WW II could we have won without the Muslims?

[Pretty pink fairy]

Right back at you.
Firstly, you are saying that if Hitler had tried to invade it would have failed (in your opinion, short of London), so you are agreeing with me that Don Quixote is wrong in his opinion that we won because Hitler was too stupid to invade.

Secondly, I can't imagine an invasion fleet doing too well while being bombed from the air and facing the biggest navy in the world. The allied invasion of Normandy showed how difficult it is to land troups even with air and naval superiority, Germany were in no position to make such an invasion of Britain.

all hypothetical really and I'm certainly not going to get into an argument over it,
the Germans obviously had a plan in operation sea lion ,why it didn't go ahead is up for debate .

 

[Chicken Runner61]

@%1;

So the quality of films gets your vote?

Your previous post said that Hitler was extremely bothered by Malta and now you say he was more interested in the Eastern Front - try for some consistency please!

North Africa and the Middle East were never a strategical goal for the Germans - they got involved because the Italians f***ed up - perhaps I shouldn't say this but I HAVE read Mein Kampf - it is all pretty clear what Hitler was going to do once he was in power i.e. head out into Eastern Europe, he doesnt mention the Med/Malta/North Africa at all.

The fact is if Malta had fallen we would have had a longer and harder war, but if the Battle of Britain had been lost it would have been game over and we would be conducting this debate in German.

You obviously "struggled" with it.

Calm down dear and use your brain.

Whilst the Battle of Britain was vitally important to Britain's survival and a turning point it didn't win WW2 which finished years after the BOB. The victory of the BOB won us time and morale but by Alamein morale was quite poor and we needed it.

The reason Hitler was obsessed with Russia is the same reason Germany went to N Africa to gain control after the Italians failed (again partly because of Malta) - OIL

Hitler had to decide whether to finish England off so he could fight one front instead of two. The victories across Europe had been great but the German army was always running low on Fuel and since they used to get most of their oil from Russia before invading them they needed now to take North Africa or Russia so they could get supplies from across the Middle east or the Caspian. With Malta in the way transporting Oil across the Med to refineries in Germany was going to be a problem.

You have to know that no one really knew too much about the oil in Libya at that time and it would haver to be transported back to Germany for refining in any case. I read somewhere that Both Monty and Rommel used to curse each other thinking that the other poisoned the water with oil not realising the two were linked.

Hitler was also frustrated with Russia as he was disappointed with the amount of Oil russia had at that time that he could get his hands on.

Many historians after the war underestimated the effect of lack of Oil on the Germans because basically it wasn't that interesting to write about.


War is just as much about strategy and supplies as well as troops Guns, ships and equipment. you can't invade someone without fuel.

To say Germany were not interested in the Med or N Africa is pure ignorance too

In Bevin Alexander's Book How Hitler could have won the war he writes

"After the destruction of France's military power in 1940, Britain was left with only a single armored division to protect Egypt and the Suez Canal. Germany had twenty armored divisions, none being used. If the Axis--- Germany and its ally Italy---had used only four of these divisions to seize the Suez Canal, the British Royal Navy would have been compelled to abandon the Mediterranean Sea, turning it into an Axis lake. French North Africa--- Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia---could have been occupied, and German forces could have seized Dakar in Senegal on the west coast of Africa, from which submarines and aircraft could have dominated the main South Atlantic sea routes.

With no hope of aid, Yugoslavia and Greece would have been forced to come to terms. Since Hitler gained the support of Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, Germany would have achieved control of all southeastern Europe without committing a single German soldier.

Once the Suez Canal was taken, the way would have been open to German armored columns to overrun Palestine, Transjordan, the Arabian peninsula, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. This would given Germany unlimited supplies of the single commodity it needed most: oil.

As important as oil was for the conduct of modern war, the greatest advantages of German occupation of the Arab lands and Iran would have been to isolate Turkey, threaten British control of India, and place German tanks and guns within striking distance of Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus and along the shores of the Caspian Sea. Turkey would have been forced to become an ally or grant transit rights to German forces, Britain would have had to exert all its strength to protect India, and the Soviet Union would have gone to any lengths to preserve peace with Germany because of its perilous position.

Germany need not have launched a U-boat or air war against British shipping and cities, because British participation in the war would have become increasingly irrelevant. Britain could never have built enough military power to invade the Continent alone."


Its well known and documented that Hitler denied Rommel Troops and supplies in favour of the Russian front because as you imply he hated them.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Interesting debate whether the Germans would have pulled off a successful invasion. On the one hand they had supreme military strategists that had already presided over their blitzkrieg across Europe so expect their plans for Op Sealion would have been thorough and aided by their numerical and technical advantage. Albeit they would not have conducted an amphibious operation on such a scale. On the other hand they failed to persevere with the right airborne strategy - surely they would have gained air superiority if they had maintained a few more days pressure on the RAF rather than switch to bombing cities? While I like to think we would have repelled an invasion it is difficult to see how we could have sustained a robust defence without air cover and with the disarray after Dunkirk and lack of equipment. Even with the strength of the Navy we would have been an island under even greater seige at the mercy of the Luftwaffe and U-boats so realistically suspect they would have ground us down over many months. The Battle of Britain was pivotal but also helped by the Germans own failures.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Secondly, I can't imagine an invasion fleet doing too well while being bombed from the air and facing the biggest navy in the world. The allied invasion of Normandy showed how difficult it is to land troups even with air and naval superiority, Germany were in no position to make such an invasion of Britain.

I'd also add that the original German plans for invasion involved towing large barges across the Channel, a slow and cumbersome process that required very good weather and total dominance of air and sea, neither of which they had. The plans also wished to utilise airborne troops but the costly loss of a large number of their best trained men during the battle for Crete ended any real plans of using them in the future.

On the other hand Hitler may have thought that the British were ready to throw in the towel on which he was half right, as during May 1940 there was a significant movement within the British Cabinet to come to terms and leave the war, resulting in a fierce battle whilst the endgame of Dunkirk was in process. However, Churchill won and Lord Halifax, the centre of this movement and Chamberlain's Foreign Secretary at Munich, was shunted off to be ambassador in Washington.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Interesting debate whether the Germans would have pulled off a successful invasion. On the one hand they had supreme military strategists that had already presided over their blitzkrieg across Europe so expect their plans for Op Sealion would have been thorough and aided by their numerical and technical advantage. Albeit they would not have conducted an amphibious operation on such a scale. On the other hand they failed to persevere with the right airborne strategy - surely they would have gained air superiority if they had maintained a few more days pressure on the RAF rather than switch to bombing cities? While I like to think we would have repelled an invasion it is difficult to see how we could have sustained a robust defence without air cover and with the disarray after Dunkirk and lack of equipment. Even with the strength of the Navy we would have been an island under even greater seige at the mercy of the Luftwaffe and U-boats so realistically suspect they would have ground us down over many months. The Battle of Britain was pivotal but also helped by the Germans own failures.

I love this debate also!!


Yes completely right, Hitler was the worst General Germany had.

Robert C Daniels wrote about Hitler's failings

"Instead of venturing into Russia when he did, Hitler could have conducted an all out war against Great Britain, forcing the British to capitulate. Although a concerted military effort against the British in Egypt would have nearly undoubtedly caused the capitulation of the English forces in North Africa, it still may have required the invasion of the British Isles to force a British surrender. A successful invasion of Great Britain by Germany, if properly planned and executed, was feasible. The alternative to a bloody invasion, however, would have been to overrun and take control of the Middle Eastern oil fields—depleting the English of fuel—enlarge and update the Luftwaffe arm and U-boat fleet, and lay siege to the British Isles, forcing the British to sue for peace.

In May of 1941, just twenty months after invading Poland, Germany was very close to wrestling England's hold on North Africa. At England's other front, the British Isles themselves, she was struggling against both German bombers—although by this time the English air forces were getting the upper hand—and the constant U-boat fleet attacking England's much needed freight and supply shipping. It is argued by many, including German Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, that the war could have been won by Germany as early as the winter of 1941/42 had Hitler ordered a concerted effort against the British at this point. The ousting of the British from North Africa, the continuation of Germany's Luftwaffe and U-boat strangle-hold on the British Isles, and if necessary, the eventual all out invasion of the British Isles, could very possibly have brought Great Britain to her knees. This plan, according to Manstein, was actually advocated by the German Supreme Command.

Once the British were defeated in North Africa, German troops could have been sent east to the relatively lightly defended oil fields of the Middle East. The fall of these strategic oil fields would have deprived the English of valuable fuel, fuel that was crucial to fighting a modern war. England, without this crucial source of fuel, would not have been able to launch an aggressive attack against the Germans, and would even have been taxed in defending her own sky's and shores from German attacks."

He was advised not to invade Russia but to concentrate on the Med and N Africa. I suspect he felt that bombing England would make them sue for peace, He thought they had North africa won and he could beat Russia before winter. All whilst running low on fuel makes sense why he tried to bomb us out too. Add in his infatuation with Jews and communists and you can see where he went wrong.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

I'd also add that the original German plans for invasion involved towing large barges across the Channel, a slow and cumbersome process that required very good weather and total dominance of air and sea, neither of which they had. The plans also wished to utilise airborne troops but the costly loss of a large number of their best trained men during the battle for Crete ended any real plans of using them in the future.

On the other hand Hitler may have thought that the British were ready to throw in the towel on which he was half right, as during May 1940 there was a significant movement within the British Cabinet to come to terms and leave the war, resulting in a fierce battle whilst the endgame of Dunkirk was in process. However, Churchill won and Lord Halifax, the centre of this movement and Chamberlain's Foreign Secretary at Munich, was shunted off to be ambassador in Washington.

I also suspect Hitler hoped of some sort of peace with England rather than total war. He saw the English as close to the German people - I am so glad Churchill didn't entertain the nazis.

 

[Triggaaar]

On the other hand they failed to persevere with the right airborne strategy - surely they would have gained air superiority if they had maintained a few more days pressure on the RAF rather than switch to bombing cities?

That is what we were led to believe at school (I'm not patronising here) 20-30 years ago, but research has shown it to be an inaccurate assessment. Our airfields were never out of operation (the odd one for the odd day), our fighter numbers weren't decreasing as we were making more than we were losing, and even if the Luftwaffe had been more successful in reducing our production and destroying our aircraft in the south of the country, all that would have happened is our fighters would have retreated north, which was out of range for the 109s. From the north of the country the RAF could still have wrecked a German invasion fleet, while remaining safe from the Luftwaffe in the meantime.

Our army were ill equipped for a war with Germany, but Germany never had a hope of successfully invading due to the RAF and British navy.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

That is what we were led to believe at school (I'm not patronising here) 20-30 years ago, but research has shown it to be an inaccurate assessment. Our airfields were never out of operation (the odd one for the odd day), our fighter numbers weren't decreasing as we were making more than we were losing, and even if the Luftwaffe had been more successful in reducing our production and destroying our aircraft in the south of the country, all that would have happened is our fighters would have retreated north, which was out of range for the 109s. From the north of the country the RAF could still have wrecked a German invasion fleet, while remaining safe from the Luftwaffe in the meantime.

Our army were ill equipped for a war with Germany, but Germany never had a hope of successfully invading due to the RAF and British navy.

With so many troops tied up in Russia and Africa I doubt he could have formed a bridgehead, look how many troops we lost on the beaches even allowing for the fact the Germans were well dug in

 

[colinz]

What "won" the war was the fact that Hitler was too stupid to invade Britain so the USA had somewhere to land their bombs and planes and men to attack Germany.

Also for what ever reasons, Hitler decided not to use the Luftwaffe to finish off the British Army at Dunkirk.

 

[Norman Potting]

Re: German Navy (or lack of). Althought Hitler successfully invaded Norway it came at quite a high price. Also the German Navy considered that the day the war was lost was on the 3rd September 1939, according to Stephen Bungay.

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

Did it mention that the Goumiers raped their way across Italy?

How much of the film was focused on the battles of Monte Cassino?

Genuine curiosity.

i read somewhere that the moroccans commited more rapes in italy,than the rest of the war put together!

must of been horrific,when you think about what the russians did in germany and vice versa

 

[Dandyman]

i read somewhere that the moroccans commited more rapes in italy,than the rest of the war put together!

must of been horrific,when you think about what the russians did in germany and vice versa

The allegations or rape all seem to have been in Italy, given that the Goumiers also fought in Elba, France and Germany with often considerable success and no significant equivalent stories it tends to raise the question of what exactly happened in Italy that does not seem to have happened elsewhere.

 

[beorhthelm]

Interesting debate whether the Germans would have pulled off a successful invasion. On the one hand they had supreme military strategists that had already presided over their blitzkrieg across Europe so expect their plans for Op Sealion would have been thorough and aided by their numerical and technical advantage.

their success had been built purely on the blitzkrieg model, which no matter how good you plan cannot be reproduced when theres a big 50 mile wide moat in the way. though im no expert by the standards shown here, its clear the air strategy was to neutralise one arm of defense, knowing the Royal Navy would make any sea invasion difficult at best, even with air superiority. for D-Day we had both sea and air cover, years planning, using equipment and tactics already refined in the pacific theatre (and diversionary attacks had worked, and the fortune that the commander was away).

 

[Chicken Runner61]

After North Africa Rommel was sent to France and worked on strengthening the defences and again he was ignored by Hitler, Rundstedt and Guderian. He wanted to defeat the Allies before they could establish themselves ashore but was overruled because Hitler thought the main invasion would be on Calais and the others wanted to keep reserves of Panzers further back from the Atlantic wall to be able to switch them to Calais once the main invasion front was identified.

Rommel even then managed to contain the Allies breakout until he was badly injured by a british fighter plane hitting his staff car. He went back to Germany to recover but then Hitler who was still angry after his "failure" in africa offered him suicide or death.

Nice way to end for Germany's finest general.

 

[jakarta]

After North Africa Rommel was sent to France and worked on strengthening the defences and again he was ignored by Hitler, Rundstedt and Guderian. He wanted to defeat the Allies before they could establish themselves ashore but was overruled because Hitler thought the main invasion would be on Calais and the others wanted to keep reserves of Panzers further back from the Atlantic wall to be able to switch them to Calais once the main invasion front was identified.

Rommel even then managed to contain the Allies breakout until he was badly injured by a british fighter plane hitting his staff car. He went back to Germany to recover but then Hitler who was still angry after his "failure" in africa offered him suicide or death.

Nice way to end for Germany's finest general.

I think Hitler was actually a bit more angry that Rommel has joined the conspiritors plotting his downfall (although Rommel wanted him arrested rather than assassinated) and it was politically convenient for Hitler to have him commit suicide rather than a damaging Trial take place.

 

[Working class pride]

The Russians might raise an eyebrow by the assertion that Britain or the Americans won World War 2 in Europe.
Invasion of Britain? Britain still had the most powerful Navy, never mind the airforce and a huge waiting regular and voluntary army. The British Navy to this day argue that with respect to the RAF, whilst the battle of britain was a huge win, the Navy had any invasion covered and the Channel would have been sealed up very soon after any invasion. They also did a mock invasion a number of years ago with the German general who was in charge of Operation Sealion (he went on to become a NATO general) as a war games exercise. He managed to land a few hundred thousand German troops but with the supply lines sealed up by the Navy, the invasion was over and they had surrendered within a few days. As a matter of Sussex history, they were to land mainly in Sussex if it had happened.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

I know that Jakarta is, as I am, a big fan of "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay, and absolutely superb book about the BoB. Equally superb is, althought in a different style, is his "Alamein" which features a lot about Malta and the defence thereof which. Malta was an important base to disrupt the Allied supply lines and the appointment of Keith Park to organise it's air defence was arguably the nail in the coffin of the Afrika Korps.

All this probably nowt relevant to the original thread. Sully's comment "I think the answer is that all the men and women who died on the Allied side, regardless of creed or colour, were instrumental in the defeat of the axis and should be remembered for it" is, for me, the final word on the matter.

This is true,there were Muslim,Sikhs,Hindus and many other religions that fought in both wars...but also many of these fought for the Axis as well!

 

[Seagull on the wing]

I think Operation Pedestal was the turning point in the Med,,,,t the unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Med alive and the bravery of the Maltese people!

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

If you follow on from my suggestion that if the Germans had gained air superiority over Britain I am not so sure that our great Navy would have been quite as invincible and capable of preventing an invasion. Thanks to Nelson Britain did rule the waves for the best part of 140 years after 1805 but our arrogance cost us dearly early in the war when we lost battleships and aircraft carriers in the far east and nearer to home, both to air and u boat attacks. It is well documented how underestimated the air threat to surface ships was in the first years of the war. I am fiercely proud of our brave men and women and know that huge numbers would have laid down their lives in the defence of the mainland but tragically history shows we had a number of incompetent leaders (and poorly trained and equipped troops) who based their thinking on obsolete military tactics that were woefully exposed by both the Germans and Japanese.

As per my earlier post I love to think we would have put up a robust defence and thwarted any invasion. However I still suggest (my thoughts/fears, based on common sense, not those of a school text book) that if the Germans had prevailed in the Battle of Britain, without an effective RAF over a period of months the Luftwaffe and U boats would have inevitably ground down our Navy as well as having virtual freedom to bomb the mainland at will, placing these isles under seige, gradually rendering us vulnerable to invasion. Our Army was already hugely depleted of men equipment and morale after Dunkirk. Assuming we had not sued for peace, the south and east coasts of England would have been a killing field once the Germans invaded. It would have been a huge cost to the Germans but not sure our coastline could have been properly defended in 1940/41? How different things might be now.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I also suspect Hitler hoped of some sort of peace with England rather than total war. He saw the English as close to the German people - I am so glad Churchill didn't entertain the nazis.

no ,that was left to some of the the Royal family