How About Another EU Referendum?

[Pan Pan Pan]

DeltonaS said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Mortarboard said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You dont do logic very well do you?
If the UK had not been the SINGLE European country, which did not fall, or capitulate to Nazi Germany in 1940, the US could not have entered the war against the Nazis (Indeed they did not even want to). How were American bombers, going to launch raids on Nazi held Europe, from the far side of the Atlantic?
How was D Day, going to be launched from the far side of the Atlantic? It was difficult enough just getting it across the English Channel.
How were the raids which disrupted, and delayed the Nazis nuclear weapons program, going to be launched, let alone even known about, from the far side of the Atlantic?
With the Western approaches to Europe controlled by Nazi U-boats and surface fleets, how were the billions of tons of war materiel, needed to keep Russia in the war against the Nazis, going to be supplied from the far side of the Atlantic
All the above, and much more was only made possible because the UK was the one country, that did not fall, or capitulate in 1940. and was the one country on this side of the Atlantic, `not' in control of the Hitler's Nazi Germany.
As for the voting system in this country it is not perfect by any means, but at its worst, it is still better than the systems used in many other countries.

Ireland says Hi! We were/are in Europe too.

M.

Indeed they were, and so were Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and not forgetting all the French, Polish, Dutch, Norwegians, and other European nationals who, were `only' able to join in with, and carry on the fight against Hitler, because the UK did not fall or capitulate to the Nazis in 1940. Just about everything that happened in the war after 1940, was dependent on the UK `not' falling to the Nazis in 1940, when it was still fighting them on its own.

O dear, Pan Pan Pan is drumming again on his Brexit drum; "We've won the war"

Pan, pan, pan, pan,, pan.... badum tish.

The UK was stuck on it's Isle being bombed during the entire lenght of the war. Early into the war it was saved by the channel and the North Sea when the Nazi's pushed the French and British troops back; fleeing via Dunkirk to the UK. Only when the US (and Canada, Australia, New Seland etc.) stepped in the UK really was able to fight back (instead of defending. Meanwhile Nazi Germany was fighting a war on 3 major fronts; after France it went to the East attacking Russia.

The UK dind't fight the Nazi's on it's own, because so did the Russians, the French, and all the countries Germany invaded, resistence included.

You seem to be someone else who has had a complete logic by pass. I never once stated that the UK won, or even could have won the war on its own. What I stated was that if the UK had not been the single country opposed to Hitler's Nazi Germany in 1940 which did not fall or capitulate to Nazi Germany, then NONE of what `actually' happened in WW2 could have taken place.
At the time Stalin's Russia was supplying Nazi Germany with war materiel, and dividing up Poland up between themselves.
Please explain how the US was going to be able to bomb Nazi Germany from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how the Nazi nuclear weapons program was going to be disrupted and delayed from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how the billions of tons of war materiel supplied by the US (and the UK) to Stalin's Russia, to keep Russia in the fight against the Nazis, was going to be supplied from the far side of the Atlantic, especially with the UK under Nazi control and the western approaches controlled by Nazi submarine and surface fleets. Please explain how D Day was going to be launched from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how the French, Dutch, Polish, and many other European nationals, were going to be able to join the fight against the Nazis if the UK had been over run by the Nazis in 1940. Even DE Gaulle, only survived, to carry on Frances war against the Nazis, because he had the UK to evacuate to, at the start of WW2.
You also seem to have forgotten that many Americans did not even want get involved in yet another European war, and only joined after Pearl Harbour and Hitler's declaration of war against the US in 1942 (after the UK had been fighting Hitler for over year on its own)
Please explain how people from Canada, Australia, New Zealand a other commonwealth counties were going to be able to fight Hitlers military from those other countries.
With only ONE front to fight have to fight on, and with NO allied fleets, or allied bombing raids taking place on Germany and its war factories, and with NO war supplies reaching Russia from the allies. the Nazis would have rolled over Russia. They did that even when they did have to fight on many other fronts.
If the Nazi nuclear weapons program which was discovered by people on the ground, and attacked from the UK, who both supplied and facilitated those attacks. from the UK, there is no certainty that the Nazis would not have developed `their' nuclear weapons long before the US. How do you think the Russia, and the US would have coped when threatened with nuclear weapons from Nazi Germany?

[heebeegeetee]

DeltonaS said:

O dear, Pan Pan Pan is drumming again on his Brexit drum; "We've won the war"

Pan, pan, pan, pan,, pan.... badum tish.

The UK was stuck on it's Isle being bombed during the entire lenght of the war. Early into the war it was saved by the channel and the North Sea when the Nazi's pushed the French and British troops back; fleeing via Dunkirk to the UK. Only when the US (and Canada, Australia, New Seland etc.) stepped in the UK really was able to fight back (instead of defending. Meanwhile Nazi Germany was fighting a war on 3 major fronts; after France it went to the East attacking Russia.

The UK dind't fight the Nazi's on it's own, because so did the Russians, the French, and all the countries Germany invaded, resistence included.

It's absolutely fair to say it was the RAF, radar & good organisation that kept the UK free and independent, allowing US forces to come here later in the war, the Channel by itself wouldn't have done it.

Two world-beating fighter aircraft, coupled with radar, good organisation and a good wartime leader. We were very lucky to have all that.

[CharlesdeGaulle]

Pan Pan Pan said:

You seem to be someone else who has had a complete logic by pass.

It's a waste of time trying to use logic with Deltona; he has an obsessive hatred of the Brits for some reason.

[Mrr T]

CharlesdeGaulle said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You seem to be someone else who has had a complete logic by pass.

It's a waste of time trying to use logic with Deltona; he has an obsessive hatred of the Brits for some reason.

I would suggest providing a balanced view of the UK during WW2 does not mean some one hates Brits.

As for PPP long and in my view often incorrect posts on WW2 what have they got to do with the EU or the UK today.

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

CharlesdeGaulle said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You seem to be someone else who has had a complete logic by pass.

It's a waste of time trying to use logic with Deltona; he has an obsessive hatred of the Brits for some reason.

I would suggest providing a balanced view of the UK during WW2 does not mean some one hates Brits.

As for PPP long and in my view often incorrect posts on WW2 what have they got to do with the EU or the UK today.

You'd have a point if they weren't talking about Deltona - I suspect he's popped up again because of news ManUtd are signing deJong. That will be boiling his piss way more than Brexit, and be making him throw stuff around and finding other fora to rant on about the English

[Ivan stewart]

DeltonaS said:

O dear, Pan Pan Pan is drumming again on his Brexit drum; "We've won the war"

Pan, pan, pan, pan,, pan.... badum tish.

The UK was stuck on it's Isle being bombed during the entire lenght of the war. Early into the war it was saved by the channel and the North Sea when the Nazi's pushed the French and British troops back; fleeing via Dunkirk to the UK. Only when the US (and Canada, Australia, New Seland etc.) stepped in the UK really was able to fight back (instead of defending. Meanwhile Nazi Germany was fighting a war on 3 major fronts; after France it went to the East attacking Russia.

The UK dind't fight the Nazi's on it's own, because so did the Russians, the French, and all the countries Germany invaded, resistence included.

Luckily for you guys we did get involved otherwise you would still be Germany’s parking lot ..

[Pan Pan Pan]

Mrr T said:

CharlesdeGaulle said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You seem to be someone else who has had a complete logic by pass.

It's a waste of time trying to use logic with Deltona; he has an obsessive hatred of the Brits for some reason.

I would suggest providing a balanced view of the UK during WW2 does not mean some one hates Brits.

As for PPP long and in my view often incorrect posts on WW2 what have they got to do with the EU or the UK today.

Can you really be so dumb?. If the UK had not been the single European country opposed to Hitlers Nazi Germany, which did not fall, or capitulate to the Nazis in 1940, neither the UK, nor the EU would even exist today. The UK, and the EU ONLY exist today, because of what actually happened in in WW2. As others have posted. NO UK in 1940 = NO EU today.
America could not have entered the war in Europe, even if it wanted to, (which it did not) with the war materiel needed to keep Russia in the war coming from the west only being made possible, because the UK and not Nazi Germany maintained control of the western approaches.
With only the Russian front to have to fight, (and a Russia which had be supplied with millions of tons of war materiel to even keep it in the war against the Nazis) and no damage, or destruction being done to their war industries, the Nazis would have over run Russia with ease.
It seems to be `your' view of what happened in WW2, that is totally incorrect. This is possibly why you have not explained, how what actually happened, could have taken place, if the UK had been taken over by the Nazis in 1940.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Ivan stewart said:

DeltonaS said:

O dear, Pan Pan Pan is drumming again on his Brexit drum; "We've won the war"

Pan, pan, pan, pan,, pan.... badum tish.

The UK was stuck on it's Isle being bombed during the entire lenght of the war. Early into the war it was saved by the channel and the North Sea when the Nazi's pushed the French and British troops back; fleeing via Dunkirk to the UK. Only when the US (and Canada, Australia, New Seland etc.) stepped in the UK really was able to fight back (instead of defending. Meanwhile Nazi Germany was fighting a war on 3 major fronts; after France it went to the East attacking Russia.

The UK dind't fight the Nazi's on it's own, because so did the Russians, the French, and all the countries Germany invaded, resistence included.

Luckily for you guys we did get involved otherwise you would still be Germany’s parking lot ..

With no UK in 1940, How could America have got involved in the fight against the Nazis? With no billions of tons of war materiel being delivered to Russia, how could Russia have stayed in the war against the Nazis?
If Hitler had `just' the Russian front to deal with, the Nazis would, have rolled over Russia with ease.,
The entire continent of Europe, would have been a Nazi parking lot, especially as the Nazi's nuclear weapons program, would not have been subjected to the disruption, and delays that it was. Disruption and delays which were caused by the attacks, which `were' launched from, supplied, and organized from the UK, and no where else.

[Pan Pan Pan]

heebeegeetee said:

DeltonaS said:

O dear, Pan Pan Pan is drumming again on his Brexit drum; "We've won the war"

Pan, pan, pan, pan,, pan.... badum tish.

The UK was stuck on it's Isle being bombed during the entire lenght of the war. Early into the war it was saved by the channel and the North Sea when the Nazi's pushed the French and British troops back; fleeing via Dunkirk to the UK. Only when the US (and Canada, Australia, New Seland etc.) stepped in the UK really was able to fight back (instead of defending. Meanwhile Nazi Germany was fighting a war on 3 major fronts; after France it went to the East attacking Russia.

The UK dind't fight the Nazi's on it's own, because so did the Russians, the French, and all the countries Germany invaded, resistence included.

It's absolutely fair to say it was the RAF, radar & good organisation that kept the UK free and independent, allowing US forces to come here later in the war, the Channel by itself wouldn't have done it.

Two world-beating fighter aircraft, coupled with radar, good organisation and a good wartime leader. We were very lucky to have all that.

Indeed.
How much Hitler's resolution, `not' the begin operation Zeelowe, until Germany had established air superiority over the channel, stopped the Nazis from invading the UK in 1940 will now never be known, If thousands can get across the channel now, in rubber boats, you are correct in saying that the channel would not in itself, have been enough to stop operation Zeelowe.

[Biggy Stardust]

theplayingmantis said:

I doubt very much that the majority or leavers and remainers on this thread have in any proven way had any positive or negative impact on their own lives that they know is due to the consequences of brexit.

I'm very sorry that a democratic vote didn't turn out the way you wanted but we can't keep having them until we get a result you like. That's not how it works.
Have a nice day.

[Ivan stewart]

Biggy Stardust said:

theplayingmantis said:

I doubt very much that the majority or leavers and remainers on this thread have in any proven way had any positive or negative impact on their own lives that they know is due to the consequences of brexit.

I'm very sorry that a democratic vote didn't turn out the way you wanted but we can't keep having them until we get a result you like. That's not how it works.
Have a nice day.

Yep and we had 40 years or so ,looks like it’s their turn now !!!

[2xChevrons]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Indeed.
How much Hitler's resolution, `not' the begin operation Zeelowe, until Germany had established air superiority over the channel, stopped the Nazis from invading the UK in 1940 will now never be known, If thousands can get across the channel now, in rubber boats, you are correct in saying that the channel would not in itself, have been enough to stop operation Zeelowe.

PPP, you've had this explained to you before, with sources and references - Sea Lion had no chance of successfully invading the British Isles, regardless of the air situation. The Luftwaffe had almost no chance of actually driving the RAF from British skies (it lacked the aircraft with the range to do so, it was haemorrhaging pilots and it didn't have enough useful intel to effectively prioritise targets). At best it could achieve temporary tactical superiority over the SE England. Even if that was achieved, Sea Lion called for the German ground forces to cross in low-draft/low-freeboard motor barges and river lighters towed by tugs. Across The Channel with its obstacles natural (tides, currents and sand banks) and military. Assuming the invasion flotilla didn't sink itself by the vessels hitting each other, didn't go to the bottom if the sea got a bit choppy, didn't drift miles off course and the barges managed to actually navigate to their assigned landing sites, the German troops getting ashore would have been predominantly light infantry supported by minimal field artillery and armour. And that's assuming that the Royal Navy didn't smash the invasion flotilla to pieces, or even just run a destroyer past the flotilla and overwhelm a good portion of the vessels with the wash. If the first wave of the German invasion did make it ashore, the chances of the successive planned waves (to deliver first motorised transport and armour, then logistical supplies, then reinforcements for losses made in the first wave) being allowed conduct of the Channel decreases in each case.

Sea Lion has been war-gamed multiple times. Every time, the very best scenario achieved by the Germans, giving them every advantage of strategy, tactics, intelligence and supply, is that they establish a limited beach-head in SE England which is then crushed as the landed forces can't resupply. Most of the exercises result in the invasion being repelled at the first landing, and most see the landings not even being usefully achieved in the first place.

You can puff up your chest all you want about Britain Standing Alone as an Island Beacon of Freedom that Saved The Western World, but once our forces were safely back from Dunkurque there was nothing the Germans could effectively do. They couldn't invade and they lacked the naval strength to starve us out - and that situation was sealed the moment Hitler let ideology overrule military necessity and turned his focus eastward. It's easy to be proud of winning a fight when your opponent can't actually get close enough to land a punch and all they can do is throw stones at you.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Regardless of whether an invasion would have been successful in 40 or 41, Britain stood alone suffering the bombing of her cities. The Government could have agreed to the terms that Hitler offered, which included keeping what remained of the Empire, but didn't and the bombings continued.

So the point still stands, a neutralised Britain and there would be no second front in Europe.

[Dr Jekyll]

We know now that Sea Lion couldn't have succeeded, it certainly wasn't known at the time and there was a strong body of opinion that the UK would be overrun quickly and that peace terms should be agreed.

[Mrr T]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Mrr T said:

CharlesdeGaulle said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You seem to be someone else who has had a complete logic by pass.

It's a waste of time trying to use logic with Deltona; he has an obsessive hatred of the Brits for some reason.

I would suggest providing a balanced view of the UK during WW2 does not mean some one hates Brits.

As for PPP long and in my view often incorrect posts on WW2 what have they got to do with the EU or the UK today.

Can you really be so dumb?. If the UK had not been the single European country opposed to Hitlers Nazi Germany, which did not fall, or capitulate to the Nazis in 1940, neither the UK, nor the EU would even exist today. The UK, and the EU ONLY exist today, because of what actually happened in in WW2. As others have posted. NO UK in 1940 = NO EU today.
America could not have entered the war in Europe, even if it wanted to, (which it did not) with the war materiel needed to keep Russia in the war coming from the west only being made possible, because the UK and not Nazi Germany maintained control of the western approaches.
With only the Russian front to have to fight, (and a Russia which had be supplied with millions of tons of war materiel to even keep it in the war against the Nazis) and no damage, or destruction being done to their war industries, the Nazis would have over run Russia with ease.
It seems to be `your' view of what happened in WW2, that is totally incorrect. This is possibly why you have not explained, how what actually happened, could have taken place, if the UK had been taken over by the Nazis in 1940.

I repeat the question the UK and the EU do exist today and what has WW2 anything to the decisions being made today.

Yes the UK helped save some of Europe but not the country the UK declared war to defend. The UK should be proud of that generation, which included my parents, but sadly most are now gone. I know my parents voted yes in 1975 and suspect they would have voted remain in 2016.

[Pan Pan Pan]

2xChevrons said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Indeed.
How much Hitler's resolution, `not' the begin operation Zeelowe, until Germany had established air superiority over the channel, stopped the Nazis from invading the UK in 1940 will now never be known, If thousands can get across the channel now, in rubber boats, you are correct in saying that the channel would not in itself, have been enough to stop operation Zeelowe.

PPP, you've had this explained to you before, with sources and references - Sea Lion had no chance of successfully invading the British Isles, regardless of the air situation. The Luftwaffe had almost no chance of actually driving the RAF from British skies (it lacked the aircraft with the range to do so, it was haemorrhaging pilots and it didn't have enough useful intel to effectively prioritise targets). At best it could achieve temporary tactical superiority over the SE England. Even if that was achieved, Sea Lion called for the German ground forces to cross in low-draft/low-freeboard motor barges and river lighters towed by tugs. Across The Channel with its obstacles natural (tides, currents and sand banks) and military. Assuming the invasion flotilla didn't sink itself by the vessels hitting each other, didn't go to the bottom if the sea got a bit choppy, didn't drift miles off course and the barges managed to actually navigate to their assigned landing sites, the German troops getting ashore would have been predominantly light infantry supported by minimal field artillery and armour. And that's assuming that the Royal Navy didn't smash the invasion flotilla to pieces, or even just run a destroyer past the flotilla and overwhelm a good portion of the vessels with the wash. If the first wave of the German invasion did make it ashore, the chances of the successive planned waves (to deliver first motorised transport and armour, then logistical supplies, then reinforcements for losses made in the first wave) being allowed conduct of the Channel decreases in each case.

Sea Lion has been war-gamed multiple times. Every time, the very best scenario achieved by the Germans, giving them every advantage of strategy, tactics, intelligence and supply, is that they establish a limited beach-head in SE England which is then crushed as the landed forces can't resupply. Most of the exercises result in the invasion being repelled at the first landing, and most see the landings not even being usefully achieved in the first place.

You can puff up your chest all you want about Britain Standing Alone as an Island Beacon of Freedom that Saved The Western World, but once our forces were safely back from Dunkurque there was nothing the Germans could effectively do. They couldn't invade and they lacked the naval strength to starve us out - and that situation was sealed the moment Hitler let ideology overrule military necessity and turned his focus eastward. It's easy to be proud of winning a fight when your opponent can't actually get close enough to land a punch and all they can do is throw stones at you.

Your post contains so many falsehoods, it is hard to know where to start.
If thousands can get across the Channel now, in rubber boats, at all times of the year, why would it not have been possible for the Nazis to get across the channel in 1940?
They did not only have flat bottomed boats, but numerous cruise liners, capable of transporting hundreds of thousands the of troops, and equipment across the channel. (You know just like the cruise liners used by the allies, to ship hundred of thousands of troops and equipment across the Atlantic to the `still standing' UK)
After Dunkirk the UK had one heavy gun to defend each mile of the channel coastline, as a large part of its equipment had to be left behind at Dunkirk by the BEF.
Strange how you believe that the Nazis could not have got across the channel, when today Thousand make it across in rubber boats, and hundreds of large vessels make that crossing every day.
As for the Navy, Sir Dudley Pound was so worried his major surface vessels would be pounded to destruction, by the Luftwaffe, he kept the majority of the home fleet, hundreds of miles away in Scapa Flow.
The RAF did a wonderful job fighting against the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain, but by the end of the BoB it was on its knees, with a shortage of pilots, rather than machines.
You seem to be contradicting yourself, by saying on the one hand, that getting troops and equipment across the channel was too difficult, yet the allies managed to get vast numbers of troops and war materiel across the Atlantic. and they managed to get across the channel on D Day.
War game are rubbish and NOT reality, so putting stock on the outcome of a war `game' and declaring a possible result based on a game is stupid. War is categorically NOT a game, and wars do not stick to the `rules' of war game.
As for starving the UK out, Churchill stated that the effect of the U Boats on the fleets shipping men and materiel to the UK, was his greatest fear and what kept him up at nights, But what would Churchill know compared to a war `game'?
In 1940 (without Churchill guiding the country) the UK could easily have capitulated, indeed many in the UK Parliament who wanted to do just that.
Please explain how the US was going to be able to bomb Nazi Germany from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how the attacks, which delayed, and disrupted the Nazis nuclear weapons program could have been launched, let alone known about from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how the billions of tons of war materiel from the west including the UK, that Stalin stated he needed, to keep Russia in the war against the Nazis was going to be delivered from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how D Day was going to be launched from the far side of the Atlantic.
All these things were `only' able to take place, because the UK was the SINGLE country which did not fall or capitulate to the Nazis, when it was still fighting them on its OWN in 1940.

[Mrr T]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Your post contains so many falsehoods, it is hard to know where to start.
If thousands can get across the Channel now, in rubber boats, at all times of the year, why would it not have been possible for the Nazis to get across the channel in 1940?
They did not only have flat bottomed boats, but numerous cruise liners, capable of transporting hundreds of thousands the of troops, and equipment across the channel. (You know just like the cruise liners used by the allies, to ship hundred of thousands of troops and equipment across the Atlantic to the `still standing' UK)
After Dunkirk the UK had one heavy gun to defend each mile of the channel coastline, as a large part of its equipment had to be left behind at Dunkirk by the BEF.
Strange how you believe that the Nazis could not have got across the channel, when today Thousand make it across in rubber boats, and hundreds of large vessels make that crossing every day.
As for the Navy, Sir Dudley Pound was so worried his major surface vessels would be pounded to destruction, by the Luftwaffe, he kept the majority of the home fleet, hundreds of miles away in Scapa Flow.
The RAF did a wonderful job fighting against the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain, but by the end of the BoB it was on its knees, with a shortage of pilots, rather than machines.
You seem to be contradicting yourself, by saying on the one hand, that getting troops and equipment across the channel was too difficult, yet the allies managed to get vast numbers of troops and war materiel across the Atlantic. and they managed to get across the channel on D Day.
War game are rubbish and NOT reality, so putting stock on the outcome of a war `game' and declaring a possible result based on a game is stupid. War is categorically NOT a game, and wars do not stick to the `rules' of war game.
As for starving the UK out, Churchill stated that the effect of the U Boats on the fleets shipping men and materiel to the UK, was his greatest fear and what kept him up at nights, But what would Churchill know compared to a war `game'?
In 1940 (without Churchill guiding the country) the UK could easily have capitulated, indeed many in the UK Parliament who wanted to do just that.
Please explain how the US was going to be able to bomb Nazi Germany from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how the attacks, which delayed, and disrupted the Nazis nuclear weapons program could have been launched, let alone known about from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how the billions of tons of war materiel from the west including the UK, that Stalin stated he needed, to keep Russia in the war against the Nazis was going to be delivered from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how D Day was going to be launched from the far side of the Atlantic.
All these things were `only' able to take place, because the UK was the SINGLE country which did not fall or capitulate to the Nazis, when it was still fighting them on its OWN in 1940.

It seems we still have to suffer your lengthy and irrelevant posts.

Besides your obvious limited knowledge of history it seems you also have no idea about military matters.

I love the idea you seem to think people arriving on small boats means the Germans could have invaded in small boats.

[Hungrymc]

Biggy Stardust said:

theplayingmantis said:

I doubt very much that the majority or leavers and remainers on this thread have in any proven way had any positive or negative impact on their own lives that they know is due to the consequences of brexit.

I'm very sorry that a democratic vote didn't turn out the way you wanted but we can't keep having them until we get a result you like. That's not how it works.
Have a nice day.

Well, there will be ongoing democratic votes as elections come and go, depending on how the parties chose to play things.

And just for context, I'm a remainer, but there is no going back to the deal we had so that's done and we have to make best of where we are... I'd assume any future discussion will be based on very different terms as a new entrant to the EU which I suspect will be lots less attractive anyway.

[2xChevrons]

Sigh....we've had this discussion, verbatim, before, PPP. I don't really know why I bother beyond some strange attachment to 'history' and 'facts' and 'truth'. But if you can keep littering PH with your boilerplate WW2 comics (that are usually irrelevant to the topic beyond some strange idea that the rest of Europe should be prostratingly grateful to us for ever more) then I can have another crack at it:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If thousands can get across the Channel now, in rubber boats, at all times of the year, why would it not have been possible for the Nazis to get across the channel in 1940?...Strange how you believe that the Nazis could not have got across the channel, when today Thousand make it across in rubber boats, and hundreds of large vessels make that crossing every day.

Do you really think this is equivalent? Do you see any difference between a few hundred (at the most) civilians in rubber dinghies drifting across the Channel on any given day with the aim of either reaching the British side of the territorial boundary before declaring distress or washing up on 'some beach' somewhere before being taken in by the authorities and an attempt to launch 250,000 men in a coordinated military invasion, hitting designated landing sites (against at least some defending forces) in a line spreading several hundred miles? And then not only delivering further waves of landing forces (in a similarly coordinated fashion) but resupply and support for the initial force?

Pan Pan Pan said:

They did not only have flat bottomed boats, but numerous cruise liners, capable of transporting hundreds of thousands the of troops, and equipment across the channel. (You know just like the cruise liners used by the allies, to ship hundred of thousands of troops and equipment across the Atlantic to the `still standing' UK)

The Germans only assembled a flotilla of barges and lighters for the amphibious invasion of Britain - to be supported by shallow-draft naval destroyers, minesweepers and E-boats. The Germans had very few ocean liners available to them and they were - clearly - useless to mount an amphibious invasion, being unable to draw in close to the landing sites and unable to disembark large quantities of men quickly. That's why the Allies didn't use ocean liners and large ferries to land men during D-Day(!) The Germans were at least more aware than you seem to be that you can't just steam a liner up alongside the pier at Dover and start walking off thousands of soldiers - you have to land them elsewhere, onto a beach, then capture a proper port before you can do that. There is no comparison with using ocean liners for strategic transport of soldiers and equipment from Points A to B within Allied territory 'behind the lines' - those American GIs weren't jumping off the Queen Mary to secure a beachhead.

Pan Pan Pan said:

As for the Navy, Sir Dudley Pound was so worried his major surface vessels would be pounded to destruction, by the Luftwaffe, he kept the majority of the home fleet, hundreds of miles away in Scapa Flow.

The RN was - rightly- worried about the vulnerability of large warships to air attack when in harbour or restrained in maneuver in coastal waters. That's why the fleet was kept in Scapa Flow. But in the event of an actual invasion of the British Isles kicking off, you can bet that every naval asset available would have been thrown into the Channel. There would have been losses (mostly from E-boats, U-boats and minefields) but the RN had overwhelming superiority by both numbers and capabilities and just a fraction of the Home Fleet being able to get 'guns on' the easy target of a massed flotilla of barges moving at walking pace would have crippled the German invasion before it even really got started. As I noted before, just one destroyer steaming past the flotilla at flank speed would have swamped dozens of the craft and drowned their unfortunate occupants. The Luftwaffe lacked the equipment an training to provide seriously effective attacks against moving shipping from the air - that was a Japanese specialty in 1940.

Pan Pan Pan said:

The RAF did a wonderful job fighting against the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain, but by the end of the BoB it was on its knees, with a shortage of pilots, rather than machines.

The RAF was being run ragged by several months of high-tempo operations. There was a shortage of (properly trained) pilots but it is unfair to describe the RAF as 'on its knees' - it was secure in the knowledge that it had enough aircraft, ammo, equipment and fuel, that the Luftwaffe was unable to meaningfully disrupt its radar network and command chain and that it could not prevent the RAF operating from 10 and 12 Group areas even if control over SE England was temporarily lost. And if the RAF was 'on its knees' by September 1940, the Luftwaffe was flat on its front, gasping for breath. It never recovered its deficit in equipment or training for the rest of the war.

Pan Pan Pan said:

You seem to be contradicting yourself, by saying on the one hand, that getting troops and equipment across the channel was too difficult, yet the allies managed to get vast numbers of troops and war materiel across the Atlantic. and they managed to get across the channel on D Day.

The Allies spent four years working out how to do that. And notice that Overlord operated in an almost entirely different form to Sea Lion - a much vaster scale all round, with purpose-designed vessels for putting men, artillery, vehicles, stores and support ashore on beaches in large quantities, dedicated landing landing craft of various sizes, backed by heavy naval and air support, plus things like the Mulberry Harbours and PLUTO to ensure that the forces put ashore stood a chance of being adequately supplied from the beachhead. The Germans had nothing like that in 1940. No one did - that's why it had to be developed from scratch.

Pan Pan Pan said:

War game are rubbish and NOT reality, so putting stock on the outcome of a war `game' and declaring a possible result based on a game is stupid. War is categorically NOT a game, and wars do not stick to the `rules' of war game.

The staff of every military college in the world for the past 150 years would disagree with you. Yes, war games aren't 100% predicators of outcomes, and maybe in 1940 every dice-roll would have gone the Germans' way - it could have happened. But the consensus of every expert - including the retrospective opinion of the German leaders who would have been in charge of Sea Lion - is that quick and total failure was by far the most likely outcome.

Pan Pan Pan said:

As for starving the UK out, Churchill stated that the effect of the U Boats on the fleets shipping men and materiel to the UK, was his greatest fear and what kept him up at nights, But what would Churchill know compared to a war `game'?

Germany didn't have enough U-boats with enough range and enough fuel to meaningfully restrict the supply of materiel to the British Isles across the Atlantic. The overall loss rate of shipping was about one per cent, with 10 per cent of convoys coming under U-boat attack throughout the war. The German navy never achieved a practical blockade of the British Isles and in the first two years of the war the shipping tonnage lost to U-boat attack only exceeded new-build ship launched from British yards in four calendar months. Once US shipyard capacity was added to the equation, Allied merchant shipping tonnage only suffered a net loss in one month until the rest of the war.

Now, that obviously doesn't mean that the Allies could have just sat back and twiddled their thumbs and everything would have been hunky dory - without concerted efforts to build new merchant ships at previously unknown speeds, without the continual increase in the number of escort ships, the training of tens of thousands of naval sailors to man them, the ongoing development of ever-more effective ASW equipment and tactics and so on those numbers would not have been so favourable. But the efforts paid off and Britain was never at risk of being 'starved out' - at no point during the war was the supply of material and equipment into Britain significantly disrupted.

And the Battle of the Atlantic was still the theatre that came closest to destroying Britain's ability to fight - it's the one where if we hadn't put in the effort then the Germans would have quickly and irrevocably gained the upper hand (and who knows what would have followed then). The Luftwaffe was never going to be able to achieve air superiority over Britain in the summer of 1940 - as was his fashion, Goring over-promised and under-delivered. And Sea Lion in its 1940 form only ever promised to be the military equivalent of a Three Stooges routine.

Now, if the Allied efforts in the Atlantic hadn't been as effective, the oceanic supply lines had been meaningfully disrupted and Britain's ability to hold fast was affected...maybe Germany would have been able to develop the means and ability to stage a sort of reverse D-Day after a few years of regrouping and expansion. But Hitler's die was cast the moment he tried to fulfil his ideological destiny and destroy the Soviet Union. He was never going to win that fight with the forces he had and Germany was going to be out of the picture eventually from the moment Barbarossa swung into action.

Pan Pan Pan said:

In 1940 (without Churchill guiding the country) the UK could easily have capitulated, indeed many in the UK Parliament who wanted to do just that.

That bit I'll agree with. Churchill did a huge amount to bolster the national nerve at a time when the raw information and hindsight wasn't available to us. People in 1940 had no way of knowing that Germany had no practical way of invading the UK, didn't know that the Luftwaffe was coming off worse in the Battle of Britain and didn't know that the Battle of Atlantic basically only ever went the way the Allies' wanted it to. Without Churchill and his ilk, it's possible that Britain could have sued for a peace either post-Dunkirk, post-Battle of Britain (when it might well have seemed that the Luftwaffe had merely paused for breath before a knock-out blow) or when the first jackboots hit Sussex sand (because the German Army had steamrollered every other European nation it had invaded up to that point). It never pays to underestimate your enemy, and it's rarely a bad thing to overestimate them.

But that doesn't change the actual, historical fact that the 'plucky Britain, backed against the wall, fighting overwhelming odds against the unstoppable Nazi war machine' is not true. It is the stuff of pulpy boy's comics and third-rate novels.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Mrr T said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Your post contains so many falsehoods, it is hard to know where to start.
If thousands can get across the Channel now, in rubber boats, at all times of the year, why would it not have been possible for the Nazis to get across the channel in 1940?
They did not only have flat bottomed boats, but numerous cruise liners, capable of transporting hundreds of thousands the of troops, and equipment across the channel. (You know just like the cruise liners used by the allies, to ship hundred of thousands of troops and equipment across the Atlantic to the `still standing' UK)
After Dunkirk the UK had one heavy gun to defend each mile of the channel coastline, as a large part of its equipment had to be left behind at Dunkirk by the BEF.
Strange how you believe that the Nazis could not have got across the channel, when today Thousand make it across in rubber boats, and hundreds of large vessels make that crossing every day.
As for the Navy, Sir Dudley Pound was so worried his major surface vessels would be pounded to destruction, by the Luftwaffe, he kept the majority of the home fleet, hundreds of miles away in Scapa Flow.
The RAF did a wonderful job fighting against the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain, but by the end of the BoB it was on its knees, with a shortage of pilots, rather than machines.
You seem to be contradicting yourself, by saying on the one hand, that getting troops and equipment across the channel was too difficult, yet the allies managed to get vast numbers of troops and war materiel across the Atlantic. and they managed to get across the channel on D Day.
War game are rubbish and NOT reality, so putting stock on the outcome of a war `game' and declaring a possible result based on a game is stupid. War is categorically NOT a game, and wars do not stick to the `rules' of war game.
As for starving the UK out, Churchill stated that the effect of the U Boats on the fleets shipping men and materiel to the UK, was his greatest fear and what kept him up at nights, But what would Churchill know compared to a war `game'?
In 1940 (without Churchill guiding the country) the UK could easily have capitulated, indeed many in the UK Parliament who wanted to do just that.
Please explain how the US was going to be able to bomb Nazi Germany from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how the attacks, which delayed, and disrupted the Nazis nuclear weapons program could have been launched, let alone known about from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how the billions of tons of war materiel from the west including the UK, that Stalin stated he needed, to keep Russia in the war against the Nazis was going to be delivered from the far side of the Atlantic.
Please explain how D Day was going to be launched from the far side of the Atlantic.
All these things were `only' able to take place, because the UK was the SINGLE country which did not fall or capitulate to the Nazis, when it was still fighting them on its OWN in 1940.

It seems we still have to suffer your lengthy and irrelevant posts.

Besides your obvious limited knowledge of history it seems you also have no idea about military matters.

I love the idea you seem to think people arriving on small boats means the Germans could have invaded in small boats.

II seems that `we' have to suffer your deluded, false, and ignorant posts .
You appear to know absolutely nothing of what what actually happened in WW2. so your posts are even more irrelevant, especially since you cannot answer even simple questions about what actually happened. I suspect that this is because you know you are wrong but dont want to confirm it..
Your comment on the Germans arriving by small boats, shows how ignorant you are, because I did not say they could do that in1940. I was making the point that if thousands can get to the UK across the channel `now' in small inflatable boats, why couldn't the Germans get across the channel in the large barges, they had in their hundreds, or better still, in the large ocean going liners, or merchant ships that `they' also had in their hundreds?.