VE Day celebrations.

[The_Kincardine]

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

Once the Western Allies were past the Ruhr they didn't head for Berlin, they swept down into Bavaria and Austria. The primary objective by this point was to avoid the Red Army going beyond the territory they were to administer under the Yalta agreement.

The fact this isn't common knowledge in the UK speaks volumes about the myths we tell ourselves.

Not common knowledge?  I'm pretty sure it's a given.  Maybe some US divisions wanted a 'race for Berlin' but my understanding was that we Brits generally didn't want to go much beyond the Yalta compact.  Here's an enjoyable vid about the Royal Scots Greys and our big Canadian pals intervening to help Denmark.  Very much a team effort.

 

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, D.A.F.C said:

Theres myths about the german army as well. Hitler kept going on about how much more hardware they had but in truth France had more of everything and were regarded as the best army in Europe.
Hitler went against his generals advice they reckoned that they couldn't beat france so easily and was then regarded as some sort of tactical genius which ultimately led him to take over and mess up the russian offensive due to being too far away from the action.
If germany didnt invade russia then things would have been very different. The russian offensive ended the war with d-day pretty much a side show.

Hitler also didn't think it was worth risking losses to wipe out the British enclave at Dunkirk - he believed that once the British were kicked out of continental Europe they'd never be back. Yeah, that didn't go entirely to plan for him.

I've read that France had more, and better trained soldiers than Germany, and better tanks and planes. But they fought a defensive, static war based on WW1, they didn't understand combined tactics like the Germans, and once their defensive positions were over-run they had no strategic ability to fall back. If they'd steamed right into the Ruhr while the Germans were in Poland things could have panned out very differently. 

1 hour ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Because an alarming number of people think Britain almost singlehandedly liberated Europe from the Nazis, and it's in nobody's interests to persuade them otherwise. It's a bit trickier to claim the same for Japan, considering the Americans made damn sure the world knew who'd ended that particular chapter.

Also worrying how many people refer to 'we' or 'us' winning World War II; you did f**k all, mate, it was the work of a generation who'll all be dead from old age soon. Stop trying to tag yourself on to other people's achievements and suffering by association.

They're happy giving the US some credit, and they have a wee patronising rub on the head for the Commonwealth colonials - well, the white ones, not so much the Indians. 2.5 million soldiers came from the Indian sub-continent, 87,000 were killed, they made up the third-biggest nationality in the invasion of Italy and we rewarded them with 2-3 million dead in the Bengal famine.

 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

1 hour ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Because an alarming number of people think Britain almost singlehandedly liberated Europe from the Nazis, and it's in nobody's interests to persuade them otherwise. It's a bit trickier to claim the same for Japan, considering the Americans made damn sure the world knew who'd ended that particular chapter.

Also worrying how many people refer to 'we' or 'us' winning World War II; you did f**k all, mate, it was the work of a generation who'll all be dead from old age soon. Stop trying to tag yourself on to other people's achievements and suffering by association.

Pretty much this. 

Churchill's contribution was to make a few rousing speeches and do what Stalin and Roosevelt told him. The one time he got involved in planning an operation was i think the Dieppe Raid, which to the surprise of absolutely no one was an utter fucking shambles. Britain's contribution in Europe was to manage to not get invaded until the Normandy Landings. By then the tide has turned massively against the Germans from the east. Their only out way was to hope for a bloody stalemate and a negotiated truce, imo. 

[Blootoon87]

Blitzed by Norman Ohler is well worth a read if you want an insight into Hitler's glaring tactical deficiencies as he spiralled into drug addiction.

[Tony Ferrino]

1 hour ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Because an alarming number of people think Britain almost singlehandedly liberated Europe from the Nazis, and it's in nobody's interests to persuade them otherwise. It's a bit trickier to claim the same for Japan, considering the Americans made damn sure the world knew who'd ended that particular chapter.

Also worrying how many people refer to 'we' or 'us' winning World War II; you did f**k all, mate, it was the work of a generation who'll all be dead from old age soon. Stop trying to tag yourself on to other people's achievements and suffering by association.

f**k you and your left wing bias, go and shag Laura K in your Palestinian shit hole.

[BFTD]

Wid.

[hearthammer]

I'm suitably impressed by the levels of de facto knowledge on here regarding the conclusion of the war.  Interspersed with opinions and views about particular manoeuvres, there's a great degree of knowledge being shown. 

Friday will be a wankathon for the english media and sentiments of kincy's "we Brits" (see above) will be forefront, whilst waving their union flags and telling each other how resilient and "british" the whole success was.   

If those promoting the charities for the poppy brigade really want to boost their coffers, they should release a dvd of captain Tom knobbing Vera Lynn in Dover on Friday morning/afternoon/evening till they''ve finished the deed and are both seen smoking a Players full strength fag.

Only trying to help

[The_Kincardine]

25 minutes ago, hearthammer said:

I'm suitably impressed by the levels of de facto knowledge on here regarding the conclusion of the war.  Interspersed with opinions and views about particular manoeuvres, there's a great degree of knowledge being shown. 

Friday will be a wankathon for the english media and sentiments of kincy's "we Brits" (see above) will be forefront, whilst waving their union flags and telling each other how resilient and "british" the whole success was.   

Is that the part where I praise the Canadians and called it a team effort?

[Fullerene]

9 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

If germany didnt invade russia then things would have been very different. The russian offensive ended the war with d-day pretty much a side show.

War to the east was what the Nazis always wanted.  Countries to the west were invaded and subdued but Poland and Russia offered new land for the German people (Lebensraum) and if all went to plan this conquered land would have become part of a Greater Germany.

The reverse happened and the Soviet Union gained new land.  Vilnius is the capital of Lithuania but before the war it wasn't part of that country.

[hearthammer]

For anyone struggling with or unsure about what the "nation" should be doing to celebrate like a true brit tomorrow :  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294477/Get-ready-party-like-1945.html

 

Food for thought 

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by hearthammer

[GordonS]

9 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

Pretty much this. 

Churchill's contribution was to make a few rousing speeches and do what Stalin and Roosevelt told him. The one time he got involved in planning an operation was i think the Dieppe Raid, which to the surprise of absolutely no one was an utter fucking shambles. Britain's contribution in Europe was to manage to not get invaded until the Normandy Landings. By then the tide has turned massively against the Germans from the east. Their only out way was to hope for a bloody stalemate and a negotiated truce, imo. 

I wouldn't downplay the success of the Battle of Britain. German planes outnumbered British (and Polish and Czechoslovak, obv) by nearly 2 to 1. If Germany had gained air superiority then a naval invasion was next. Nobody should underestimate how utterly fkn horrific that would have been - not least to Britain's 300,000 to 400,000 Jews. The Battle of Britain was won through superior training, tactics and technology and it was the only time until Stalingrad that Germany suffered any meaningful reverse. 

I wouldn't underestimate the role Churchill played at that time either. Under a different leader Britain could have signed an agreement with Germany to stay out of the war after the Battle of Britain. Instead, he rallied people behind the idea of pushing on and opening new fronts, especially in Africa.

One of the things about remembering WW2 is most of what's said is true, both critical and glorious, at the same time. So Churchill was a poor tactical leader who allowed millions of Indians to starve and said racist AF stuff, but he was also an inspirational figurehead who really did help millions of people to persevere hold their nerve when everything looked lost.

Though what the flag-waving haufwits also forget is that the first thing Britain did at the end of the war was boot him out in a landslide election win for Labour.

[101]

Am I the only one a bit uneasy with a party to essentially celebrate a whole load of folk dying. Some sober remembrance and making sure it never happens again would in my opinion be a better act of remembrance, we could start by being an active part in the political union formed to stop this happening again.  

[8MileBU]

10 hours ago, Fullerene said:

Strange remark to make on a Football Forum!

Pretty good ‘telt’ from @BigFatTabbyDave though!

[Have some faith in Magic]

The positive is that the lockdown has stopped the bunting and street parties. 

It will just be the odd racist building papermache spitfires in their garden and BBC wanking themselves into a frenzy which is easily avoided.  

[J_Stewart]

18 hours ago, ali_91 said:

Get up early doors and smash a can of Carling to get in the mood for the days festivities. 
 

Full English for breakfast, with a second can of Carling. 
 

Rerun of the ‘66 World Cup final and then outside to the sun with 20 lambert and butler and the rest of my crate of Carling. 

Finish the day with pie and mash and The Great Escape. 

 Britain never, ever shall be slaves. 

This genuinely brings a tear to my eye, and I will be following your example with my top off in the front garden, kissing my St George's Cross tattoo on the hour, every hour, showing the world just why we won the bloody war, and that Brexit means Brexit. Might try and rouse some community spirit with a few renditions of Ten German Bombers sung loud and proud as well. Just a bit of banter innit.

God save our gracious Queen.

[Fullerene]

28 minutes ago, 101 said:

Am I the only one a bit uneasy with a party to essentially celebrate a whole load of folk dying. Some sober remembrance and making sure it never happens again would in my opinion be a better act of remembrance, we could start by being an active part in the political union formed to stop this happening again.  

It is not celebrating the war.  It is celebrating the end of it.

Yes we should engage more with the other countries and stop pretending we are somehow different while they are all much the same.

[GordonS]

28 minutes ago, 101 said:

Am I the only one a bit uneasy with a party to essentially celebrate a whole load of folk dying. Some sober remembrance and making sure it never happens again would in my opinion be a better act of remembrance, we could start by being an active part in the political union formed to stop this happening again.  

I once visited a German ossuary in Normandy that holds the remains of 12,000 German soldiers. There's a little visitor centre and the clear message is "we got to this stage through hate, racism and a belief in ethnic superiority; let's make sure we never fkn do that again, eh?" There was a lot of stuff in international youth work, exchange trips, that kind of thing. It's quite a different message than anything you'll see at a Commonwealth war cemetery.

I can understand the sense of celebration around VE Day, but the jingoism is entirely missing the point. 

[renton]

10 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Not common knowledge?  I'm pretty sure it's a given.  Maybe some US divisions wanted a 'race for Berlin' but my understanding was that we Brits generally didn't want to go much beyond the Yalta compact.  Here's an enjoyable vid about the Royal Scots Greys and our big Canadian pals intervening to help Denmark.  Very much a team effort.

 

The British very much did want to race on to Berlin. However, by this time the rancor in the allied high command was so bad that such a coordinated thrust was impossible. Montgomery, tactful soul that he was had upset pretty much everyone in a US uniform by this point, and as his command was on the direct path to Berlin it would've been his operation. Bradley, the US 12th Army Group commander would not stomach such an operation, particularly as Monty did not have enough British troops to go it alone and would require US troops as well.

He and Eisenhower (the Supreme Allied Commander who Monty had spent 8 months calling unfit for the job, not without reason) became fixated on the German propaganda about a national redoubt in Bavaria. Bradley believes in this and felt that his command could be seen to be the one finishing off the Germans once and for all. The redoubt was a myth, obviously. 

So Eisenhower turned the bulk of his force southwards, leaving Montgomery to push north East to secure Denmark. Ike communicated unilaterally with Stalin about the change. Obviously Berlin was deep in the Soviet Zone so Ike felt he had justification for not committing forces to an operation that the West would need to withdraw from anyway. The British Government, from Churchill down were furious as they saw Berlin as necessary political capital to hold the Soviets to their promises. In hindsight the British were right. Ultimately it can all be traced back to the competing egos and personalities of the allied generals under Eisnehowers somewhat lacking command.

[renton]

10 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

Pretty much this. 

Churchill's contribution was to make a few rousing speeches and do what Stalin and Roosevelt told him. The one time he got involved in planning an operation was i think the Dieppe Raid, which to the surprise of absolutely no one was an utter fucking shambles. Britain's contribution in Europe was to manage to not get invaded until the Normandy Landings. By then the tide has turned massively against the Germans from the east. Their only out way was to hope for a bloody stalemate and a negotiated truce, imo. 

Britain's contribution was a wee bit more than that. It included securing the supply line across the Atlantic in one the longest, most difficult campaigns of the war (without which not a single US soldier or tank heading to the USSR via lendlease could occur), providing the bulk of forces required to close off the Mediterranean to the Nazis and providing the base, and 50% of the troops to the Noramndy campaign which was really the decisive battle in Western Europe. It wasnt unti autumn 1944 that the US started to dominate the balance of forces significantly.

[bennett]

45 minutes ago, GordonS said:

I wouldn't downplay the success of the Battle of Britain. German planes outnumbered British (and Polish and Czechoslovak, obv) by nearly 2 to 1. If Germany had gained air superiority then a naval invasion was next. Nobody should underestimate how utterly fkn horrific that would have been - not least to Britain's 300,000 to 400,000 Jews. The Battle of Britain was won through superior training, tactics and technology and it was the only time until Stalingrad that Germany suffered any meaningful reverse. 

I wouldn't underestimate the role Churchill played at that time either. Under a different leader Britain could have signed an agreement with Germany to stay out of the war after the Battle of Britain. Instead, he rallied people behind the idea of pushing on and opening new fronts, especially in Africa.

One of the things about remembering WW2 is most of what's said is true, both critical and glorious, at the same time. So Churchill was a poor tactical leader who allowed millions of Indians to starve and said racist AF stuff, but he was also an inspirational figurehead who really did help millions of people to persevere hold their nerve when everything looked lost.

Though what the flag-waving haufwits also forget is that the first thing Britain did at the end of the war was boot him out in a landslide election win for Labour.

Planes wasn't the main problem in the battle of Britain, it was trained pilots. While Raf pilots who bailed out could be back flying again the same day, while Luftwaffe pilots were captured and they lost a lot of experienced pilots that way.

The me109s poor range and a working radar system gave fighter command a huge advantage, as you said superior technology and tactics. 

 

A naval invasion would have been highly unlikely, the kriegsmarine was devastated after Norway and any invasion fleet would have been pulverised by the home fleet. Even with air cover trying to cross the channel with a fleet of river barges would've been madness,  their losses would have been horrendous.