Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 7,850
- Reaction score
- 744
- Country
Quite interesting, I see the factory was flattened in 1943, and the rocket was never a goer
B
Bodd
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,816
- Reaction score
- 859
- Country
That isn't true - we were outgunned but the Germans. Luckily, we had Marconi and the magic early radar that was inspired by his work to protect us - if it wasn't for Chain Home, the Germans would have gained air supremacy - lucky for us, they thought the towers were just telephone communications, so didn't waste their bombs on them.
"The British radar early warning system, called Chain Home, was the most advanced and the most operationally adapted system in the world. Even while suffering from frequent attacks by the Luftwaffe, it largely prevented German bomber formations from exploiting the element of surprise. To fight off the bombers, Fighter Command employed squadrons of durable and heavily armed Hawker Hurricanes, preferring to save the faster and more agile Supermarine Spitfire—unsurpassed as an interceptor by any fighter in any other air force—for use against the bombers’ fighter escorts." https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Britain-European-history-1940
And from reading more of that article, looks like the Blizt was actually another lucky escape (silver linings!) - Germans accidentally dropped bombs on residential London, resulting in retaliation on Berlin, then all out attacks on cities. This meant German planes came into contact with our best fighters, losing more of their planes, and taking the fight away from our air bases and supplies, giving the RAF more space.
Anyway, I have a bathroom question ...
Sponsored Links
B
Bodd
B
Bodd
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,816
- Reaction score
- 859
- Country
B
Bodd
We were never alone boddggdd, just a myth to appease the EU haters.
For those who insist on making parallels between Brexit and the Second World War, this should give them heart. Britain never stood alone during the war. And I suspect that the same will be true after Brexit, regardless of which way negotiations go during the coming weeks.
For those who insist on making parallels between Brexit and the Second World War, this should give them heart. Britain never stood alone during the war. And I suspect that the same will be true after Brexit, regardless of which way negotiations go during the coming weeks.
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 7,850
- Reaction score
- 744
- Country
From your link "It was obliterated by Allied carpet-bombing in 1943", I must admit you have tried hard to deflect from the original topic but sadly failed
By all means bring Brexit into it but don't accuse others of doing so.
A sensible view.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-B...surrender-and-the-German-invasion-of-the-USSR
British people are not a lot different from others in most respects. There may be some who make the claim “Britain stood alone for two years during WW2”, which as inferred by the statement associated with the question, is untrue. My parents would have ascertained that it probably felt like much longer than one year, but with the wholehearted support of the rest of the British Empire, it was not alone. I know of few British people who would not acknowledge the full and unequivocal support of the whole Imperial family.
We generally acknowledge that the Germans were the key protagonists on the Axis side, but we also recognise that the Italians had been warring across the Med since 1937. This put parts of the Empire at risk - Malta and Cyprus were under threat, Egypt, Palestine, the Arabian penisula and Trans-Jordan were all British Protectorates, and under threat - it was not a coincidence that the Germans invaded North Africa!
However, from the fall of France and until after the start of Operation Barbarossa, Britain did bear the brunt of the German hammer - there was no equivalent to the Battle of Britain elsewhere, until the cities of the Soviet Union came under attack. (This is not to underplay the destruction and the casualties in cities which were by then under occupation - but they cannot sensibly be compared, because the outcome of their conflict was already known).
Over in Asia and the Pacific, the Japanese were threatening parts of the British Empire, including Hong Kong, since they had already long-since invaded China - but that was nothing to do with the underlying feelins of some British - so why? Because the Germans were directly threatening our home territories, the Channel Islands were quickly invaded after the fall of France, bringing the matter very close to home.
For most people in the US, they had absolutely no conception of the problems experienced by everyday British people. Their cities were not being attacked; their towns were not in imminent threat of invasion; they did not witness first hand the traumas of war and death in their streets; they were not to discover what happens when the civilian death toll in their capital city is so great in one night that the emergency services and health system were simply overwhelmed.
Even when the events of Pearl Harbor took place on that dark day in December 1941, and event which was shocking, but geographically still detached from the contiguous states (indeed Hawaii was not actually a state at that time) it does not compare with the events of the Battle of Britain and the following Blitz. Dreadful though Pearl Harbor was, it was still an attack on a military target, the Japanese did not bomb the civilian parts of the island. The attack took place over a matter of hours, not over a period measured in months and years.
So, I would agree that if some British people make the assertion that the nation stood alone for two years, then that would be a factual inaccuracy. It would also be a matter of semantics given the circumstances for someone to criticise them though!
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-B...surrender-and-the-German-invasion-of-the-USSR
British people are not a lot different from others in most respects. There may be some who make the claim “Britain stood alone for two years during WW2”, which as inferred by the statement associated with the question, is untrue. My parents would have ascertained that it probably felt like much longer than one year, but with the wholehearted support of the rest of the British Empire, it was not alone. I know of few British people who would not acknowledge the full and unequivocal support of the whole Imperial family.
We generally acknowledge that the Germans were the key protagonists on the Axis side, but we also recognise that the Italians had been warring across the Med since 1937. This put parts of the Empire at risk - Malta and Cyprus were under threat, Egypt, Palestine, the Arabian penisula and Trans-Jordan were all British Protectorates, and under threat - it was not a coincidence that the Germans invaded North Africa!
However, from the fall of France and until after the start of Operation Barbarossa, Britain did bear the brunt of the German hammer - there was no equivalent to the Battle of Britain elsewhere, until the cities of the Soviet Union came under attack. (This is not to underplay the destruction and the casualties in cities which were by then under occupation - but they cannot sensibly be compared, because the outcome of their conflict was already known).
Over in Asia and the Pacific, the Japanese were threatening parts of the British Empire, including Hong Kong, since they had already long-since invaded China - but that was nothing to do with the underlying feelins of some British - so why? Because the Germans were directly threatening our home territories, the Channel Islands were quickly invaded after the fall of France, bringing the matter very close to home.
For most people in the US, they had absolutely no conception of the problems experienced by everyday British people. Their cities were not being attacked; their towns were not in imminent threat of invasion; they did not witness first hand the traumas of war and death in their streets; they were not to discover what happens when the civilian death toll in their capital city is so great in one night that the emergency services and health system were simply overwhelmed.
Even when the events of Pearl Harbor took place on that dark day in December 1941, and event which was shocking, but geographically still detached from the contiguous states (indeed Hawaii was not actually a state at that time) it does not compare with the events of the Battle of Britain and the following Blitz. Dreadful though Pearl Harbor was, it was still an attack on a military target, the Japanese did not bomb the civilian parts of the island. The attack took place over a matter of hours, not over a period measured in months and years.
So, I would agree that if some British people make the assertion that the nation stood alone for two years, then that would be a factual inaccuracy. It would also be a matter of semantics given the circumstances for someone to criticise them though!
B
Bodd
Have I now..... And where would the Allied attack have come from? If we bent over for Hitler!!!
Who would the allies have been.... ????
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 7,850
- Reaction score
- 744
- Country
The same ones that stood by us in 1939
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
