE to.

None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.

Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn't have joined in to stop it?


The UK didn't have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don't know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?
_________________

TROLLING again IRONCHILD

Reason - When was Britain attacked by Germany prior to a declaration of war in support of our treaty with Poland? It wasn't, so yet again you are posting rubbish.

EDIT - spelling

[IRONMAN]

TROLL POST

All your questions were directed at 1940.

All your rebutalls seem to be directed at 1945.


REASON

You have changed the goalposts (if you dont understand this - you have changed the original criteria) to suit your objective.

DEFINATE change of initial thrust.

You need to explain whether or not your questions pretain to 1940 or 1945.

If they are 1945, then you need to change your initial questions, which have been aswered.

Your choice?

No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why did they not do it?

[Firefly]

I'm not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that's open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it's the right thing, not because you HAVE to.

None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.

Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn't have joined in to stop it?

The UK didn't have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don't know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?

Wrong. Tough this time not Troling, but uninformed.

The UK and France declared war on Germany when they attacked Poland.

We stated to germany that if they attacked Poland we would be at WAR.

Ergo, we went to war. We (the UK and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around).

More reading perhaps?

[IRONMAN]

FluffyBunnyGB wrote:
I'm not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that's open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it's the right thing, not because you HAVE to.

None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.

Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn't have joined in to stop it?


The UK didn't have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don't know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?
_________________

TROLLING again IRONCHILD

Reason - When was Britain attacked by Germany prior to a declaration of war in support of our treaty with Poland? It wasn't, so yet again you are posting rubbish.

EDIT - spelling

No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII, and why did they not try?

[Firefly]

Could the Allies in WW2 have won a lot quicker if America hadn't sat on the sidelines making money from the war for the first three years (as usual)?

Americans would resent that. We had no need for our country to go to war until Pearl Harbor.

I would agre wth this as well. I would go further, if Germany hadnt declared war on the US, I dont think public support would have been there for the US to declare war on Germany.

That's where you are wrong.

please explain why you think the US would have declared war on Germany in Dec 41?

If not you are in danger of TROLLING again..

[FluffyBunnyGB]

TROLLING again IRONCHILD

FluffyBunnyGB wrote:
Quote:
FluffyBunnyGB wrote:
I'm not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that's open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it's the right thing, not because you HAVE to.

None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.

Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn't have joined in to stop it?


The UK didn't have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don't know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?
_________________


TROLLING again IRONCHILD

Reason - When was Britain attacked by Germany prior to a declaration of war in support of our treaty with Poland? It wasn't, so yet again you are posting rubbish.

EDIT - spelling


No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII, and why did they not try?

Reason - I have emboldened your question, which has nothing to do with Britain attacking the USSR at the end of the war.

[festamus]

Troll post? More like TROLL THREAD.

Ironman's lies so far in one thread

Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:

1. They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany's behavior.

Lie 1. The British did see it coming many years before the start of the war.


2. Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.

Lie 2. British troops were in France in large numbers before any German invasion.


More? Doubtful, but more is not the same as adequately. Historians say otherwise. No relevance to the questions. Still haven't ansered them.

Lie 3. Questions were answered comprehensively by BDL and in short by others.


Yes and no. Radar yes. Only with fully mechanized, no. No relevance to the questions. Still haven't ansered them.

Lies 4 and 5. Questions remain fully answered. Radar and mechanization show forward planning going back years. Entirely relevant to the questions since radar in particular made an enormous contribution to the first victory against the Germans (Battle of Britain) and ultimately to the winning of the war by achieving victory in said battle. Furthermore, for relevance the, British Army did not have the enormous reliance on horses and horse-drawn vehicles that Germany did, for instance.


No relevance. Still haven't answered the question.


Lies 6 and 7. The fact that Britain was beaten by superior tactics and not by lack of preparation is entirely relevant. If that isn't, what is? Question was answered.


No relevance. Still haven't answered the questions.

Lie 8 and 9. ENTIRELY relevant that British prime minister new that war was on the horizon, and entirely relevant that Britain PREPARED for war by arming squadrons with Spitfires and Hurricanes. Question was answered.


No relevance. You have not explained why, once the Germans were pushed to Berlin, the british did not attack the Soviet Union and prevent them from being naughty in Eastern Europe.

Lie 10 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 1. Entirely relevant, and original questions made no reference to attacking the Soviet Union, merely to being better prepared for war and getting to Eastern Europe first.


So, you are saying that the british felt no need to attack the Soviet Union? It was not necessary? You are not being very clear.

Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 2. The original questions made no mention of attacking the USSR.


You have not answered the questions:

Why did britian not attack the Soviet Union at the end of WWII to prevent them from doing what they did?


Lie 11 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 3. Questions were comprehensively answered to within reasonable standards and attacking the USSR was NEVER mentioned in the original questions.


Could the Allies have won WWII if the british had put an army in France before the Germans invaded?

Lie 12. Undisputed and easily verifiable historical fact that the British Army was heavily committed to France before the Germans invaded.


Did the british not have enough foresight to defend France or did the age old France vrs England crap stand in their mental way?

Lie 13. Britain fully committed to the defence of France before Germany invaded.


That's a good point.

Lie 14. It's a complete none point based on entirely wrong information.


It could be that britain failed to come to the aid of France because of stupid pride.

Lie 15. Britain did not fail to come to the aid of France.

Maybe they would have rather watched France get clobbered than help.

Lie 16.
Britain would not rather watch France get clobbered than help - we very nearly compromised our own liberty in defence of France because of the defeat suffered there.


Britain would not rather watch France get clobbered than help - we very nearly compromised our own liberty in defence of France because of the defeat suffered there.

Lie 17. We helped France continually from 1939 to 1945 - not just after on and after D-Day.


So why the failure to properly prepare or support France instead of watching France get over-run?

Lie 18. Britain did prepare and did support France from the outset. Easily verifiable fact.

wrote:
2. I think we had more than 100,000 troops in France, as we somehow managed to lift 300,000 and more from the beaches at Dunkirk.


...after D-Day, perhaps.

Lie 19. Easily verifiable, documented fact that the British were very heavily committed in France in 1939/1940.

What about at the end of WWII? Could britain have stopped the USSR if they had attacked them at the end of WWII?

Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 4. Original questions contained NO reference to attacking USSR, nor to the end of WWII.

Why? Why childish when you have been posting arguments that the US could have attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why is it any different to wonder the same thing about Britain? It's not. You just don't like it.

Lie 20. Original thread about US attacking Russia was posted by an AMERICAN poster, and some BRITISH posters, among others in that thread, generally had the consensus that to do so would have been difficult at best, impossible at worst, and folly either way. Other British posters believed that it would ultimately have been an Western-Allies victory, and provided REASONS for this. Either way, an interesting discussion was had by all without resort to lies and petty childishness... Something you could learn from.

So, you are saying that Britain should just leave it up to the US right? Kinda like Korea and Vietnam?

Lie 21, Lie 22 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 5. Not what the poster said at all, and more to the point, trying to shift to Korea and Vietnam. Second of the two lies is that Britain didn't leave Korea up to the US as you suggest, as others have explained.

No relevance. Not relevant to why britain did not attack the USSR at the end of WWII

Lies 23 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 6. It is entirely relevant that the BEF and Dunkirk existed as it shows Britain was both prepared and in France, despite your dishonest or entirely stupid, ignorant claims to the contrary. Shifting goal posts because the original questions did not include attacking the USSR, or about the end of the war.

No relevance. You have yet to provide an answer.

Lies 24 and 25. Entirely relevant. Britain was in no position to put 100,000 troops outside Berlin after the Battle of Britain until 1945. The question was also answered on the first page.

1000ydstare wrote:
Try and drag yourself away from inane comics, and computer games. How would they have got there? In what planes? The Luftwaffe was still quite strong after the Battle of Britian.

Why didn't the yanks get their arses in to the war quicker? They seem to make sure they there at the kick off at everyone since!!!

Maybe airdroping all of the Doughboys in on Berlin would have worked.

Or maybe not.

Try and keep your computer game tactics to yourself, you can't hit restart when you start losing a war.


No relevance. You have not provided an answer.

Lies 25 and 26. Entirely relevant as illustrates the sheer stupidity of the original questions and also questions the sanity of original question 3.


The question was why did not Britain attack the USSR at the end of the war to prevent them from doing what they later did.

Do you remember the question?

Lie 27. Original questions are:

Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:

1. They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany's behavior.

2. Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.

3. Paratrooped every available man outside of Berlin after the end of the battle of Britain.

No mention of attacking the USSR nor of the end of the war.


The UK didn't have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don't know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?

Lie 28. Britain declared war on Germany - not the other way around, and not after being attacked. Easily verifiable, well known, well documented, undisputed historical fact! (again)

Again, Germany attacked Britain. Do they not teach that in school in britain?

Lie 29. Not what happened. Easily verifiable, well known, well documented, undisputed historical fact!

No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why did they not do it?

Lie 30, Lie 31 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 7. It is relevant, the question has been answered ad nauseum by this point, and the original questions contained NO mention of attacking the USSR at the end of the war.


No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII, and why did they not try?

Lie 32, Lie 33 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 8. Repeating himself to nudge up his lie quota.

So I count 33 bare faced or completely ignorant lies, easily avoided had he
A) any ability to comprehend what is written
B) any grasp of the actual course of history in the Real World as opposed to his own.

Along with 8 attempts to dishonestly shift the goal posts by claiming people should answer a question that was never originally asked.

Hence: TROLL THREAD.

The man is either a liar completely devoid of honour and integrity, immensely stupid - or most likely - both.

[Sturmtruppen]

IRONCOCK,you will never beat festamus

[Bluffcove]

BRITCON - ignore all posts in these four threads forthwith, if ytou need to discuss the subject then use PM.

Until the mods remove IRONMAN from the equatuon it is clear he is going to destroy the forum and webspace.

[Commando Jordovski]

Its what he wants bluffcove but everyone is ignoring that fact and taking the arguement further, so just ignore his posts and any rooms created by him and the Mods will sort it out.

By the way... it doesnt help the site by argueing back at IRONMAN even if he is a lieing troll that insults you.

[1000ydstare]

Just a quick one to anyone but him, Why does he think the Brits had some kind of requirement to stop the USSR? In 1945 the Yanks were on side so surely they had the same requirement?

[FluffyBunnyGB]

I have to disagree folks.

I don't approve of threads being deleted unless they contain real slander, racial abuse, offensive material etc.

If you must do anything, then lock the thread, but don't delete the fatuous posts for two reasons:
a. Interesting information is coming to light in these threads that I believe is worth preserving, even if only to answer questions like "why didn't Britain have a nuclear weapons programme in WW2?".

Answer - It did, at the start of the War, called TUBE ALLOYS, eventually to become part of the Manhattan project and the cryptonym for plutonium.

Just because a question starts from a false premise doesn't mean the answers are of little use.

b. When IRONCHILD finds another forum, and its members are looking for evidence he's a TROLL, there will be plenty on this site.


Just my opinion.

Fluffy

[FW-190 Pilot]

Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:

1. They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany's behavior.

2. Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.

3. Paratrooped every available man outside of Berlin after the end of the battle of Britain.
i think britain didnt prepare for war is because they do not want to lose their citizens on some pointless war, maybe the government is either underestimate Germany or they want to sarafice France in exchange of Germany not trying to invade Britain.

For number 2, whats the point for adding more troops, german has a new way of using tanks to inspire fear in enemy troops by surrounding them and cut their supply lines. I believe sending more British troops would only mean more captives for the germans

For number 3, Air defense is very strong for Germany especially with FW-190 to intercept bombers or any airtransport, i dont think mustang is ready in that year and Germany is still very powerful on air, how many soldiers must you sarafice before they even reach germany? not realistic at all

[Gen. Sandworm]

Could the Allies in WW2 have won a lot quicker if America hadn't sat on the sidelines making money from the war for the first three years (as usual)?

Americans would resent that. We had no need for our country to go to war until Pearl Harbor.

I would agre wth this as well. I would go further, if Germany hadnt declared war on the US, I dont think public support would have been there for the US to declare war on Germany.

That's where you are wrong.

please explain why you think the US would have declared war on Germany in Dec 41?

If not you are in danger of TROLLING again..

Dont know if America would have joined the war without having been attacked. IRONMAN you on your own on that one.

However.......and ive said this before. We cant be there everytime one of your countries goes fucking bananas. If you dont remember your geography ........ WE DONT LIVE IN EUROPE. :) The UK and France had enough power to confront Germany on Sept 1st. Would have been hard but any attack would have been better than none. Furthermore we did finally join the conflict. And by the time we joined there was no way Britain was going to win by herself. Dont get my wrong my British brethern we could not have dont it with out you or the russians. But just as in WW1 we supplied the extra kick in the end to drive home the win. If America had not joined ............ I think the Germans could have easily held the Brits at bay and focused more on Russia. Dont see the Germans ever really defeating Russia but hard to speculate what would have happened.

Also let me point out that when we did join we did agree to focus on Europe first and then the Pacific. I would say thats pretty good since we were attacked by Japan.

NOT SAYING THE AMERICANS won the war for you guys. Never could have done it without the UK/Commonwealth and the Russians. Also vice versa.

So instead of bitching that we were late how about a thanks for better late than never. :D

[BDL]

i think britain didnt prepare for war is because they do not want to lose their citizens on some pointless war, maybe the government is either underestimate Germany or they want to sarafice France in exchange of Germany not trying to invade Britain.

Fw, if you look through the first couple of pages, you'll see a reply from me explaining just how prepared Britain was for war, we were probably the country (other than Germany and Japan who were actively looking to start wars) most prepared to go to war - far more so than France, the USSR, the US or any other of the major countries at the time.

Our army was the only fully mechanised army in the world at the time, even the German army still relied on horses for transport. So did the French, Soviets, Americans etc. The US Army did manage to get themselves fully mechanised by the time they entered the war though, as I far as I know.

We also had the only fully integrated air defence system in the world - radar detecting incoming aircraft and passing the details onto a control room which sent fighters to attack the raids or ordered AAA to engage.

The weakest part of the British forces were probably the light/tactical bombers, particularly the Fairey Battle, which was a death trap. We had plenty of them, but they were no good in daylight over terrain that Germany had full control of.

Helping France - by the time Germany invaded France on May 10th 1940, the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) was made up of 10 divisions (over 300,000 men in total), plus the Advanced Air Striking Force, made up of Hurricane fighters and Fairey Battle and Bristol Blenheim light bombers. We sent so many men to France that after Dunkirk the only fully equipped and combat ready division left in the UK was the 1st Canadian Armoured Division. We sent so many fighters (thankfully none of the precious Spitfires, only the Hurricane) that Dowding (Commander of the RAF's Fighter Command) refused to send anymore because he wouldn't have enough fighters left to protect the UK with if the did.

[Firefly]

I have to disagree folks.

I don't approve of threads being deleted unless they contain real slander, racial abuse, offensive material etc.

If you must do anything, then lock the thread, but don't delete the fatuous posts for two reasons:
a. Interesting information is coming to light in these threads that I believe is worth preserving, even if only to answer questions like "why didn't Britain have a nuclear weapons programme in WW2?".

Answer - It did, at the start of the War, called TUBE ALLOYS, eventually to become part of the Manhattan project and the cryptonym for plutonium.

Just because a question starts from a false premise doesn't mean the answers are of little use.

b. When IRONCHILD finds another forum, and its members are looking for evidence he's a TROLL, there will be plenty on this site.


Just my opinion.

Fluffy

I agree with the Bunny, this makes sense.

[BDL]

For anyone involved in the 'Did the UK help France' enough debate, I've posted the BEF's order of battle for the Battle of France here (http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=24416#24416).

I think it proves conclusively that a hell of a lot of help was given to France before her surrender.

[Bladensburg]

Tin Breeches that was not the question that you originally asked. Your initial post referred to the time between the outbreak of war and the end of the Battle of Britain, the period between Sept. 1939 and Oct. 1940. You made no reference to the end of the war until challenged about your ridiculous assertions about the Uk not supporting France.

Germany did not attack Britain directly until several days after the King and Parliament declared war on 9th Sept. 1939. It was a raid on Scapa Floe IIRC.

Why did Britain not attack the USSR in 1945? Because there was no way that Britain could have defeated the Red Army you dolt! They vastly outnumbered the Western Allies, were well supplied from European and trans Ural factories and farms and had built up a fair head of steam having been fighting the bulk of the German forces for years. Oh and your idea of dropping Paras round Berlin is ludicrous, they would be slaughtered
If Market Garden had worked things might have been different and an attempt to prevent Stalin getting much of Eastern Europe may have been possible. But it failed and Eisenhower became too cautious to risk another rapid thrust favouring the rliable but terribly slow broad front.

[Sturmtruppen]

BRITCON - ignore all posts in these four threads forthwith, if ytou need to discuss the subject then use PM.

Until the mods remove IRONMAN from the equatuon it is clear he is going to destroy the forum and webspace.

Can i be part of the Foreigner Squadron of the BRITCON?

[IRONMAN]

Troll post? More like TROLL THREAD.

Ironman's lies so far in one thread

Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:

1. They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany's behavior.

Lie 1. The British did see it coming many years before the start of the war.


2. Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.

Lie 2. British troops were in France in large numbers before any German invasion.


More? Doubtful, but more is not the same as adequately. Historians say otherwise. No relevance to the questions. Still haven't ansered them.

Lie 3. Questions were answered comprehensively by BDL and in short by others.


Yes and no. Radar yes. Only with fully mechanized, no. No relevance to the questions. Still haven't ansered them.

Lies 4 and 5. Questions remain fully answered. Radar and mechanization show forward planning going back years. Entirely relevant to the questions since radar in particular made an enormous contribution to the first victory against the Germans (Battle of Britain) and ultimately to the winning of the war by achieving victory in said battle. Furthermore, for relevance the, British Army did not have the enormous reliance on horses and horse-drawn vehicles that Germany did, for instance.


No relevance. Still haven't answered the question.


Lies 6 and 7. The fact that Britain was beaten by superior tactics and not by lack of preparation is entirely relevant. If that isn't, what is? Question was answered.


No relevance. Still haven't answered the questions.

Lie 8 and 9. ENTIRELY relevant that British prime minister new that war was on the horizon, and entirely relevant that Britain PREPARED for war by arming squadrons with Spitfires and Hurricanes. Question was answered.


No relevance. You have not explained why, once the Germans were pushed to Berlin, the british did not attack the Soviet Union and prevent them from being naughty in Eastern Europe.

Lie 10 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 1. Entirely relevant, and original questions made no reference to attacking the Soviet Union, merely to being better prepared for war and getting to Eastern Europe first.


So, you are saying that the british felt no need to attack the Soviet Union? It was not necessary? You are not being very clear.

Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 2. The original questions made no mention of attacking the USSR.


You have not answered the questions:

Why did britian not attack the Soviet Union at the end of WWII to prevent them from doing what they did?


Lie 11 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 3. Questions were comprehensively answered to within reasonable standards and attacking the USSR was NEVER mentioned in the original questions.


Could the Allies have won WWII if the british had put an army in France before the Germans invaded?

Lie 12. Undisputed and easily verifiable historical fact that the British Army was heavily committed to France before the Germans invaded.


Did the british not have enough foresight to defend France or did the age old France vrs England crap stand in their mental way?

Lie 13. Britain fully committed to the defence of France before Germany invaded.


That's a good point.

Lie 14. It's a complete none point based on entirely wrong information.


It could be that britain failed to come to the aid of France because of stupid pride.

Lie 15. Britain did not fail to come to the aid of France.

Maybe they would have rather watched France get clobbered than help.

Lie 16.
Britain would not rather watch France get clobbered than help - we very nearly compromised our own liberty in defence of France because of the defeat suffered there.


Britain would not rather watch France get clobbered than help - we very nearly compromised our own liberty in defence of France because of the defeat suffered there.

Lie 17. We helped France continually from 1939 to 1945 - not just after on and after D-Day.


So why the failure to properly prepare or support France instead of watching France get over-run?

Lie 18. Britain did prepare and did support France from the outset. Easily verifiable fact.

wrote:
2. I think we had more than 100,000 troops in France, as we somehow managed to lift 300,000 and more from the beaches at Dunkirk.


...after D-Day, perhaps.

Lie 19. Easily verifiable, documented fact that the British were very heavily committed in France in 1939/1940.

What about at the end of WWII? Could britain have stopped the USSR if they had attacked them at the end of WWII?

Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 4. Original questions contained NO reference to attacking USSR, nor to the end of WWII.

Why? Why childish when you have been posting arguments that the US could have attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why is it any different to wonder the same thing about Britain? It's not. You just don't like it.

Lie 20. Original thread about US attacking Russia was posted by an AMERICAN poster, and some BRITISH posters, among others in that thread, generally had the consensus that to do so would have been difficult at best, impossible at worst, and folly either way. Other British posters believed that it would ultimately have been an Western-Allies victory, and provided REASONS for this. Either way, an interesting discussion was had by all without resort to lies and petty childishness... Something you could learn from.

So, you are saying that Britain should just leave it up to the US right? Kinda like Korea and Vietnam?

Lie 21, Lie 22 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 5. Not what the poster said at all, and more to the point, trying to shift to Korea and Vietnam. Second of the two lies is that Britain didn't leave Korea up to the US as you suggest, as others have explained.

No relevance. Not relevant to why britain did not attack the USSR at the end of WWII

Lies 23 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 6. It is entirely relevant that the BEF and Dunkirk existed as it shows Britain was both prepared and in France, despite your dishonest or entirely stupid, ignorant claims to the contrary. Shifting goal posts because the original questions did not include attacking the USSR, or about the end of the war.

No relevance. You have yet to provide an answer.

Lies 24 and 25. Entirely relevant. Britain was in no position to put 100,000 troops outside Berlin after the Battle of Britain until 1945. The question was also answered on the first page.

1000ydstare wrote:
Try and drag yourself away from inane comics, and computer games. How would they have got there? In what planes? The Luftwaffe was still quite strong after the Battle of Britian.

Why didn't the yanks get their arses in to the war quicker? They seem to make sure they there at the kick off at everyone since!!!

Maybe airdroping all of the Doughboys in on Berlin would have worked.

Or maybe not.

Try and keep your computer game tactics to yourself, you can't hit restart when you start losing a war.


No relevance. You have not provided an answer.

Lies 25 and 26. Entirely relevant as illustrates the sheer stupidity of the original questions and also questions the sanity of original question 3.


The question was why did not Britain attack the USSR at the end of the war to prevent them from doing what they later did.

Do you remember the question?

Lie 27. Original questions are:

Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:

1. They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany's behavior.

2. Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.

3. Paratrooped every available man outside of Berlin after the end of the battle of Britain.

No mention of attacking the USSR nor of the end of the war.


The UK didn't have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don't know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?

Lie 28. Britain declared war on Germany - not the other way around, and not after being attacked. Easily verifiable, well known, well documented, undisputed historical fact! (again)

Again, Germany attacked Britain. Do they not teach that in school in britain?

Lie 29. Not what happened. Easily verifiable, well known, well documented, undisputed historical fact!

No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why did they not do it?

Lie 30, Lie 31 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 7. It is relevant, the question has been answered ad nauseum by this point, and the original questions contained NO mention of attacking the USSR at the end of the war.


No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII, and why did they not try?

Lie 32, Lie 33 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 8. Repeating himself to nudge up his lie quota.

So I count 33 bare faced or completely ignorant lies, easily avoided had he
A) any ability to comprehend what is written
B) any grasp of the actual course of history in the Real World as opposed to his own.

Along with 8 attempts to dishonestly shift the goal posts by claiming people should answer a question that was never originally asked.

Hence: TROLL THREAD.

The man is either a liar completely devoid of honour and integrity, immensely stupid - or most likely - both.

So, I take it you have no answer to the question? What say you? We have already established that the US had no reason to attack the USSR right at the end of WWII, and that it would have been a stupid idea.

But what about the Beefeaters? Should they have tried? What say you? And please, do try to answer the question instead of spittling.

[BDL]

So, I take it you have no answer to the question? What say you? We have already established that the US had no reason to attack the USSR right at the end of WWII, and that it would have been a stupid idea.

But what about the Beefeaters? Should they have tried? What say you? And please, do try to answer the question instead of spittling.

No, the British on their own could not have defeated the Soviets. The original question on the other thread that led to this whining 'Brits all hate America' thread (for that is all this is, if we are all honest) was "COULD THE WESTERN ALLIES BEAT THE USSR IN 1945?". Nobody said that the US should have attacked the USSR, nobody blamed the US for the Cold War, none of the Brits on here appear to hate the US from what they written. Please can we stop these pathetic attempts to make all of Europe a part of some anti-American plot?

[Firefly]

There is a big diffrence between could and should. As Ironman knows the question he is obviously TROLLING again. As Ive already answered it I suggest he reads through this and the other thread.

[2nd of foot]

But what about the Beefeaters? Should they have tried?


I am quite sure that the Yeoman of the Guard would have put up a good fight with their partizan and gone down fighting, but they would be no match for a Guards Army. And as most are of pension age they would be very slow in the assault.

[BDL]

But what about the Beefeaters? Should they have tried?


I am quite sure that the Yeoman of the Guard would have put up a good fight with their partizan and gone down fighting, but they would be no match for a Guards Army. And as most are of pension age they would be very slow in the assault.

Pikes and small swords aren't acknowledged as being the best things to face a T-35/85 or a JS-3 with either.

[WaistGunner]

I know this hasn't been an active thread for a while but I thought I would point out that the reason neither the British nor American armies beat the USSR to Berlin was political. President Roosevelt convinced PM Churchhill to stop short of Berlin and let Russia take it. He forsaw the upcoming conflict with the USSR and was attempting to appease them in some way. Though in hindsight it was a bit like trying to appease a rattlesnake by letting him bite your arm instead of your leg.

[Firefly]

Repeating myself for the unpteenth time. It was all decided at Yalta and before where the spheres of influence in Europe would be, so there was no point in getting more ETO troops killed just to have them pull back at a later date.

[Bladensburg]

Repeating myself for the unpteenth time. It was all decided at Yalta and before where the spheres of influence in Europe would be, so there was no point in getting more ETO troops killed just to have them pull back at a later date.

Indeed. I think that Prof. Holmes is of the opinion that Market Garden was Churchill's last roll of the dice to try to get ahead of the Russians and into parts of Eastern Europe before Yalta forced him to concede to Stalin's imperial ambitions.