Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

11 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I read this but I question your countenance of despair.

We (and the Ukrainians) could of simply accepted at the outset the the Russians would quickly, within 48 hours,  overrun Ukraine and of done nothing. Simply let Ukraine become a client state (again) and accept whatever demographic changes Putin envisages before he moved on to yet newer conquests.

Equally the USA in 1940 could of accepted the same logic as to the fate of the UK - there were numerous UK voices at the time that sort a compromise / peace deal with Hitler. Perhaps he would have left George VI on the throne but more likely reinstated Edward plus a puppet government of sorts. Would of saved a lot of lives! You, even today might still of been a citizen of the German Reich.

No. Sovereign states have a right to defend themselves and nothing is a given - certainly not that Russia will prevail in Donbas. Yes it may well be bloody but if the Ukrainians are up for the fight (and more so successful) then this is likely to be the best way to stymie Putin's ambitions and ultimately bring about change in Russia itself.  

Roll over without a fight and it may well be another country, your country, next.

Yes Yellow Fever. Nothing can be argued against any of your points, except that they are in total disregard of any claims of justification by Putin's Russians. 

I point to the reference to the Donbas War above.

Of course it is twentieth century thinking, but that's the way it is and if Russia needs challenging because of it then the sacrifice of Ukrainians by the thousands, accompanied by NATO pussyfooting, indicates that this war might not be the right way of going about this, especially as sanctions seem to be taking time impose their aims.

In the meantime, an horrific carnage is unfolding. It seems likely to escalate.  

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

A brilliant comment on the BBC site of dark humour that made me smile but equally nails Putin's dissembling. (It matters not if the ship is sinking or otherwise)

Comment posted by Eduardo, today at 11:54 Eduardo

 

"The ship has not sunk, it is on a special underwater mission"

Edited April 14, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Speaking to a Romanian lady this morning about what her family think of what is happening back in Romania. She said at first they weren't worried because they are in NATO but see they prevarication by NATO countries, they see the Missiles they have on their soil as an invitation rather than a defence.

[horsefly 4,287]

3 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

 "...... indeed, I said elsewhere that all wars must end in some kind of negotiated settlement."

Ah! I must have missed something. Feel free to show where you said that and how do you suppose that this settlement might differ from Putin's previous demands, which were outlined by Zelensky some four weeks ago on American television? Remember the four points.

In the meantime ..............!

As for the rest of your frantic and selective to the point of being the usual hyperbolic rant,  am I correct in thinking that you believe Mariupol will eventually be retrieved by the Ukrainian forces without serious NATO involvement?

As for the Donbas War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

May be, just may be, it is fuller consideration of this long-standing issue that will be the key to your 'negotiated settlement.'

As ever, not one single word in response to my points showing up your standard non-sequiturs and factual inaccuracies. Just more bilge in the hope that you can deflect from your previous nonsense. So, perhaps you can at least address  just one of those points and please explain how the following two comments you made are not in flat contradiction:

" On the one hand, though, we have those assuming his intention is to create a greater Russia, USSR style, encompassing the Baltic States and further. On the other hand we have the likes of Alexander Stubb (?) ex-prime minister of Finland emphasising on World News that such a threat is a myth and nothing to be concerned about."

"In the Alexander Stubb television interview I listened to, he spoke of Putin's vision of a greater Russia which included Ukraine and Belarus, but not Finland.

That both his own country and Sweden sought economic ties towards Western Europe and the EU at the end of the Cold War was considered by him to be a natural process. That both countries are now leaning even more towards NATO membership is a comment upon Putin's unpredictability."

As for your claim: "am I correct in thinking that you believe Mariupol will eventually be retrieved by the Ukrainian forces without serious NATO involvement?. Yet again you are entirely incorrect in trying to make yet more unfounded assumptions about what I think. Perhaps you should do the decent thing and actually respond to what I have said instead of persistently attempting to dissemble with fabricated lies to suit your own purposes. I quote your ACTUAL words in order to point out the nonsense you so frequently spout.  

As for the conflict in Donbass, I  long ago posted a link to the very page you have just linked highlighting that the long standing dispute between Russia and Ukraine over that territory was the focus of the Minsk protocols (I and II), the object of which was to achieve a peaceful resolution of the dispute. Only someone like you would think it necessary to point out that Donbass will obviously be a focus of any future resolution of the conflict. Feel free to point out where I have said anything different.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

As ever, not one single word in response to my points showing up your standard non-sequiturs and factual inaccuracies. Just more bilge in the hope that you can deflect from your previous nonsense. So, perhaps you can at least address  just one of those points and please explain how the following two comments you made are not in flat contradiction:

" On the one hand, though, we have those assuming his intention is to create a greater Russia, USSR style, encompassing the Baltic States and further. On the other hand we have the likes of Alexander Stubb (?) ex-prime minister of Finland emphasising on World News that such a threat is a myth and nothing to be concerned about."

"In the Alexander Stubb television interview I listened to, he spoke of Putin's vision of a greater Russia which included Ukraine and Belarus, but not Finland.

That both his own country and Sweden sought economic ties towards Western Europe and the EU at the end of the Cold War was considered by him to be a natural process. That both countries are now leaning even more towards NATO membership is a comment upon Putin's unpredictability."

As for your claim: "am I correct in thinking that you believe Mariupol will eventually be retrieved by the Ukrainian forces without serious NATO involvement?. Yet again you are entirely incorrect in trying to make yet more unfounded assumptions about what I think. Perhaps you should do the decent thing and actually respond to what I have said instead of persistently attempting to dissemble with fabricated lies to suit your own purposes. I quote your ACTUAL words in order to point out the nonsense you so frequently spout.  

As for the conflict in Donbass, I  long ago posted a link to the very page you have just linked highlighting that the long standing dispute between Russia and Ukraine over that territory was the focus of the Minsk protocols (I and II), the object of which was to achieve a peaceful resolution of the dispute. Only someone like you would think it necessary to point out that Donbass will obviously be a focus of any future resolution of the conflict. Feel free to point out where I have said anything different.

"...... indeed, I said elsewhere that all wars must end in some kind of negotiated settlement."

Ah! I must have missed something. Feel free to show where you said that and how do you suppose that this settlement might differ from Putin's previous demands, which were outlined by Zelensky some four weeks ago on American television? Remember the four points."

I ask again. Or are we likely to get the usual egotistical selectivity that seems to be your trademark?

Are you really the warmongering wordsmith content to acquiesce in his own comfortable security whilst spouting constant emotive bravado, as a standard-bearer for a far away cause, that seems to be the case?

I would never claim that my brief visit to that area some years ago made me even the slightest expert on the long-standing and ingrained problems that exist there, but it did, at least, provide me with a valid assessment of the temperature of the water and sufficient to  judge your own parochial piffle for what it is.

Edited April 14, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 12/04/2022 at 10:09, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

Whataboutism, half-truths and propaganda to deflect from Putin's ongoing genocidal war in Ukraine. Nice. 

Libya was a UN-mandated mission comprising both NATO and other Middle Eastern nations. Note that neither China or Russia vetoed the intervention.

And none of it remotely compares to the genocide Putin is currently conducting in Ukraine, let alone the huge number of atrocities he is responsible for in Syria. Chemical weapons, cluster bombs, targetting civilians, rape of mothers in front of their children,  all fair game in Putin's book. 

Seriously, if you hate the West so much, get out and go enjoy Putin's utopia. Maybe you can get a job polishing the deck of his superyacht bought with the proceeds of his corruption, all the while muttering to yourself about 'neoliberalism'. 

I do not hate anybody, but I'm not a N.zi supporter. You are not allowed to make your own mind up, BBC footage from the past documenting the N.zi's you obviously have no problems supporting.

Libya was UN mandated, Syrian chemical weapons attacks have been clearly made up by the white helmets and de Messieurs death, falling from his balcony shows you what happens if you get the footage wrong, more than once.

Here is a little reminder of the pals we are supping with, soon to come here.

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/uk-newspaper-hides-ukraine-nazis-truth-in-plain-sight-the-new-atlas_EAaxoA5U9353OWX.html

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

1 hour ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

I do not hate anybody, but I'm not a N.zi supporter. You are not allowed to make your own mind up, BBC footage from the past documenting the N.zi's you obviously have no problems supporting.

Libya was UN mandated, Syrian chemical weapons attacks have been clearly made up by the white helmets and de Messieurs death, falling from his balcony shows you what happens if you get the footage wrong, more than once.

Here is a little reminder of the pals we are supping with, soon to come here.

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/uk-newspaper-hides-ukraine-nazis-truth-in-plain-sight-the-new-atlas_EAaxoA5U9353OWX.html

Do I think there are N.azis in Ukraine? Yes I do. Do I think there are N.azis in Russia? Yes, I do. Do I think there are N.azis in the UK? Again, I would yes. Actually I would suspect there are far-right as well as far-left groups operating in most countries. 

What I can't say is that any one faction has a dominant control over a country that one could describe the entire country and all its people can be described as fascist or whatever other label you want to apply. However, looking at all the evidence that is put before me I would say the current Russian government is behaving in a far more totalitarian, fascist way than the country it is trying to conquer. Now the Russians can try to persuade me otherwise and I'm open to listen to their evidence but I'm seeing and hearing is a one-sided narrative of brutality against a civilian population that hasn't been seen in Ukraine for the past eighty years. 

We get that politics is nuanced and not all the black and white picture that the mainstream media likes to paint, which is why most of us have a deep distrust of the mainstream. Just look on this forum at how links are shot down and discredited. We are not as gullible as you'd like to believe. And right now we believe the weight of evidence will show that the Putin government is commuting war crimes in Ukraine and hopefully justice will be done. 

[horsefly 4,287]

23 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

"...... indeed, I said elsewhere that all wars must end in some kind of negotiated settlement."

Ah! I must have missed something. Feel free to show where you said that and how do you suppose that this settlement might differ from Putin's previous demands, which were outlined by Zelensky some four weeks ago on American television? Remember the four points."

I ask again. Or are we likely to get the usual egotistical selectivity that seems to be your trademark?

Are you really the warmongering wordsmith content to acquiesce in his own comfortable security whilst spouting constant emotive bravado, as a standard-bearer for a far away cause, that seems to be the case?

I would never claim that my brief visit to that area some years ago made me even the slightest expert on the long-standing and ingrained problems that exist there, but it did, at least, provide me with a valid assessment of the temperature of the water and sufficient to  judge your own parochial piffle for what it is.

So still not a single word in response to me pointing out your ignorant contradictions and factual inaccuracies. You really are an arrogant buffoon. And do feel free to point out where I have behaved as a "warmongering wordsmith". I have said repeatedly that it is for the Ukrainian people alone to determine how they wish to respond to the invasion of their sovereign territory. They have chosen to fight to protect their country and it is right that the USA and Europe has supported them in their choice to protect their democracy. 

It was YOU that said they should acquiesce to all of Putin's demands within days of the invasion. Had they done so Kyiv would currently be occupied by the Russian invaders. The idea that a short visit by a buffoon like you means you have "valid assessment of the temperature of the water" is both arrogant and ridiculous, as is proven by your persistent call for appeasement to Russian demands. If you haven't noticed, the actual citizens of that country have the very opposite view to your ignorant assessment.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

Oh! Potty-mouth has finally emerged.

Despite  some clear restraint, desperation clearly gets the better of that particularly pathetic ego-driven buffoon, and he resorts to the personal stuff.

Like for like, Billy Boy, I did warn you.

So many words, yet nothing new. The same need for flannel, the same need for self-justification.

How sad.

Feel free to answer the latest of my many unanswered questions on this  matter. When exactly did you previously state anything to back up your latest claim that you consider a "negotiated settlement" was  the means to end this atrocity?

Third time lucky?

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[Badger 2,405]

On 14/04/2022 at 10:08, Yellow Fever said:

Equally the USA in 1940 could of accepted the same logic as to the fate of the UK - there were numerous UK voices at the time that sort a compromise / peace deal with Hitler. Perhaps he would have left George VI on the throne but more likely reinstated Edward plus a puppet government of sorts. Would of saved a lot of lives! You, even today might still of been a citizen of the German Reich.

Just to correct the historical record, the US did abandon us to our fate at the start of the Second World War. Both US political parties fought campaigns which explicitly stated that they would keep out of the war. It was a promise that they honoured until Hitler, inexplicably to many, declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbour. They did sell us some retired ships but charged us very high prices for them and exhausted our gold reserves. To be fair, we did default on the loans we had from them from WW1.

You are correct about the compromise deal. Most of the Conservative party wanted some form of compromise deal and were very much opposed to Churchill, but Atlee refused to work with any other Tory leader and the feeling at the time was that there needed to be a National Govt. Chamberlain remained Conservative party leader until his death: he was already seriously ill. There were several Conservative party plots against Churchill.

Had we done a deal, Hitler would have turned earlier against the USSR who would have defeated them as they did after the 1941 invasion. 

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Just to correct the historical record, the US did abandon us to our fate at the start of the Second World War. Both US political parties fought campaigns which explicitly stated that they would keep out of the war. It was a promise that they honoured until Hitler, inexplicably to many, declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbour. They did sell us some retired ships but charged us very high prices for them and exhausted our gold reserves. To be fair, we did default on the loans we had from them from WW1.

You are correct about the compromise deal. Most of the Conservative party wanted some form of compromise deal and were very much opposed to Churchill, but Atlee refused to work with any other Tory leader and the feeling at the time was that there needed to be a National Govt. Chamberlain remained Conservative party leader until his death: he was already seriously ill. There were several Conservative party plots against Churchill.

Had we done a deal, Hitler would have turned earlier against the USSR who would have defeated them as they did after the 1941 invasion. 

Yes - I didn't want to go into details but just making the point that large parts of the (usually isolationist) US (Trump is a good example) did in effect try to stay out of it until it inevitably hit them on the nose. 

Trying to 'stay out of it' against an expansionist state like the 3rd Reich, Imperial Japan or today's Putin either ends up with giving them everything they want or only makes worse the inevitable conflict. 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Yellow Fever
Ought to add, the US (or Roosevelt to be precise) could see what was happening and strived to help the UK much like NATO is now doing for Ukraine. Lend -Lease.

[Badger 2,405]

53 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Trying to 'stay out of it' against an expansionist state like the 3rd Reich, Imperial Japan or today's Putin either ends up with giving them everything they want or only makes worse the inevitable conflict. 

I imagine if you are interested in history, you will be familiar with Geoffrey Roberts, a leading USSR and Russian history expert. His take on the war hell worth a read and far more considered than the rather simplistic analysis than we are currently receiving in the press. It is the "Now or Never: Putin's decision for war with Ukraine." (I can't do the normal link but I think that you will get it from this).

As I recall, you have strong links with the area and may find it objectionable so I would like to clarify that obviously Putin is a vile person and this is no attempt at justification of his actions. Roberts essentially argues that Putin viewed it as a preventative to prevent a worse conflict in the future - now or never. He compares it to the German position in 1914.

I find arguments about appeasement to be overly simplistic at times, particularly in Britain, where we love to relive fantasies of "our finest hour" without of course recognising that we lost just about every battle we fought until the USSR/ US joined the war and that the specific cause of the war - the promise to Poland - was completely forgotten and the promise we gave to them quietly ignored so that we could appease Stalin.

Again, I am sensitive to the fact that my memory is that you have links to the area and I certainly would not wish to offend you but, linked to the above, I believe that I am correct in saying that parts of current Ukraine used to be Poland?

https://geoffreyroberts.net/news-views-and-reviews/

[ricardo 7,345]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

 

I find arguments about appeasement to be overly simplistic at times, particularly in Britain, where we love to relive fantasies of "our finest hour" without of course recognising that we lost just about every battle we fought until the USSR/ US joined the war and that the specific cause of the war - the promise to Poland - was completely forgotten and the promise we gave to them quietly ignored so that we could appease Stalin.

 

https://geoffreyroberts.net/news-views-and-reviews/

Nothing quite as over symplystic as that paragraph though.

Long before the US or The Soviets enteredthe UK won the only battle that counted. It left Germany bottled up in Europe with no seaborn trading access to the rest of the world and thus insufficient access to oil supplies that might enable a long conflict. Without resupply Hitler only had a three month window to defeat the Soviets before he could no longer conduct a war of movement. The war was already lost by the end of 1941, the miracle was that Hitler managed to sustain it for three more years.

As for the promise to the Poles, it was never a practicable possibility given the military and political realities in 1945.

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Long before the US or The Soviets enteredthe UK won the only battle that counted.

Which battle was this?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Which battle was this?

It cannot be the Battle of the Atlantic, because that was far from won. And if it is the Battle of Britain that only in effect saved the UK from invasion. It didn't give the UK command of the seas.

There were any number of close-call moments in the war that still could easily have gone the other way and potentially changed the outcome. If the UK had lost Malta the Axis forces would have controlled the Suez Canal.

And if the Japanese had decided to invade Siberia rather than going for the raw material-rich colonies in south-east Asia then the Soviet Union would have been fighting a probably unsustainable war on two fronts.

[Badger 2,405]

14 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It cannot be the Battle of the Atlantic, because that was far from won. And if it is the Battle of Britain that only in effect saved the UK from invasion. It didn't give the UK command of the seas.

There were any number of close-call moments in the war that still could easily have gone the other way and potentially changed the outcome. If the UK had lost Malta the Axis forces would have controlled the Suez Canal.

And if the Japanese had decided to invade Siberia rather than going for the raw material-rich colonies in south-east Asia then the Soviet Union would have been fighting a probably unsustainable war on two fronts.

I'm not quite sure which battle Ricardo means. He says that it was long before the Soviet Union entered the war, which confuses me, TBH.

Re the Battle of Britain, I read somewhere quite recently (the last few years) someone who suggested that Hitler had no serious intention of invading Britain. I can't recall who it was frustratingly. As you might expect, as we move further away from the event, there are more attempts to look at the war more objectively.

[ricardo 7,345]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I'm not quite sure which battle Ricardo means. He says that it was long before the Soviet Union entered the war, which confuses me, TBH.

Re the Battle of Britain, I read somewhere quite recently (the last few years) someone who suggested that Hitler had no serious intention of invading Britain. I can't recall who it was frustratingly. As you might expect, as we move further away from the event, there are more attempts to look at the war more objectively.

Allow me to explain in simple terms. Hitler had a much better grasp of his geopolitical postion than many give him credit for. In order to complete his ambitions in eastern Europe he needed the mineral raw materials to power his war machine. Apart from coal, Germany had little of its own resources. Putting Britain out of the war would have allowed importation by sea. The battle of Britain ended that hope. Apart from some Swedish iron ore practically no oil got through the British blockade.

He therefore had to secure his needs in southern Russia but as we are now aware, he didnt have the stocks of oil and strategic materials or the logistic network to get there.

It used to be thought that Stalingrad was the turning point but recent historians with an understanding of economics have come to realise that Germany's last chance of winning the war had ended in late 1941.

 

[ricardo 7,345]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

. And if it is the Battle of Britain that only in effect saved the UK from invasion. It didn't give the UK command of the sea.

Germany was never able to break the British blockade and the Kriegsmarine was never able to challenge that fact.

[Badger 2,405]

15 hours ago, ricardo said:

Allow me to explain in simple terms. Hitler had a much better grasp of his geopolitical postion than many give him credit for. In order to complete his ambitions in eastern Europe he needed the mineral raw materials to power his war machine. Apart from coal, Germany had little of its own resources. Putting Britain out of the war would have allowed importation by sea. The battle of Britain ended that hope. Apart from some Swedish iron ore practically no oil got through the British blockade.

He therefore had to secure his needs in southern Russia but as we are now aware, he didnt have the stocks of oil and strategic materials or the logistic network to get there.

It used to be thought that Stalingrad was the turning point but recent historians with an understanding of economics have come to realise that Germany's last chance of winning the war had ended in late 1941.

 

Germany got oil from Romania and the USSR as well as manufacturing huge amounts of it synthetically. As far as I am aware he had no major problems with oil until after he invaded the Soviet Union. He used all of western Europe as a source of raw materials after the BEF and France were so heavily defeated.

Obviously the Soviet oil stopped when he attacked them. Once again, it is failure to defeat the USSR that cost Germany the war - in this case, economically. Even here, Andrew Roberts (and I'm sure there are others, but I read this a couple of years ago and checked last night) suggest that if Hitler had possessed more foresight he would have done a deal with Japan and the USSR could have faced a war on two fronts. 

Obviously, you are correct that the blockade restricted oil imports from the US, but it did not have to be the turning point in the war. You suggest that "recent historians with an understanding of economics have come to realise that Germany's last chance of winning the war had ended in late 1941." Leaving aside whether or not this is correct, it does not fit with your original assertion that

19 hours ago, ricardo said:

Long before the US or The Soviets enteredthe UK won the only battle that counted.

If these historians argue that the chance of victory was gone by late 1941 (and if it means after Pearl Harbour and  post Hitler's declaration of war on the US, there is much to be said for the argument) this is still  year after the battle of Britain, which iI understand you correctly, you are suggesting is the determining point.

Had the US/ USSR not entered the war, Germany would have had far more access to raw materials than Britain. 

 

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

24 minutes ago, Badger said:

Germany got oil from Romania and the USSR as well as manufacturing huge amounts of it synthetically. As far as I am aware he had no major problems with oil until after he invaded the Soviet Union. He used all of western Europe as a source of raw materials after the BEF and France were so heavily defeated.

Obviously the Soviet oil stopped when he attacked them. Once again, it is failure to defeat the USSR that cost Germany the war - in this case, economically. Even here, Andrew Roberts (and I'm sure there are others, but I read this a couple of years ago and checked last night) suggest that if Hitler had possessed more foresight he would have done a deal with Japan and the USSR could have faced a war on two fronts. 

Obviously, you are correct that the blockade restricted oil imports from the US, but it did not have to be the turning point in the war. You suggest that "recent historians with an understanding of economics have come to realise that Germany's last chance of winning the war had ended in late 1941." Leaving aside whether or not this is correct, it does not fit with your original assertion that

If these historians argue that the chance of victory was gone by late 1941 (and if it means after Pearl Harbour and  post Hitler's declaration of war on the US, there is much to be said for the argument) this is still  year after the battle of Britain, which iI understand you correctly, you are suggesting is the determining point.

Had the US/ USSR not entered the war, Germany would have had far more access to raw materials than Britain. 

 

Trying to second guess or play 'What ifs' as to the WW2 battles I always find a bit oversimplified and wrought with interpretations that people would 'like' to be true.

BoB - main thing is that it kept GB in the war (and a European base) until such time as the USA and USSR eventually entered.  Yes if we had lost then an invasion was certain, the Royal Navy would have had to commit (an be highly damaged near destroyed in the enclosed waters of the channel). Even then some think that the invasion would of ultimately failed. However I give you Churchill's  own comment as to the attack on Pearl Harbour to the real position of the UK at the time - "slept the sleep of the saved'.

Was the breaking of the German codes even more important - or radar? Without that we would of starved and certainly lost the BoB.

Overall I think as noted before - 

We won the war 'morally' - being in it from the start to the end.

The USA won the war economically - made them an undisputed super power.

And Yes - The USSR won the war. 

[Badger 2,405]

12 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes if we had lost then an invasion was certain

I don't think this is the case although I know that this was the orthodox opinion until recently, at least.

As Ricardo has pointed out, the German Navy was greatly inferior to our own and even with air dominance, it is difficult to see how they could have successfully organised an invasion, even though it would have led to naval losses for Britain (although the Luftwaffe's success rate against the Navy was very limited). I have read somewhere - I am trying to source it - that Germany didn't even have the requisite landing craft, let alone things like Mulberry harbours. We know from D Day etc, just how difficult a military operation a full-scale invasion would have been. It took over a year to plan D Day. Operation Sealion was drawn up in weeks - it was back of a fag-packet stuff.

Even if they had managed to land, if Britain had recalled its navy stationed around the world, it would have had great difficulty in supplying once landed.

[Barbe bleu 814]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

I don't think this is the case although I know that this was the orthodox opinion until recently, at least.

I'm not sure it's even that recent.   I would need to read back to be sure but I'm sure I recollect there being a general consensus that an invasion was unlikely 20 years odd ago. When that consensus emerged I dont know but perhaps it has always been there.

But where I will agree with yf and ricardo is (1) that 'what ifs' are always speculative and always reflect the biases of those positing the alternative, but (2) you could for sure make out a case for the USSR losing in the event happened of the British empire withdrawing after the fall of France or defeat in the BoB.

[ricardo 7,345]

Germany got oil from Romania and the USSR as well as manufacturing huge amounts of it synthetically. As far as I am aware he had no major problems with oil until after he invaded the Soviet Union. He used all of western Europe as a source of raw materials after the BEF and France were so heavily defeated.

A complete fallacy I'm afraid, watch this and learn why the Whermact in operation Barbarossa was overwhelmingly on foot or horse drawn. When they attacked Russia they had enough oil for a two month offensive.

Had the US/ USSR not entered the war, Germany would have had far more access to raw materials than Britain.

Again unfortunately for Hitler not so. The lack of raw materials was the very reason Germany had to attack the Soviets in the first place so I don't see a scenario where the Soviets would not have entered the war. It was Hitler's prime objective, living space in the east with all their resources. Had he knocked us out of the war in 1940 he might then have been able to resource Barbarossa more effectively but he lost that option.

 

[ricardo 7,345]

Evidence for why the turning point was in 1941

 

[ricardo 7,345]

3 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

(2) you could for sure make out a case for the USSR losing in the event happened of the British empire withdrawing after the fall of France or defeat in the BoB.

You could make a case but most historians think the outcome would still have been German defeat. In the end oil was key, the Soviets had sufficient the Germans didn't.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Of course there were equally as important reasons Hitler lost the war.

The failure of the Afrika Corps to win the desert battle and sieze the Suez Canal and ME oil.

His supply lines were stretched so that his successes became his greatest problem.

His inability to lead militarily when he assumed CIC.

And simple things like weather.

Military historians will give different opinions as to the main reason but in reality it was probably more than one defining reason.

[Indy 3,283]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Of course there were equally as important reasons Hitler lost the war.

The failure of the Afrika Corps to win the desert battle and sieze the Suez Canal and ME oil.

His supply lines were stretched so that his successes became his greatest problem.

His inability to lead militarily when he assumed CIC.

And simple things like weather.

Military historians will give different opinions as to the main reason but in reality it was probably more than one defining reason.

And there was me thinking it was mainly down to Spike Milligan!😂

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

5 minutes ago, Indy said:

And there was me thinking it was mainly down to Spike Milligan!😂

I knew his best mate Harry Gunner Edgington in NZ. He was President of the NZ Platemaking Union. Lovely bloke and with the same humour as Spike.

[ricardo 7,345]

8 minutes ago, Indy said:

And there was me thinking it was mainly down to Spike Milligan!😂

Don't  knock it, he played a big part and survived to make millions of us laugh. R.I.P. Spike👍

[ricardo 7,345]

15 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Of course there were equally as important reasons Hitler lost the war.

The failure of the Afrika Corps to win the desert battle and sieze the Suez Canal and ME oil.

His supply lines were stretched so that his successes became his greatest problem.

His inability to lead militarily when he assumed CIC.

And simple things like weather.

Military historians will give different opinions as to the main reason but in reality it was probably more than one defining reason.

Essentially sideshows though.

The Whermact bled to death in Russia. Sadly thousands of young men from both sides are now suffering a similar fate.