WW II could we have won without the Muslims?

[Chicken Runner61]

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.

I think every battle had its part to play, obviously some were more pivotal than others BOB, Stalingrad, Bulge, Malta, El Alamein etc etc but its ridiculous to be sure that one battle won WW2 and IMO the battle of Britain did not win us the war but bought us the time to be able to fight back.

I am of the opinion that Hitler did a lot to lose the war too.

With regards to invasion of Britain, I just think the Germans were running out of fuel and the amount required to get a massive army across the channel and on to the Sussex beaches to form a beach head to break out from would have been immense. I can see why the piers were a big worry now. Imagine being able to moor up on the Palace or West Pier and being able to set up camp in Pool Valley. Mind you getting the Panzers past the ballroom and the helter skelter would have been fun.

Joking aside though I don't buy into us being prepared though and if the Nazis had been able to cross the channel i suspect they might have over run us. We were pretty broke and morale was not high in 1940 and we needed victories to spur us on.

 

[Working class pride]

I think every battle had its part to play, obviously some were more pivotal than others BOB, Stalingrad, Bulge, Malta, El Alamein etc etc but its ridiculous to be sure that one battle won WW2 and IMO the battle of Britain did not win us the war but bought us the time to be able to fight back.

I am of the opinion that Hitler did a lot to lose the war too.

With regards to invasion of Britain, I just think the Germans were running out of fuel and the amount required to get a massive army across the channel and on to the Sussex beaches to form a beach head to break out from would have been immense. I can see why the piers were a big worry now. Imagine being able to moor up on the Palace or West Pier and being able to set up camp in Pool Valley. Mind you getting the Panzers past the ballroom and the helter skelter would have been fun.

Joking aside though I don't buy into us being prepared though and if the Nazis had been able to cross the channel i suspect they might have over run us. We were pretty broke and morale was not high in 1940 and we needed victories to spur us on.

Thats a common view, and unless it happened then we will never know, but its not a view shared by the German general who surrendered after 3 days in the war games scenario where they replayed operation sealion in a war game. Also invading an island, with a huge navy, never mind an airforce is bloody hard. The population was also mobilised and whilst we all joke at the home guard, they actually included fit farmers who were bloody good shots, never mind the regular army. The germans also didnt have the landing craft. Dday took years to prepare for. Either way, the russians were winning the war before dday

 

[tonymgc]

i may be wrong but i recall reading a book about the paras and they had a lot of admiration for certain ss units. i think the book was called green eyed boys but as i said, i could be mistaken

Very true. The paras who were captured by & fought against the 9th & 10th SS at Arnhem often comented about the good treatment & chivalry of the units they fought against.
The german paratroopers were also known for their chivalry on the whole.

 

[Dandyman]

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!

Bollocks - a small number of Muslims were in the Bosnian SS and at it's height the Indian National Army had about 40,000 members (some of whom had clearly been pressured by the Japanese). In contrast to this there were over 2.5 million Indian volunteers on the Allied side.

 

[looney]

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

Not quite true. Its to do with the ratio.

There were an estimated 7,000 rapes in Italy out of 12,000 Goumiers of which their were I beleive about 24 convictions.

Rapes in Eastern Germany were i Beleive nearer 200,000 out of millions of red army troops so a lower percentage, with I beleive no Convictions.

Similar tail in the far east with 100,000s of "Comfort women" with about 6 convictions for rape.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

can someone explain to me why there were british soldiers fighting for the germans?

 

[Chicken Runner61]

can someone explain to me why there were british soldiers fighting for the germans?

What are you referring to?

There were Brits who fought for the Germans and Germans who fought on the British side as happens in most wars.

 

[8ace]

can someone explain to me why there were british soldiers fighting for the germans?

Mostly POWs who were anti-commie, not many of them though. I believe relatives of the former Conservative MP for Brighton Pavilion may have had some connection with it.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I think as far as smaller nations go Australia's effort in the war was quite immense.

 

[FamilyGuy]

the americans primary interest was destorying japan,europe was really a side show

Wrong. There was always a formal and agreed allied plan based on "Germany first" - and so Europe was always the main focus of the combined Allied forces. Read "D-Day" by Stephen Ambrose, or even better "Masters and Commanders" by Andrew Roberts.

btw 2500 volunteers hardly constitutes "a Division".

 

[FamilyGuy]

can someone explain to me why there were british soldiers fighting for the germans?

Mostly POWs who were anti-commie, not many of them though. I believe relatives of the former Conservative MP for Brighton Pavilion may have had some connection with it.

True, a few men recruited from PoW Camps by other Brits - basically a german PR exercise attempt that failed, and as a result the few UK SS that survived ended up fighting the Russians in Berlin 1945 as they had nowhere else to go!

 

[FamilyGuy]

Originally Posted by Chicken Runner61
I think every battle had its part to play, obviously some were more pivotal than others BOB, Stalingrad, Bulge, Malta, El Alamein etc etc but its ridiculous to be sure that one battle won WW2 and IMO the battle of Britain did not win us the war but bought us the time to be able to fight back.

I am of the opinion that Hitler did a lot to lose the war too.

With regards to invasion of Britain, I just think the Germans were running out of fuel and the amount required to get a massive army across the channel and on to the Sussex beaches to form a beach head to break out from would have been immense. I can see why the piers were a big worry now. Imagine being able to moor up on the Palace or West Pier and being able to set up camp in Pool Valley. Mind you getting the Panzers past the ballroom and the helter skelter would have been fun.

Joking aside though I don't buy into us being prepared though and if the Nazis had been able to cross the channel i suspect they might have over run us. We were pretty broke and morale was not high in 1940 and we needed victories to spur us on.
Thats a common view, and unless it happened then we will never know, but its not a view shared by the German general who surrendered after 3 days in the war games scenario where they replayed operation sealion in a war game. Also invading an island, with a huge navy, never mind an airforce is bloody hard. The population was also mobilised and whilst we all joke at the home guard, they actually included fit farmers who were bloody good shots, never mind the regular army. The germans also didnt have the landing craft. Dday took years to prepare for. Either way, the russians were winning the war before dday

I think you'll find that in reality in 1939/40 we had little or no standing army left after Dunkirk (I think we were still heavily relying on volunteers), we'd left significant Ordnance and Equipment in Europe when we left Dunkirk. The airforce was small and inexperienced at best (as evidenced by the lack of military success until Monty went to Africa) and our army only grew after Dunkirk and before/during BoB. We were also led by inexperienced Officers who were still educated in WW1 tactics (again as evidenced by the BEF experience and Dunkirk). The German army and airforce was the largest in the world (the americans hardly had one at all in 1939/40) and their officers had more experience and newer thinking then we did.
The germans had plenty of landing craft but no experience in using them (nobody did, we learned by practicing in Ireland) their Landing Craft were photo'd by the RAF sitting along the Dutch coast awaiting the order. germay also had access to all the oil from western europe for fuel, and a pretty good navy of their own at that time.
We'd already made plans to shift the Royal Family and Government to Canada - and a farmer who was a crack shot with a 12 bore still couldn't stop a tank.
The reason they didn't invade was that Hitler wanted / expected the UK to surrender and he wanted us to join him against Russia. Had they followed up immediately after Dunkirk then at the very least we would have been in a lot of trouble - and as for war games, if they replayed D-Day and beyond in a War Game then it would have been easy for the Allies to come out as losers too.
3 days in May!
That's the view from here anyway =0)

 

[Norman Potting]

What are you referring to?

There were Brits who fought for the Germans and Germans who fought on the British side as happens in most wars.

Going way way off the the original topic these relatives of Herman Goering and Adolf Hitler had a very different war to their uncle/brother.

Werner G. Goering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Patrick Stuart-Houston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Albert Göring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Albert Goering in particular had a very different view of the Nazi's than his older brother and the story of his life makes fascinating reading.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Originally Posted by Chicken Runner61
I think every battle had its part to play, obviously some were more pivotal than others BOB, Stalingrad, Bulge, Malta, El Alamein etc etc but its ridiculous to be sure that one battle won WW2 and IMO the battle of Britain did not win us the war but bought us the time to be able to fight back.

I am of the opinion that Hitler did a lot to lose the war too.

With regards to invasion of Britain, I just think the Germans were running out of fuel and the amount required to get a massive army across the channel and on to the Sussex beaches to form a beach head to break out from would have been immense. I can see why the piers were a big worry now. Imagine being able to moor up on the Palace or West Pier and being able to set up camp in Pool Valley. Mind you getting the Panzers past the ballroom and the helter skelter would have been fun.

Joking aside though I don't buy into us being prepared though and if the Nazis had been able to cross the channel i suspect they might have over run us. We were pretty broke and morale was not high in 1940 and we needed victories to spur us on.
Thats a common view, and unless it happened then we will never know, but its not a view shared by the German general who surrendered after 3 days in the war games scenario where they replayed operation sealion in a war game. Also invading an island, with a huge navy, never mind an airforce is bloody hard. The population was also mobilised and whilst we all joke at the home guard, they actually included fit farmers who were bloody good shots, never mind the regular army. The germans also didnt have the landing craft. Dday took years to prepare for. Either way, the russians were winning the war before dday

I think you'll find that in reality in 1939/40 we had little or no standing army left after Dunkirk (I think we were still heavily relying on volunteers), we'd left significant Ordnance and Equipment in Europe when we left Dunkirk. The airforce was small and inexperienced at best (as evidenced by the lack of military success until Monty went to Africa) and our army only grew after Dunkirk and before/during BoB. We were also led by inexperienced Officers who were still educated in WW1 tactics (again as evidenced by the BEF experience and Dunkirk). The German army and airforce was the largest in the world (the americans hardly had one at all in 1939/40) and their officers had more experience and newer thinking then we did.
The germans had plenty of landing craft but no experience in using them (nobody did, we learned by practicing in Ireland) their Landing Craft were photo'd by the RAF sitting along the Dutch coast awaiting the order. germay also had access to all the oil from western europe for fuel, and a pretty good navy of their own at that time.
We'd already made plans to shift the Royal Family and Government to Canada - and a farmer who was a crack shot with a 12 bore still couldn't stop a tank.
The reason they didn't invade was that Hitler wanted / expected the UK to surrender and he wanted us to join him against Russia. Had they followed up immediately after Dunkirk then at the very least we would have been in a lot of trouble - and as for war games, if they replayed D-Day and beyond in a War Game then it would have been easy for the Allies to come out as losers too.
3 days in May!
That's the view from here anyway =0)

I'd go along with all of that - but not so sure about the oil though.

I've read that the Germans were running low generally and it was touch and go if they ran out of fuel a lot of the time - Driving those tanks through fast for Blitzkreig must have used up loads of fuel and although I understand they had some supplies of oil in and around germany they were reliant on Russia and Turkey. Fuel must have come from refineries in germany and getting the crude there in the first place must have been a problem and I'm not sure how they got it through by sea or road ? Did they have pipelines then? If it came by sea they must have come through the baltic or some how through the Black Sea region.

I also understand Standard Oil USA was supplying them right through the war so how did that get there?

Also another mystery is how much oil was coming from N africa? Loads came via Suez region at that time but is that why Italy (and then Germany) & us were fighting over it? again I understand that we were pretty ignorant at that time at where the oil was and there did not seem to be plants or refineries there.

As oil seems to be the major factor in wars today I find it fascinating how must have played a part then and those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it!

It makes me cringe to see how the politicians (including Blair Cameron Obama Clinton Sarcozy & Merkle) in the last 5 years have firstly been up Ghadaffi's arse and then with the arab spring and the drop in tax revenues from BP etc rush in to "help" the people of Libya whilst Syria and others are left to resolve themselves.

I'm pretty sure we will find an excuse to help the people of Iran soon especially if Saudi reserves are not as high as claimed!

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

long winded effort to what's really a simple answer ,muslims helped but over all Hitlers obssesions and fighting two super powers USA/USSR was only going to end one way , give some credit to the German armed forces for trying to hold the line against all odds.

 

[daveinprague]

Why do you want to give credit to the German armed forces when they contained Walloons, Ukrainians, French, Italians, Norwegians, etc etc etc....... and what are muslims 'trying to get away with'....you keep forgetting to answer that.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

long winded effort to what's really a simple answer ,muslims helped but over all Hitlers obssesions and fighting two super powers USA/USSR was only going to end one way , give some credit to the German armed forces for trying to hold the line against all odds.

They weren't super powers in the true sense of the word though were they?

Russia had a lot of troops, America had a lot of resources.

What everybody lacked that the Germans didn't was a fine manufacturing armaments industry and stolen gold/diamonds and slave labour to produce it.

Thats why after the war the americans got Bayer and a few other companies to pay it back.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Why do you want to give credit to the German armed forces when they contained Walloons, Ukrainians, French, Italians, Norwegians, etc etc etc....... and what are muslims 'trying to get away with'....you keep forgetting to answer that.

calm down you old duffer

 

[portlock seagull]

long winded effort to what's really a simple answer ,muslims helped but over all Hitlers obssesions and fighting two super powers USA/USSR was only going to end one way , give some credit to the German armed forces for trying to hold the line against all odds.

Of course, if they hadn't started the war or declared war on these 2 superpowers during the course of then holding out against all odds wouldn't come into it. Ow, and the fact that by then, the Wehrmacht was complicit in crimes against the Russian people so they knew what they'd suffer if they didn't fight to the bitter end. Apart from that, they were well trained; indoctrinated some might say.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Mostly POWs who were anti-commie, not many of them though. I believe relatives of the former Conservative MP for Brighton Pavilion may have had some connection with it.

He did and was hung for treason after the war.