Britain commemorating VE day

blinding

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

No, the British successfully defeated the planned invasion by Hitler, defeated the Italians and then, with time, the Germans in North Africa.

Weren’t the Americans in Italy.

MoonUnit75

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that a hurried retreat is a win.

There is no conclusive evidence that Hitler planned to invade Britain and different schools of thought on it.

Repelling an invasion of a power that went on to grow ain't no victory anyway.

Fürher Directive 16 instructed the military branches to prepare for an invasion of Britain once they had put Hitler’s preconditions into place. Conversion of boats into troop transports were in full swing during the Battle of Britain.

Britain was caught by surprise with the French capitulation, the French had some of the best ground equipment and defences of the early war.

MoonUnit75

blinding wrote: »

Weren’t the Americans in Italy.

The British completely defeated the Italians in North Africa. Hitler sent forces to prevent axis power being driven into the Mediterranean Sea.

FrancieBrady

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Fürher Directive 16 instructed the military branches to prepare for an invasion of Britain once they had put Hitler’s preconditions into place. Conversion of boats into troop transports were in full swing during the Battle of Britain.

Britain was caught by surprise with the French capitulation, the French had some of the best ground equipment and defences of the early war.

They retreated back to Britain, that was not a 'victory'.

The Allies defeated the Germans.

Jizique

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The British completely defeated the Italians in North Africa. Hitler sent forces to prevent axis power being driven into the Mediterranean Sea.

Defeating the Italians is nothing to celebrate and brag about

Lefty Bicek

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Britain has always been a highly militaristic nation, the most of any European nation

More than the French Empire ?

More than Imperial Germany ?

MoonUnit75

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They retreated back to Britain, that was not a 'victory'.

The Allies defeated the Germans.

They defeated the planned invasion of their country. Bear in mind the US lost most of their early battles against both the Germans and the Japanese. The Allies could not have defeated Germany without British involvement. The US would never have gotten a foothold in Europe if Britain had not defeated Germany in the Battle of Britain and in North Africa.

Lefty Bicek

extra gravy wrote: »

Who's sneering? Of course it's an important day and there's nothing wrong with marking it in a sombre and reflective manner. Some people (including many who served) just don't think it should be celebrated. There's a difference.

Victories are generally celebrated.

Not sombrely reflected upon.

extra gravy

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Victories are generally celebrated.

Not sombrely reflected upon.

Yes celebrated the day it happened by the people who were there and then commemorated and reflected upon every year after that.

RobMc59

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The British completely defeated the Italians in North Africa. Hitler sent forces to prevent axis power being driven into the Mediterranean Sea.

Did`nt the Italians have tanks with one forward gear and fifteen reverse?

FrancieBrady

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

They defeated the planned invasion of their country. Bear in mind the US lost most of their early battles against both the Germans and the Japanese. The Allies could not have defeated Germany without British involvement. The US would never have gotten a foothold in Europe if Britain had not defeated Germany in the Battle of Britain and in North Africa.

I'll type it slowly, shall I?

The British did not defeat the Germans.
The Allies defeated Germany.

SCOOP 64

Jizique wrote: »

Defeating the Italians is nothing to celebrate and brag about

Montgomery won a convincing victory against Rommel in north Africa though, so were not all bad.

MoonUnit75

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll type it slowly, shall I?

The British did not defeat the Germans.
The Allies defeated Germany.

Yes, type as slowly as you want and don’t overstretch yourself on your syllables 🙂

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that a hurried retreat is a win.

There is no conclusive evidence that Hitler planned to invade Britain and different schools of thought on it.

Repelling an invasion of a power that went on to grow ain't no victory anyway.

Well there we go, exactly the type of crap I was talking about. Honestly, if you can't commemorate and congratulate Britain & her Allies on the defeat of Hitler on VE Day, then it's a sad reflection on your perspective of WWII.

The Battle of Britain was a stunning victory for the RAF as an underdog gainst a much more powerful Luftwaffe.

We can all be thankful that Britain and her Allies won.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Well there we go, exactly the type of crap I was talking about. Honestly, if you can't commemorate and congratulate Britain & her Allies on the defeat of Hitler on VE Day, then it's a sad reflection on your perspective of WWII.

The Battle of Britain was a stunning victory for the RAF as an underdog gainst a much more powerful Luftwaffe.

We can all be thankful that Britain and her Allies won.

It was you who said it, not me.

'The British people fought the Nazis and won'...is wrong HC. Sorry. At best, they won an air battle. A large battle granted but in the context of the overall war not that big.

They Allies defeated Germany.


Having to listen to 'crap' like the above every year is why these threads exist.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

I think it's important to commemorate VE day but everyone puts it in different contexts. For some, it will simply be a victory over Germany and Italy. I don't want to rattle on about stereotypes but you can imagine the sort of person who indulges in the petty nationalistic and jingoistic aspect of the UK's part in victory in Europe.

For others it will be a victory over fascism. I think that's the context that should be reinforced, that as an ideology manifested by the likes of Hitler, fascism had to be defeated, but to focus on the purely political would probably make a lot of people in the British media uncomfortable.

MoonUnit75

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was you who said it, not me.

'The British people fought the Nazis and won'...is wrong HC. Sorry. At best, they won an air battle. A large battle granted but in the context of the overall war not that big.

They Allies defeated Germany.


Having to listen to 'crap' like the above every year is why these threads exist.

The British defeated the Germans at El Alamein, the first hugely significant defeat of Germany in the war. The US didn’t land in North Africa until after Rommel’s defeat.

FrancieBrady

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The British defeated the Germans at El Alamein, the first hugely significant defeat of Germany in the war. The US didn’t land in North Africa until after Rommel’s defeat.

The Germans were defeated in 1942 then? Why weren't we told?

MoonUnit75

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Germans were defeated in 1942 then? Why weren't we told?

Yes, Rommel was defeated by the British in North Africa. I guess some people only learn history through rebel songs.

end of the road

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, Rommel was defeated by the British in North Africa. I guess some people only learn history through rebel songs.

that was just 1 battle, ultimately it was the allies as a group effort who defeated germany as a whole and not the british on their own.

Banana Republic 1

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

They defeated the planned invasion of their country. Bear in mind the US lost most of their early battles against both the Germans and the Japanese. The Allies could not have defeated Germany without British involvement. The US would never have gotten a foothold in Europe if Britain had not defeated Germany in the Battle of Britain and in North Africa.

I think people especially those who live in the countries colonised by the British take exception to British exceptionalism. For instance while the RAF did defeat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain a fact that is not widely spoken about is that only for hitler insisting on continuous bombing of London they would have succeeded in the original goal which was to destroy RAF airfields. If they had done so then the brits where finished as the invasion would have taken place.

Similarly the English harp on about defeating the Spanish armada when actually they never sank one spanish ship instead the main reason Spain didn’t succeed then was down to there own incompetent command but you don’t hear about this nor the fact that the English took there own armada to Spain 1 year later and were battered back to where the came from

Odhinn

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I think people especially those who live in the countries colonised by the British take exception to British exceptionalism. For instance while the RAF did defeat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain a fact that is not widely spoken about is that only for hitler insisting on continuous bombing of London they would have succeeded in the original goal which was to destroy RAF airfields. If they had done so then the brits where finished as the invasion would have taken place.

Similarly the English harp on about defeating the Spanish armada when actually they never sank one spanish ship instead the main reason Spain didn’t succeed then was down to there own incompetent command but you don’t hear about this nor the fact that the English took there own armada to Spain 1 year later and were battered back to where the came from

In the same fashion they never belt up about Agincourt but leave out the fact that they ultimatley lost the hundred years war.

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

that was just 1 battle, ultimately it was the allies as a group effort who defeated germany as a whole and not the british on their own.

Yes, indeed. But Britain played a crucial role, they are well entitled to celebrate their part in the victory.

FrancieBrady

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, Rommel was defeated by the British in North Africa. I guess some people only learn history through rebel songs.

So the mighty British won the war in 42 by defeating Germany...who knew.
Do the Americans know this? Rather you tell Trump than me!

RobMc59

Odhinn wrote: »

In the same fashion they never belt up about Agincourt but leave out the fact that they ultimatley lost the hundred years war.

Agincourt,the origin of the `V` sign,used by English archers to wind up the French apparently.

MoonUnit75

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I think people especially those who live in the countries colonised by the British take exception to British exceptionalism. For instance while the RAF did defeat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain a fact that is not widely spoken about is that only for hitler insisting on continuous bombing of London they would have succeeded in the original goal which was to destroy RAF airfields. If they had done so then the brits where finished as the invasion would have taken place.

That’s highly debatable. German intelligence was rubbish and most bombing raids were not very effective. Britain was significantly outpacing Germany in aircraft production and practically every aircraft that went down for Germany lost all its crew. The RAF could more often recover its experienced pilots. The Luftwaffe tactic of bombing London was to draw up as much of the RAF in one go as possible to defeat them in the air. This tactic failed and they had to switch to night bombing.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the mighty British won the war in 42 by defeating Germany...who knew.
Do the Americans know this? Rather you tell Trump than me!

Be fair Francie,the Americans were the only one`s in the war if you watch war films-they even captured the `enigma`machine according to a hollywood movie!

Banana Republic 1

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, indeed. But Britain played a crucial role, they are well entitled to celebrate their part in the victory.

I’m not saying they didn’t and I’m glad they did as Ireland would’ve been next.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Be fair Francie,the Americans were the only one`s in the war if you watch war films-they even captured the `enigma`machine according to a hollywood movie!

Yeh...I agree. Is this two wrongs make a right again Rob?

Banana Republic 1

RobMc59 wrote: »

Be fair Francie,the Americans were the only one`s in the war if you watch war films-they even captured the `enigma`machine according to a hollywood movie!

That’s was actually the polish.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh...I agree. Is this two wrongs make a right again Rob?

No,you`re correct in saying it was a combined effort that beat the nazis-I also think the Russians don`t get enough credit by the west.

jackboy

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The British defeated the Germans at El Alamein, the first hugely significant defeat of Germany in the war. The US didn’t land in North Africa until after Rommel’s defeat.

The Germans were highly outnumbered in that battle. The Germans were very badly supplied and short of fuel. The US provided the brits with mountains of supplies for that campaign. Not sure could the brits have won without the supplies from the US.

No doubt it was a major victory but the odds were heavily on the side of the brits. They only could have lost if completely incompetent.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

that was just 1 battle, ultimately it was the allies as a group effort who defeated germany as a whole and not the british on their own.

Has anyone on this thread made this claim?

storker

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Do you feel the same way abour ST Patrick's Day?

Or about the French, Dutch, Danish or Norwegian celebrations of VE day?

The destruction of a regime as disgusting and malignant as Nazi Germany's is always worth celebrating. If people are talking about it being an excuse for British jingoism, well that's another matter, and not one I'd necessarily disagree with, but let's keep the two separate.




(And 8th May is our wedding anniversary. Just in case herself ever reads this...)
.

Banana Republic 1

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That’s highly debatable. German intelligence was rubbish and most bombing raids were not very effective. Britain was significantly outpacing Germany in aircraft production and practically every aircraft that went down for Germany lost all its crew. The RAF could more often recover its experienced pilots. The Luftwaffe tactic of bombing London was to draw up as much of the RAF in one go as possible to defeat them in the air. This tactic failed and they had to switch to night bombing.

No to everything there.

Originally a German bomber crew got lost heading to an airfield attack, it was dark they wanted to get home so they dropped there bombs. They unknowingly dropped them on London or some other city. Bomber command Hit Berlin in reprisal a few nights later, hitler was incensed and he ordered London demolished, this change of tax meant airstrips weren’t destroyed there allowing the RAF to keep a decisive presents.

storker

jackboy wrote: »

The Germans were highly outnumbered in that battle. The Germans were very badly supplied and short of fuel. The US provided the brits with mountains of supplies for that campaign. Not sure could the brits have won without the supplies from the US.

No doubt it was a major victory but the odds were heavily on the side of the brits. They only could have lost if completely incompetent.

I'm no fan of Montgomery but there's nothing wrong with winning like that. Concentration of more force than the enemy at the decisive point is the name of the game. As they say, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" or in another form, "In war if you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it wrong."




.

jackboy

storker wrote: »

I'm no fan of Montgomery but there's nothing wrong with winning like that. Concentration of more force than the enemy at the decisive point is the name of the game. As they say, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" or in another form, "In war if you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it wrong."




.

Yes. The Germans should have stopped after Tobruk and come up with a robust strategy for finishing the job. They got overexcited.

Banana Republic 1

storker wrote: »

I'm no fan of Montgomery but there's nothing wrong with winning like that. Concentration of more force than the enemy at the decisive point is the name of the game. As they say, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" or in another form, "In war if you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it wrong."




.

The soviets were also getting a huge amounts from the Americans. The Soviet’s had one resource that the others hadn’t, men which they used by the million.

Mad_maxx

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

More than the French Empire ?

More than Imperial Germany ?

germany hasnt been militaristic at all since WW2 and wasnt before WW1 , britain has been for more than five centuries and still is

you dont run an empire for several centuries without a deep militaristic streak running through the culture

Hamsterchops

end of the road wrote: »

that was just 1 battle, ultimately it was the allies as a group effort who defeated germany as a whole and not the british on their own.

Britain (the island of) became one giant aircraft carrier in the lead up to D Day, the RAF, USAF, Royal Navy + combined armies all left the coast of England & headed across the English channel and into enemy territory, ultimately leading to VE Day and the defeat of the Nazis, what's not to commemorate or Celebrate?

Why are we even having this argument?

MoonUnit75

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

No to everything there.

Originally a German bomber crew got lost heading to an airfield attack, it was dark they wanted to get home so they dropped there bombs. They unknowingly dropped them on London or some other city. Bomber command Hit Berlin in reprisal a few nights later, hitler was incensed and he ordered London demolished, this change of tax meant airstrips weren’t destroyed there allowing the RAF to keep a decisive presents.

Yes, that began the campaign againt civilians but the Luftwaffe had been bombing a hodge podge of targets up until then, inluding industrial areas of London. They thought they were destroying fighter command and aircraft production but they were more often bombing bomber airfields, costal defences and supposed radar installations. If they had started the targeting of fighter command a month or three weeks earlier than they had they may have won, but the bombing of airfields wasn’t actually achieving what the Germans thought it was. It was losses in the air that was pushing fighter command to the brink.

Mad_maxx

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

The soviets were also getting a huge amounts from the Americans. The Soviet’s had one resource that the others hadn’t, men which they used by the million.

and well motivated to fight to the death as stalin would have them get the bullet if they returned home anyway

end of the road

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Has anyone on this thread made this claim?

no but the way the poster i was replying to was talking it sounds to me that it was what he was getting at.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

no but the way the poster i was replying to was talking it sounds to me that it was what he was getting at.

So no one has made that claim but you decide to attribute the claim regardless.

end of the road

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So no one has made that claim but you decide to attribute the claim regardless.

no i simply replied to a poster and informed him of the state of play just in case.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

no i simply replied to a poster and informed him of the state of play just in case.

It's called putting words into people's mouths.

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, that began the campaign againt civilians but the Luftwaffe had been bombing a hodge podge of targets up until then, inluding industrial areas of London. They thought they were destroying fighter command and aircraft production but they were more often bombing bomber airfields, costal defences and supposed radar installations. If they had started the targeting of fighter command a month or three weeks earlier than they had they may have won, but the bombing of airfields wasn’t actually achieving what the Germans thought it was. It was losses in the air that was pushing fighter command to the brink.

It was also the cratering of established runways which limited their ability to strike back. Certain aircraft could be operated on temporary airfields, but their bombers needed the established airfields, which were, in turn, needed to protect their naval convoys or provide support to their surface fleet.

The change for the luftwaffe towards civilian targets, ended any possibility of gaining air superiority. Had the Germans achieved air superiority in the South, they would have been able to whittle down the British surface fleets, which were needed to protect the convoys, ultimately giving Germany a better chance to utilize their own navy to protect an invasion.

Hamsterchops

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Why are we even having this argument?

Because some people can't allow Britain to have anything positive. Plus there's the added aspect that Nationalism or national pride of any kind is now considered a negative, and/or right wing.

I wouldn't be so supporting of the British saving Europe PR spin (their contributions to WW2 were very limited although still important.. and they entered/prosecuted the war for selfish reasons). However, I can't see the harm in the British celebrating their involvement in WW2. If it means, any kind of national spirit towards being "good guys" then, go for it.

branie2

Remembering the people who fought for England

Lefty Bicek

Mad_maxx wrote: »

germany hasnt been militaristic at all since WW2 and wasnt before WW1 ,

Well that's certainly not so. No Weltpolitik, no WW1 probably. Weltpolitik dates back to ~1890.

britain has been for more than five centuries and still is

you dont run an empire for several centuries without a deep militaristic streak running through the culture

Ah, so when you said 'the most of any European nation'

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113392143&postcount=188

you clearly meant 'for the longest time'.


There are more insightful ways to measure militarism in nations/states/nation states past and present, I think.