Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
The English Channel.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 7th March 2006
During WW2, Were it not for the geographic happenstance of the English Channel, would Great Britain have collapsed just as quickly as France? And if not, why not.
-
Message 2
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
Buckskinz,
Of course not, it's because we're stout English yeomen, allied to our wild Celtic neighbours, together unstoppable.
Seriously, yes GB would have been overrun if it weren't for the Channel. I'd like to think though that the King, government and Royal Navy together with any available armed forces would have been spirited overseas to continue resistance.
Cheers AA. (Thank the Lord for those 22 miles of water). -
Message 3
Posted by JIMBOB52 (U3286524) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
If there was no English Channel, British Strategic planning would be totally different, proportion of budget to Army over navy would be radically different, complete history of Britain and the world would be different. In 1939 if the UK suddenly became glued to France we'ld have been in trouble, but I think that eventuality would be fairly unlikely : )
As is the RN and RAF made an invasion impossible, using the Channel to good strategic effect. Can't really argue with that. -
Message 4
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
Hi Jim,
Would you care to comment within the parameters of the thread inquiry? Thanks for your help.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 5
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
Of course not, because we're not wussy frogs. Plus, we'd still have had the might to save the US from the Japanese...
-
Message 6
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
Good point pussycat.
-
Message 7
Posted by JIMBOB52 (U3286524) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
Matt,
Ok, the answer is still no though. If there was no channel all available resources (and they'ld be a great deal larger if strategic thinking couldn't take the Moat into account) would be put toward defending France and neither France or Britain would have fallen. I base on the fact that at this point Germany was not in a position for a drawn out war in the way the UK and France were, and I beleive if held it would face financial collapse.
Also think without the Channel Hitler would have got a slap as soon as he moved to remilitarise the Rhineland, as he'ld be a much more direct threat to the UK without the RN and RAF able to stop any invasion.
I stand by my previous answer though, without the Channel the military budgets woukld have been spent in a radically different way and Britain would have a more European sized standing army.
Jim -
Message 8
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
I stand by my previous answer though, without the Channel the military budgets woukld have been spent in a radically different way and Britain would have a more European sized standing army.
´³¾±³¾Ìý
Spot on.
Matt, this thread, while provocative as always, is a bit pointless. One could equally argue that USA would have been conquered as well had it not been separated from Europe by the Atlantic Ocean. Or that man would have landed on Mars by now if it was just a bit closer to us.
The fact is that the Channel was there and British planning and actions were based on that fundamental fact. -
Message 9
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
During WW2, Were it not for the geographic happenstance of the English Channel, would Great Britain have collapsed just as quickly as France? And if not, why not.Ìý
Matt, you'll get no arguments from me on that point.
After the fall of France we were in no fit state to resist a rolling German advance. I don't know if we would have capitulated so easily as the French, but defeated we most certainly would have been. The airforce had lost most of its aircraft in France, the Army had lost all of its modern tanks and equiptment in France.
The only doubt to your thought would be the manner of the BEF's defeat in the fall of France. Because of the channel we had to abandon our equiptment. WIth a land border with France we could have organised a retreat to the UK with our army intact which would have slowed the German advance down, but unlike Russia we would not have the luxuary of a torched earth policy.
But in general the answer to your question would be yes we would have collapsed but I would put the timeframe at 6/7 months. The Germans would need time to consolidate in France to prevent any cheeky Vichy General attacking the German rear and provided we extradited the BEF we would at the very least have an army to provide resistence to the advance -
Message 10
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
Thats an insightful post. Thanks Jim.
-
Message 11
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
It may at first glance appear to be pointless Tony. Please trust me I have a point. Having had to say this my hidden question is a bit more obvious perhaps.
Another super post Richie. Thanks.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 12
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
It may at first glance appear to be pointless Tony. Please trust me I have a point. Having had to say this my hidden question is a bit more obvious perhaps.
Another super post Richie. Thanks.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý
Buckskinz,
No, I won't give away what I think is your magicians trick. I've already answered, if I'm correct my post will still stand.
(If I'm wrong then, heh, not the first time).
Cheers AA. -
Message 13
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
During WW2, Were it not for the geographic happenstance of the English Channel, would Great Britain have collapsed just as quickly as France? And if not, why not.Ìý
Hi theres two ways it could go. Without the channel there might be no Britain, we'd all be French. So we'd be eating cheese and surrendering at the drop of a hat. On the up side we would also be part of the only nation that makes smoking look really cool.
The other way of looking at it is that theres no France. In which case Britain starts at the Rhine. Hitler was a talented spare time watercolourist and full time house painter, who embbarrasses all his relatives by ranting on about the Jews at family gatherings.
He dies of a fit of apoplexy after bayer munich buys its first Jewish striker -
Message 14
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
Ohh, one thing. Why am I getting the strange feeling that your going to wait a few days and then pour petrol on the "bonfire"
-
Message 15
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
During WW2, Were it not for the geographic happenstance of the English Channel, would Great Britain have collapsed just as quickly as France? And if not, why not.Ìý
i personally reckon that if there werent a channel we'd have been sitting behind 20 mile thick wall of fortification. and have had a army running into the millions, and the war wouldnt have happened cos we'd either rule europe or be ruled by some other power (not france though, its against the laws of God that they should rule us) for a long time. and like arnald said, faced with the mixture of scot, welsh, irish and english theres no way in hell we could be conquered! -
Message 16
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
Ohh, one thing. Why am I getting the strange feeling that your going to wait a few days and then pour petrol on the "bonfire"Ìý
Becoz, Buckskinz is the Devil Incarnate, he does make people think. Well he makes me think and challenge his somewhat apparently oddball views.
Cheers Buckskinz, AA. -
Message 17
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
Och aye then, wid ye no be chukin haggis an dirty knickers at thum.yew cood make tha eejits eat Scottish scoff fer a wee while. Thid run awe thi wie back ta germiny wi thir breeks at thir ankils.
-
Message 18
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
If he's the devil incarnate shouldnt we be puting him on the list of most evil people over on the other page? Theres space I think? Mani is on it so he wont get lonley
-
Message 19
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 9th March 2006
Och aye then, wid ye no be chukin haggis an dirty knickers at thum.yew cood make tha eejits eat Scottish scoff fer a wee while. Thid run awe thi wie back ta germiny wi thir breeks at thir ankils.Ìý
a dinni ,ken yi tok, whuiyhi nea tok proply?
-
Message 20
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 9th March 2006
lmao
-
Message 21
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 9th March 2006
Och aye then, wid ye no be chukin haggis an dirty knickers at thum.yew cood make tha eejits eat Scottish scoff fer a wee while. Thid run awe thi wie back ta germiny wi thir breeks at thir ankils.Ìý
a dinni ,ken yi tok, whuiyhi nea tok proply?Ìý
ah dinnae ken whaur youse fowk get yer skoolin. Kin ye no spell proply? -
Message 22
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 9th March 2006
ahh, well ysea th pawxie english guvernment want alla us ta bi speckin in hi bbc aksent innit? willwi kannae tok wi'a bbc acksent yi'ken?
-
Message 23
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 9th March 2006
ah kin spel, ah jist kant tipe yit.
-
Message 24
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 9th March 2006
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Message 25
Posted by MB (U177470) on Friday, 10th March 2006
During WW2, Were it not for the geographic happenstance of the English Channel, would Great Britain have collapsed just as quickly as France? And if not, why not.Ìý
Perhaps a similar question could be asked about the USA with the Atlantic and Pacific?
MB -
Message 26
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 10th March 2006
It could certainly be asked.
-
Message 27
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
It could certainly be asked. Ìý
But would you answer it? -
Message 28
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
Och aye then, wid ye no be chukin haggis an dirty knickers at thum.yew cood make tha eejits eat Scottish scoff fer a wee while. Thid run awe thi wie back ta germiny wi thir breeks at thir ankils.Ìý
"dirty knickers" surely that should be 'boggin scantys' Matt! -
Message 29
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
-
Message 30
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
Och aye then, wid ye no be chukin haggis an dirty knickers at thum.yew cood make tha eejits eat Scottish scoff fer a wee while. Thid run awe thi wie back ta germiny wi thir breeks at thir ankils.Ìý
"dirty knickers" surely that should be 'boggin scantys' Matt!Ìý
I would. -
Message 31
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
Sorry, too much watermelon wine last nite. I'll start all over.
-
Message 32
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
It could certainly be asked. Ìý
But would you answer it?Ìý
I would. -
Message 33
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
Och aye then, wid ye no be chukin haggis an dirty knickers at thum.yew cood make tha eejits eat Scottish scoff fer a wee while. Thid run awe thi wie back ta germiny wi thir breeks at thir ankils.Ìý
"dirty knickers" surely that should be 'boggin scantys' Matt!Ìý
Is that Irish Sean? -
Message 34
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
It could certainly be asked. Ìý
But would you answer it?Ìý
I would.Ìý
Now you're being silly. Go on then. -
Message 35
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
It could certainly be asked. Ìý
But would you answer it?Ìý
I would.Ìý
Now you're being silly. Go on then.Ìý
Go on being silly?
-
Message 36
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
During WW2, Were it not for the geographic happenstance of the English Channel, would Great Britain have collapsed just as quickly as France? And if not, why not.Ìý
Perhaps a similar question could be asked about the USA with the Atlantic and Pacific?
MBÌý
They would have initial success followed by the usual problems due to logistics and the lack of a long range bomber. Not to mention the onslaught delivered by the crips and bloods, reinforced with 50 million inbred rednecks with shotguns and the Jerry Springer fan club.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 37
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 13th March 2006
If theres no water, what do they need a long range bomber for? Surely they would have been able to have used the same equipment as they did?
The real question is what would have grown up to fill the space now filled by the atlantic.
By the way mate, when are you dropping the bombshell on this one? -
Message 38
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 13th March 2006
If theres no water, what do they need a long range bomber for? Surely they would have been able to have used the same equipment as they did?Ìý
May I suggest you ask the citizens of the old Soviet Union.
The real question is what would have grown up to fill the space now filled by the atlantic.
Ìý
That would be for the origonal questioner to answer.
By the way mate, when are you dropping the bombshell on this one?Ìý
What bombshell are you referencing please? -
Message 39
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 13th March 2006
It may at first glance appear to be pointless Tony. Please trust me I have a point. Having had to say this my hidden question is a bit more obvious perhaps.
Another super post Richie. Thanks.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý
This one. Or have I missed something.lol
Seriously though if theres no atlantic then it becomes a tactical matter. maybe a series of cezekoslovakia's till their close enough to strike. The existing weapons would have done assuming that they were allowed to proceed far enough.
I appreciate what your saying about the USSR but strategic bomer or no they still came very colse to succeeding. -
Message 40
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 13th March 2006
All my points are not bombshells, you flatter me sir.
-
Message 41
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 13th March 2006
matt put us out of our misery here and let us in on wahtever you're planning on dropping
-
Message 42
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 13th March 2006
Were it not for the channel the Germans would have been in London 10 days after the fall of France. Even given the situation the way things were, in that narrow target area the British navy would have been sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe and Uboats. Had (General) Hitler not switched from bombing the RAF to London and other English cities in another 30days at most the RAF would have been out of it.
Let me start out by saying, I’m no lover of things French. They eat Horses and for that alone I find them disgusting. Their women have body odor with hairy armpits and legs. They are the rudest people on earth, and if they don’t have any foreigners to be rude to, then they are rude to each other. Now then, with that out the way. I know a bad rap when I see it. The people you are calling cowards and surrender monkeys are the sons of the guys that fought the Germans to a standstill at Verdun. Do I have to remind you the British army had its ass kicked into the Channel by the Wermacht? This unequivocal defeat has been subjected to the biggest snowjob in history. If it were not for the French fighting a gallant holding action the surrender monkeys as some of you call them, would have been the BEF. I would say this attitude has been nurtured over the years in an effort to blame the French for the defeat of the British army in France.
Cheers, Matt -
Message 43
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 13th March 2006
Were it not for the channel the Germans would have been in London 10 days after the fall of France. Even given the situation the way things were, in that narrow target area the British navy would have been sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe and Uboats. Had (General) Hitler not switched from bombing the RAF to London and other English cities in another 30days at most the RAF would have been out of it.
Let me start out by saying, I’m no lover of things French. They eat Horses and for that alone I find them disgusting. Their women have body odor with hairy armpits and legs. They are the rudest people on earth, and if they don’t have any foreigners to be rude to, then they are rude to each other. Now then, with that out the way. I know a bad rap when I see it. The people you are calling cowards and surrender monkeys are the sons of the guys that fought the Germans to a standstill at Verdun. Do I have to remind you the British army had its ass kicked into the Channel by the Wermacht? This unequivocal defeat has been subjected to the biggest snowjob in history. If it were not for the French fighting a gallant holding action the surrender monkeys as some of you call them, would have been the BEF. I would say this attitude has been nurtured over the years in an effort to blame the French for the defeat of the British army in France.
Cheers, MattÌý
But the English Channel is there. If it was not there then the preparations before the war would have been more biased towards an invasion overland and less emphasis on the RN.
That was why I proposed the thought of no Atlantic or Pacific. The Americans were very unprepared for war and could have fallen very quickly. I suspect that your rednecks might have approved of some of Hitler's policies on other races. I think the pro-German lobby and isolationists would have got the US government to do a deal with Hitler to join forces against the communists and ignored many of his activities against various minorities. But again like Britain if there was no sea barrier then everything would have been completely different and can't really be predicted.
MB -
Message 44
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 13th March 2006
Oh...I did touch a nerve...
-
Message 45
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 13th March 2006
ok so you pick on the Fall of France. Fair enough. We did indeed have our ass kicked into the Channel by the Germans, but so did the French. We rescued 130,000 French troops that way. We escaped due to some curious decision making by the Germans not to storm the beaches, and as for this game rearguard action of the French Army. ON the 15th May the French PM regarded France as defeated and this was before Paris had fallen. Amixture of poor planning from both the Brit and French High Commands ment that our forces had not been planned thouroughly enough and we lacked both the forces in the south to mount an attack and lacked the political will to rettreat to the south which would have had the result of saving most of the Allied Mechanised Forces intact (although it woulfd have left Beliguim to its fate) and it was a British led attack at Arras which helped to keep our northward retreating forces safe enough to make it to Dunkirk
so it was not all the Frenchies in France during those weeks. Whilst Britain has to hold its hands up for many things the Fall of France is not one of our primary failures -
Message 46
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 13th March 2006
Were it not for the channel the Germans would have been in London 10 days after the fall of France. Even given the situation the way things were, in that narrow target area the British navy would have been sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe and Uboats. Had (General) Hitler not switched from bombing the RAF to London and other English cities in another 30days at most the RAF would have been out of it.
Let me start out by saying, I’m no lover of things French. They eat Horses and for that alone I find them disgusting. Their women have body odor with hairy armpits and legs. They are the rudest people on earth, and if they don’t have any foreigners to be rude to, then they are rude to each other. Now then, with that out the way. I know a bad rap when I see it. The people you are calling cowards and surrender monkeys are the sons of the guys that fought the Germans to a standstill at Verdun. Do I have to remind you the British army had its ass kicked into the Channel by the Wermacht? This unequivocal defeat has been subjected to the biggest snowjob in history. If it were not for the French fighting a gallant holding action the surrender monkeys as some of you call them, would have been the BEF. I would say this attitude has been nurtured over the years in an effort to blame the French for the defeat of the British army in France.
Cheers, MattÌý
Buckskinz,
I'll just refer you to my post #2.
Anyway Dunkirk may have been the biggest snowjob in history, but certainly not the most effective.
I'm still unconvinced that the Germans could have launched a successful invasion even if the RAF had been knocked out (given that the Channel is there). There was still the matter of the Coastal Forces, even though the Grey Goose et al. weren't thoroughbreds by later standards she had more than enough to see to the transports that were proposed to carry the troops across the Channel and would still be a tricky target for the Luftwaffe.
Salut AA.
P.S. If I have used the phrase "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" it was meant in the same spirit I'm called a Rosbif. -
Message 47
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 13th March 2006
Were it not for the channel the Germans would have been in London 10 days after the fall of France. Even given the situation the way things were, in that narrow target area the British navy would have been sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe and Uboats. Had (General) Hitler not switched from bombing the RAF to London and other English cities in another 30days at most the RAF would have been out of it.
Let me start out by saying, I’m no lover of things French. They eat Horses and for that alone I find them disgusting. Their women have body odor with hairy armpits and legs. They are the rudest people on earth, and if they don’t have any foreigners to be rude to, then they are rude to each other. Now then, with that out the way. I know a bad rap when I see it. The people you are calling cowards and surrender monkeys are the sons of the guys that fought the Germans to a standstill at Verdun. Do I have to remind you the British army had its ass kicked into the Channel by the Wermacht? This unequivocal defeat has been subjected to the biggest snowjob in history. If it were not for the French fighting a gallant holding action the surrender monkeys as some of you call them, would have been the BEF. I would say this attitude has been nurtured over the years in an effort to blame the French for the defeat of the British army in France.
Cheers, MattÌý
Perhaps it should be pointed out that it was not just the BEF that were avacuated from Dunkirk. A large number of French soldiers were also evacuated.
It might have been a defeat but it was also a major achievement to save so many people (both British and French) to fight another day.
MB -
Message 48
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Monday, 13th March 2006
If we didnt have the channel to protect us the war would have been over within 2 weeks of the first day of Dunkirk - the German Army had already battered us in France - without the channel the German Army would have been in London within a week !!
BUT - because it was there - (channel) there invasion was NEVER gonna happen - Germany could NEVER have invaded us with the technology available at the time -
Message 49
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
As the introducer of the phrase "Cheese eating surrender monkies" to the board. I feel the need to explain.
Up until recently I had the usual Englishmans vauge amusement at what those funny people over the channel, and the antics they got up to.
I kept that right up to the point where they started vandalising British wargarves in France.
Of the five members of my family that went to the first world war four have no known grave. Any one of the graves desecrated to score a cheap political point could belong to them.
I took that intensely personnally.
However, in veiw of everyones sensibilities I will ever after refer to them as "Stills" -
Message 50
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Given your situation I would have been calling them a lot worse.
Cheers, Matt.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.