World War II

[cochyn]

You've answered your own question. Just because Hitler didn't think leaving Britain unconquered was significant at the time doesn't mean it wasn't. In hindsight it was a colossal mistake to attack Russia while leaving the UK free as a base for Allied air and sea operations against Germany and in support of Russia.

 

The Nazis had figured out that the mass-transit of troops and materiel across the English Channel required for Operation Sea Lion was too risky, leading them to shelve the operation. Would it be safe to assume they believed the very same logistical obstacles would prevent an Allied invasion? It seems the Nazis didn't consider an allied invasion across the channel even remotely possible. Therefore England could 'keep' as it didn't pose an invasion threat. 

 

Makes you realise what a massive undertaking the D-Day landings were. Worrying though, is the thought that had the nazis bothered to foster a halfway-decent spy network in the UK, they'd probably have sussed something was up. 

 

So Skaro is onto something there I think. I'd add to it by saying that given the above, it would seem what undid the nazis was underestimating their foes and assuming that they shared tactical reasoning. It seems they forgot the first rule of warfare: Know thine enemy.

[SasaS]

@NailG, edit.

 

True, but by that time, they have already more or less lost the war and the Americans could have used other bases and invade somewhere else. Even with total areal supremacy, the Germans probably would not have invaded Britain, as that would have been a logistical nightmare and another needless battlefield. 

I also don't think the continuous areal offensive alone would have made Britain unconditionally surrender. Hence my view that it is much more important for Britain than the overall situation, Britain's only hope was to survive until the Americans have entered the war and successfully resisting areal offensive was a big step towards achieving it, also, it must have been a tremendous boost of morale at a time Germans must have looked invincible. Battle's importance tends to get overemphasized in a British-centric view of the war.

[mattyq]

I'd recommend to anybody the Andrew Roberts book, The Storm of War, a 1 volume history of WW2

He's a bad Tory meff bu he nails it, in my opinion

He said Britain supplied the time, the USSR the blood and the US the money and resources to win the war

Implicit in this is the Battle of Britain being one of the key events which led to the eventual defeat of the Nazis

I do agree that like Dunkirk it has become part of the British national myth/legend but that doesn't mean it wasn't absolutely necessary 

[VladimirIlyich]

Hitler believed that mass bombing of civilian targets could demoralise a population and force its surrender. A theory which still seems to exist today despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It's a battle plan favoured by fascists,hence it's limitations.

[Frank Dacey]

Hitler believed that mass bombing of civilian targets could demoralise a population and force its surrender. A theory which still seems to exist today despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The evidence of the war certainly bears this out but I'm not sure it was clear in 1940. One of the lessons the Germans thought they'd learned in Spain was that terroristic bombings of civilian targets did spread demoralisation and panic. The early war experiences of Warsaw and Rotterdam also seemed to bear this out. So having not beaten the RAF it must have seemed logical to target the civilian population. Both sides laboured under this misapprehension for the duration of the war.

[aws]

The evidence of the war certainly bears this out but I'm not sure it was clear in 1940. One of the lessons the Germans thought they'd learned in Spain was that terroristic bombings of civilian targets did spread demoralisation and panic. The early war experiences of Warsaw and Rotterdam also seemed to bear this out. So having not beaten the RAF it must have seemed logical to target the civilian population. Both sides laboured under this misapprehension for the duration of the war.

Agree. And I suppose my point was that it still seems to be accepted as a valid tactic today after so much experience to the contrary. Hitler was a disaster as a military strategist but difficult to blame him for this decision.

[Frank Dacey]

Agree. And I suppose my point was that it still seems to be accepted as a valid tactic today after so much experience to the contrary. Hitler was a disaster as a military strategist but difficult to blame him for this decision.

Absolutely. It's about misunderstanding the lessons of the past, or as in the case of Afghanistan, ignoring them time and time again. Currently, with North Korea, appeasement is a word being bandied about, yet no-one every says anything about how not appeasing Nasser and Saddam turned out disastrously badly.

[M_B]

Hitler believed that mass bombing of civilian targets could demoralise a population and force its surrender. A theory which still seems to exist today despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

Perhaps. Whilst the threat of it had contributed to the fall of both Holland and Denmark, terror bombing of England was specifically off the table until September 5th and even then permission was not given for a terror campaign in 1940 - targets were always strategic. Also if he was convinced that terror bombing was the key to success then why wait till near the end of the Battle? The answer could be that he feared British reprisal attacks, but we won't know for sure.

 

I said earlier that Hitler's tactic all along might have been to undermine support for Churchill. He may have been intent on using the threat of invasion to bring the British to the negotiating table. Terror bombing may have helped that, but it may also have strengthened Britians resolve. British propaganda certainly made the most of 'British determination' when the Blitz started and Churchill quickly moved to compenstate those whose homes were damaged or destroyed by bombs. Did Hitler consider that terror bombing might help Churchill?

 

In the end, the formal targetting of cities and London started on Sep 6th. History tells us that they were in response to multiple raids on Berlin that started on August 25th which were themselves in response to an 'accidental' (its very debateable) bombing of London on the night of the 24th. Nazi propaganda marketed the new strategy as 'revenge' and in Hitler's speech (Sep 4th) he directly blamed Churchill for starting night bombing of Berlin and forcing a German response.

 

But why change tactics when the RAF were on its knees? Well if it weren't deliberately engineered then part of the reason is certainly that it was forced on them. Political pressure at home certainly required them to respond. However its also arguable that the new tactic may have been a deliberate litmus test. Afterall the RAF may have been holding back, saving it's strength for the invasion. I'm not convinced myself, but the theory is out there and it's difficult to argue against.

 

Sealion had to happen in September (because of tides and weather). By the end of August, Goering appeared to be convinced the RAF was close to defeat. What better way then to force the RAF to reveal it's true strength - tell the entire world on Sep 4th you are going to bomb London (in revenge) and then do it with a mass day and night raid on Sep 7th? The RAF would have no choice but to put all it's strength into a defence. London was set on fire, the RAF struggled to oppose and the luftwaffe suffered light losses, the German media were jubilant, Goering was satisfied that invasion was possible and Churchills support no doubt came under pressure both domestically and internationally.

 

Unfortunately for the Nazi's, attacks after Sep 7th were more costly. On September 14th the Germans held a command meeting in which Hitler debated calling off Sealion and it is also notable for Hiter rejecting a request to begin terror bombing. He gave them one more chance to prove the RAF were defeated - Battle of Britain Day - September 15th. A massive raid was firmly spanked and two days later Sealion was postponed. On Sep 16th, the Germans changed strategy to a night time strategic bombing campaign to tie in with the submarine economic blockade.

 

Again as always I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure the Germans ever firmly believed that they could achieve Sealion or bring Britain to negotiations, but Hitler was prepared to try before starting his war against the USSR. Switching tactics to the cities allowed him to benefit politically at home and to put pressure on Churchill. It also conveniently tested whether or not invasion was realistic and was something Goering could not hide. And if they hadn't switched tactics, could they really still have won? Crossing the channel against the largest navy in the world would have been a massive, massive gamble even with air superiority. Could the change in tactics simply reflect a change in heart about the whole operation?

[VladimirIlyich]

Perhaps. Whilst the threat of it had contributed to the fall of both Holland and Denmark, terror bombing of England was specifically off the table until September 5th and even then permission was not given for a terror campaign in 1940 - targets were always strategic. Also if he was convinced that terror bombing was the key to success then why wait till near the end of the Battle? The answer could be that he feared British reprisal attacks, but we won't know for sure.

 

I said earlier that Hitler's tactic all along might have been to undermine support for Churchill. He may have been intent on using the threat of invasion to bring the British to the negotiating table. Terror bombing may have helped that, but it may also have strengthened Britians resolve. British propaganda certainly made the most of 'British determination' when the Blitz started and Churchill quickly moved to compenstate those whose homes were damaged or destroyed by bombs. Did Hitler consider that terror bombing might help Churchill?

 

In the end, the formal targetting of cities and London started on Sep 6th. History tells us that they were in response to multiple raids on Berlin that started on August 25th which were themselves in response to an 'accidental' (its very debateable) bombing of London on the night of the 24th. Nazi propaganda marketed the new strategy as 'revenge' and in Hitler's speech (Sep 4th) he directly blamed Churchill for starting night bombing of Berlin and forcing a German response.

 

But why change tactics when the RAF were on its knees? Well if it weren't deliberately engineered then part of the reason is certainly that it was forced on them. Political pressure at home certainly required them to respond. However its also arguable that the new tactic may have been a deliberate litmus test. Afterall the RAF may have been holding back, saving it's strength for the invasion. I'm not convinced myself, but the theory is out there and it's difficult to argue against.

 

Sealion had to happen in September (because of tides and weather). By the end of August, Goering appeared to be convinced the RAF was close to defeat. What better way then to force the RAF to reveal it's true strength - tell the entire world on Sep 4th you are going to bomb London (in revenge) and then do it with a mass day and night raid on Sep 7th? The RAF would have no choice but to put all it's strength into a defence. London was set on fire, the RAF struggled to oppose and the luftwaffe suffered light losses, the German media were jubilant, Goering was satisfied that invasion was possible and Churchills support no doubt came under pressure both domestically and internationally.

 

Unfortunately for the Nazi's, attacks after Sep 7th were more costly. On September 14th the Germans held a command meeting in which Hitler debated calling off Sealion and it is also notable for Hiter rejecting a request to begin terror bombing. He gave them one more chance to prove the RAF were defeated - Battle of Britain Day - September 15th. A massive raid was firmly spanked and two days later Sealion was postponed. On Sep 16th, the Germans changed strategy to a night time strategic bombing campaign to tie in with the submarine economic blockade.

 

Again as always I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure the Germans ever firmly believed that they could achieve Sealion or bring Britain to negotiations, but Hitler was prepared to try before starting his war against the USSR. Switching tactics to the cities allowed him to benefit politically at home and to put pressure on Churchill. It also conveniently tested whether or not invasion was realistic and was something Goering could not hide. And if they hadn't switched tactics, could they really still have won? Crossing the channel against the largest navy in the world would have been a massive, massive gamble even with air superiority. Could the change in tactics simply reflect a change in heart about the whole operation?

Interesting.

Fits in with invasion plans of Britain hoping to exploit the class resentment that was still around back then. Like you say though he didnt seem to understand the propaganda the wealthy have always had at their disposal alongside those on the political left possibly being well aware of how Hitler treated Union Leaders,Socialists and Communists under his command.

[SasaS]

Interesting.

Fits in with invasion plans of Britain hoping to exploit the class resentment that was still around back then. Like you say though he didnt seem to understand the propaganda the wealthy have always had at their disposal alongside those on the political left possibly being well aware of how Hitler treated Union Leaders,Socialists and Communists under his command.

 

It was probably also good that the Communist Party of GB didn't have more influence on the political left at the time, with their position that the working class has no sides in the conflict with Hitler.

[VladimirIlyich]

It was probably also good that the Communist Party of GB didn't have more influence on the political left at the time, with their position that the working class has no sides in the conflict with Hitler.

It was also the view of the political right for a while too. Thank god most of the population fell somewhere in between. As I understand it the general population also didn't know the full scale of the horrors of the treatment of Jews,Roma and various other groups until a fair way into the war either.

[Evelyn Tentions]

One of the justifications for night bombing of civilian targets was to hinder the ability of the workforce efficiently, if only by making them lose sleep.

Nothing could justify the bombing of Dresden and its planners are guilty of war crimes.

[s(k)aturation]

 

Nothing could justify the bombing of Dresden and its planners are guilty of war crimes.

 

 

Yeah, I think the RAF might have got away with that one now.

[A Red]

If the Nazis had concentrated on building U-boats and winning the battle of the Atlantic they would have forced Britain to the negotiating table. No need for Sealion

[M_B]

Unlikely. We'll never know for sure though. There's too many variables to reach a definitive conclusion.

[Section_31]

Dresden was horrific but it was a different time. In our lifetime we've never been involved in a conflict where the cost of losing meant death or enslavement. All rules went out the window.

[s(k)aturation]

Dresden was horrific but it was a different time. In our lifetime we've never been involved in a conflict where the cost of losing meant death or enslavement. All rules went out the window.

 

 

Acknowledgments and regret in retrospect for atrocities can't hurt though.

[Champ]

Anyone else watching Blitz: The Bombs that Changed Britain?

 

Fascinating stuff. Very personal stories of the impact of mass bombing and the impact it had on social policy. So much and so little appears to have changed

[lifetime fan]

Anyone else watching Blitz: The Bombs that Changed Britain?

 

Fascinating stuff. Very personal stories of the impact of mass bombing and the impact it had on social policy. So much and so little appears to have changed

Didn’t watch this.

 

I did however work with a chap who was moved from London to Coventry during the blitz.

 

His street in London wasn’t touched but the next door neighbour when he was in Coventry was flattened and he’d lost his hearing in one ear from the blast.

 

He thought it hilarious and it was difficult to not laugh when he told you the story.

[magicrat]

BBC 4 now, Britain's greatest pilot

Excellent program

[Champ]

BBC 4 now, Britain's greatest pilot

Excellent program

Haha! I posted my comments on the BBC2 programme and went upstairs and he was watching Captain Brown. Every wartime hero rolling into one. An incredible man.

 

We'd never even heard of him until he was the guest speaker at my son's leaving school ceremony, having attended the school himself. What an incredible man and what an incredible time he lived in.

 

And a bit like the earlier programme I simply can't get my head round how people endured those experiences and losses, seemingly by 'just getting on with things' and 'that's just what you did'

[Champ]

Anyone else watching Blitz: The Bombs that Changed Britain?

 

Fascinating stuff. Very personal stories of the impact of mass bombing and the impact it had on social policy. So much and so little appears to have changed

Another fascinating episode last night and the psychological survey they carried out after air raid bombing on Hull to try to estimate how much bombing would be required to break the morale of the German people

[Tj hooker]

Going to Berlin next Friday for a long weekend taking in a sporting event which we all love and doing the 4 hour 3rd Reich walking tour can't bloody wait .

[Anubis]

Wasn't sure where to put this, and we don't have a WWI thread that I can find.

 

The life and death of Mata Hari. Not quite the cunning spy she was made out. A great, concise read from National Geographic. I've posted a browser link and Tweet link to get around the paywall.

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2017/11-12/mata-hari-history-killing/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_tw20180424hist-resurfmatahari2&utm_campaign=Content&sf189193875=1

 

https://twitter.com/NatGeo/status/994397626861801473?s=19

[Lee909]

Anyone watched the netflix series 'Hitlers circle of evil'?

 

Its about the inner circle around him and starts just before the failed coup attempted. 

Really good as it looks at all the key players around him. The Nazi party rise and the way it took control of Germany and pretty subtlety pushed its ideas into the public mind. Little wonder why so many fell under there spell with the Volksgemeinschaft movement putting those out of work into state building programe. The idea of the breaking of class barriers to push a unity of the people for the benefit of the nation must have been very enticing for many. To see the country being restored back to the levels of pre WW1 and becoming strong. Cleverly done to push people along the slippery slope till there was no way back. Just shows how these types get into power