Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Britians Objective in WWII

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 18 Jun 2007, 22:55
Quote:
You apparently did not read all that I wrote.

Yes I did read it.
"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 23
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Mar 2006, 16:55
Pioneer
Post 26 Jul 2007, 13:32
Britain's objective in WWII? Survival!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 276
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Dec 2005, 04:55
Komsomol
Post 11 Aug 2007, 20:35
Not really, it was to secure influence and the British Empire. Germany didn't want war with the British and offered peace several times.
Image

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 156
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2007, 07:00
Pioneer
Post 11 Aug 2007, 21:36
There has been a lot of false information in this thread already so let me clear it up. Someone made the claim that the Luftwaffe had Air Superiority by numbers but that is not true lets look at the facts.

Combat Aircraft Present at the front and rear areas on 10 May 1940

France: 3,097
Great Britain: 1,150
Belgium: 140
Netherlands: 82

Allies: 4,469 Bombers and Fighters
German Reich: 3,578 Bombers/dive-bombers/ground-attack aircraft/fighters/destroyers

Also of note almost none of the Allied Aircraft even sortied for the first week with most units not even flying one sortie for the WHOLE conflict.

Also most of the German military was not even fully trained out of the 4.5 million men including 427,000 men in construction units only 1.31 million men in active duty and 647,000 in Reserve I could be counted as fully trained; 808,000 were considered untrained by German High Command. Also 1.2 million were WWI vets reactivated. What happened during the so called "Blitzkrieg" was that Germany threw numbers at the situation and in fact if the French had been more competent they could have easily stopped the Germans. Which is obvious with how horrible the Panzer Divisions performed during the Initial Invasion in fact most of the Divisions were unable to take their first days objectives within 3 days for some.

I would suggest reading Blitzkrieg Legend by Karl-Heinz Frieser a former Historian for the Bundswehr he gives a rather realistic and unflattering view of how the Invasion of the Low Countries was more of luck then anything else.

Edit:
I can also shed light onto who planned to arrest Hitler it was Halder the Army Chief of Staff he planned a Coup d'etat as well as assassination plans. It is unclear who else was involved Halder claimed to have the 3 Army Commanders in charge of the three pronged attack on his side as well as the typical suspects: Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein, etc.
Proud Member of the Korean Friendship Association
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 276
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Dec 2005, 04:55
Komsomol
Post 12 Aug 2007, 07:55
I beg to differ, It was rather strategy and tactics that won victory over France and the Low Countries not luck.


The Panzer divisions combined with close air support were very effective against the allied armies.
Image

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 156
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2007, 07:00
Pioneer
Post 12 Aug 2007, 08:53
Indeed? Explain the SS High Casualties? Also explain friendly fire incidents in which General Student was shot by SS-VT? Also explain to me the inability of the Germans to clear the Ardennes in time? Also explain how German support and panzer columns were held up several times by a single Char-B?

What won in the Low Lands invasion was not tactics it was luck and techonology specifically radio technology that bailed out the Germans.
Proud Member of the Korean Friendship Association
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 276
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Dec 2005, 04:55
Komsomol
Post 12 Aug 2007, 22:23
At the start of the war they took far more casualties then Heer units for no greater gain, and got a greater proportion of foreign weapons.It wasn't until Hitler took a personal interest and got them the best possible weapons that they could be considered a decent fighting force and that was mid war.

Every army has friendly fire incidents, so thats irrelevant.

French tanks were far bigger and better armored then German tanks.

It was tactics not luck, its a war, you can't expect everything to go as planned.They defeated France in 3 weeks so.....obviously luck had nothing to do with it.

Allied Generals were using outdated tactics used in the first world war, if they had a greater concentration of Armour then they could of held out longer, but thats besides the point.

They totally outnumbered the Axis in France and were defeated period.
Image

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 156
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2007, 07:00
Pioneer
Post 12 Aug 2007, 23:14
I utterly disagree it was luck that helped Germany win. High Command called a halt because the advance into France was falling way behind schedule and panic was hitting the highest echelons of the Nazi Reich in fact Hitler issued a halt order. Yet Generals' Guderian and Rommel ignored the halt order went across their assigned crossing points and penetrated deep into enemy territory. It was not luck so much as individual initiative if the battle had been fight the way the strategists were saying it would have been lost in the first week.
Proud Member of the Korean Friendship Association
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 213
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Mar 2007, 14:12
Pioneer
Post 13 Aug 2007, 00:30
The German victory was in large part luck and heavily tactics.
The allied tanks were at least equal to the German ones if not better. The allied ideas for using tanks were stuck in WW1 with the infantry hiding behind the slow moving machine gun platforms; really not what tanks are meant for.
Also the Germans managing to get their tanks through the Ardennes and the allies quite stupidly not considering this could be done was bad.
Belgium must also be blaimed for the German victory. Even when it was becoming clear Germany was going to invade France through them they were just as distrusting of the allies as of the Germans, not only didn't they organise a co-operative defence but they also kept just as much defence on the French border as the German.

The allies not attacking Germany: attacking to try to save Poland was stupid. Especially after the Soviets invaded Poland too and it utterly collapsed. It would be a waste of resources.
They hadn't planned to defend indefinatly, as said the line was there for them to prepare their attack. They believed however that Germany would also be incapable of attacking them for a considerable amount of time. As things stood at the beginning of the war time was on Britain and France's side. The UK was building its military at a faster rate then Germany to begin with and if they blockaded Germany they would cut its build up even more.


The main point of the topic:...hmm yeah true to a extent. Being a Soviet puppet state was a lot better then being under Nazi control of course if not quite as good as being a independant nation as they were before hand.
The main way Britain lost though was the complete destruction of the economy and some embarassments in asia.
"I'm not a fascist I'm a priest, fascists dress in black and tell people what to do while priests..."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2932
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Aug 2006, 17:30
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Aug 2007, 02:54
Quote:
Belgium must also be blaimed for the German victory. Even when it was becoming clear Germany was going to invade France through them they were just as distrusting of the allies as of the Germans, not only didn't they organise a co-operative defence but they also kept just as much defence on the French border as the German.
Because they were obligated to do so. Since 1830 Belgium wasn't allowed to join an imperialist bloc. This only changed after WWII. The neutrality was first being used to stop the threat of a French expansion.
Image


Ideology transforms human beings into subjects, leading them to see themselves as self-determining agents when they are in fact shaped by ideological processes. L. Althusser
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 213
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Mar 2007, 14:12
Pioneer
Post 14 Aug 2007, 20:29
Quote:
Because they were obligated to do so. Since 1830 Belgium wasn't allowed to join an imperialist bloc. This only changed after WWII. The neutrality was first being used to stop the threat of a French expansion.

There was no way post WW1 France was going to invade Belgium. They wouldn't have done that for a significant amount of time pre WW1.
But whatever, that's irrelevant to my point. Not being with France from the start- fine. But they continued to act dumb even when they literally had plans in front of them saying 'Germany is going to invade'.
"I'm not a fascist I'm a priest, fascists dress in black and tell people what to do while priests..."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 276
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Dec 2005, 04:55
Komsomol
Post 14 Aug 2007, 20:45
Thus leading to there defeat.
Image

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2932
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Aug 2006, 17:30
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Aug 2007, 21:05
Quote:
There was no way post WW1 France was going to invade Belgium. They wouldn't have done that for a significant amount of time pre WW1.
But whatever, that's irrelevant to my point. Not being with France from the start- fine. But they continued to act dumb even when they literally had plans in front of them saying 'Germany is going to invade'.
How would I put it: there was an international agreement between nations that Belgium was a bufferstate between imperial forces. Belgium wasn't allowed to make an alliance even if they wanted to.
Image


Ideology transforms human beings into subjects, leading them to see themselves as self-determining agents when they are in fact shaped by ideological processes. L. Althusser
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 23 Sep 2007, 10:00
I think actually that their real goal was protecting their aristocracy, if you think about, as the British Empire was weakened in both world wars to was its nobility, after WWII they callasped like a deck of card along with thier empire.
"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 12
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Sep 2007, 08:29
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 25 Sep 2007, 15:29
From the beginning of World War Two, Britain's objectives were:

1) To preserve a balance of power in Europe. This meant opposing Nazi German expansionism, and promising support to the reactionary Polish regime.
2) Preserve the British Empire, and the status of Pound Sterling as the world's reserve currency.
3) Maintain European dominance of the Royal Navy.

As events unfolded Britain's objectives turned to convincing the USSR to enter the Allies after years of Western rebuffs to the Soviet Union.

Britain also turned to convincing the USA to join the Allies, and surviving against a U-boat blockade and strategic bombardment until Britain found a more powerful ally to help win the war.

Towards the end of the war when Allied victory was assured, British objectives were:

1) Limiting Soviet influence in Europe and Asia
2) Maintaining Britain as a World Power despite economic strain.
Soviet cogitations: 34
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Apr 2005, 09:46
Pioneer
Post 09 Oct 2007, 15:32
Quote:
1) To preserve a balance of power in Europe. This meant opposing Nazi German expansionism, and promising support to the reactionary Polish regime.


What the hell is "Polish regime"?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 276
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Dec 2005, 04:55
Komsomol
Post 10 Oct 2007, 06:09
A regime is one of two things: a political system, or a class of physical conditions.
Image

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Soviet cogitations: 34
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Apr 2005, 09:46
Pioneer
Post 10 Oct 2007, 09:56
As far as I understand, "regime" is a negatively featured term describing goverment oppresing own citizens. It is somehow strange that term "Polish regime" appeared in the soviet terminology from the time of lost by bolsheviks Polish-Soviet war of 1919-20, so to explain and justify reasons of soviet agression on the evil "capitalistic" foriegn country. So to "free" other, nations from oppresing regime and fill them with "peace loving" communist ideology. Same reasoning was later used in 1939 to justify another soviet agression.
When you compse "Polish regime" with adjective "reactionary" it gives us backwarded goverent opressing and tormenting their citizens. I find it amusing that communists call democrats "reactionaries", however it is typical for soviet propaganda
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 276
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Dec 2005, 04:55
Komsomol
Post 11 Oct 2007, 07:16
Whats the difference between Republicans and Democrats these days?
Image

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Soviet cogitations: 34
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Apr 2005, 09:46
Pioneer
Post 11 Oct 2007, 09:27
Code: Select all
Whats the difference between Republicans and Democrats these days?

Much smaller than between democrats (people beleiving in democracy) and communists.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.